• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제29권4호
• /
• pp.33-55
• /
• 2019

This study is aimed at drawing up improvement measures in connection with the resolution of claims, one of the major constraints in revitalizing South-North Korean economic cooperation. To that end, we first looked at the structure of South-North Korean economic cooperation and the institutional status related to resolving the claims. Also we analyzed the current status of the claims in the process of promoting South-North Korean economic cooperation by companies and the provisions of the claims between the parties in order to derive any problems. Through these research results, we were able to identify directions and implications for efficient improvement of the causes of several South-North Korean economic cooperation claims. First, at the corporate level, there is a need to create specific details of a contract for resolving disputes and to add additional third-party coordination functions in the relevant clause of the contract in preparation for the occurrence of a dispute. In addition, it is necessary to seek ways to advance jointly with corporations in China and other third countries in order to secure stability. Second, the government should continue to discuss ways of promoting South-North Korean commercial arbitration with North Korea so that follow-up measures can be completed as soon as possible. In addition, a two-track strategy is suggested to provide a practical negotiation channel at the private level. Also it is necessary to be active in persuading North Korea to join the international arbitration treaty in preparation for the activation of full-fledged economic exchanges.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제17권2호
• /
• pp.141-165
• /
• 2007

This study aims to make a contribution to the promotion of trade and economic development of South Korea, and, at the same time, call attention to the increasing trend of investment agreements concluded within Free Trade Agreements (FTA) by examining theoretically FTAs and dispute resolution and investigating systematically the conclusion procedure of agreements, and the system, institutions, and jurisdiction of dispute resolution, and presenting these findings to the government and investors involved. The most problematic aspect in the legal process of arbitration involving disputes over investment is that of arguments concerning the right of jurisdiction. When a dispute arises, even though an investor files for arbitration at an ICSID institution, the parties become involved in another energy-consuming argument even before proceeding to the hearing and decision of the original plan in cases in which the respondent of the dispute files an objection to the decision rights of the arbitral tribunal. As the main basis for this type of plea, the point of non-existence of jurisdiction is first raised where the applicable dispute does not fall under the range of investments defined in individual investment contracts or investment agreements such as a Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT). To avoid an open-ended definition of investment for the range of investments, articles concerning investments in the FTA and NAFTA between Canada and the USA adopt the limited closed-list method. Article 96 of the FTA between Japan and Mexico applied the same abovementioned method of limited form of definition regarding range of investments and concluded BITs between member countries of APEC applied a similar method as well. Instead of employing the previously used inclusive definition, the BITs concluded between countries of Latin America and the USA are equipped with limited characteristics of an investment. Furthermore, to correspond with this necessary condition the three following requirements are needed : 1) fixed investment funding; 2) expected profits resulting from such investments; 3) and the existence of fixed risk bearing.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제19권2호
• /
• pp.49-72
• /
• 2009

Korea Fair Trade Commission (KFTC), one of the Government agencies, has been preparing a standard model form of Exclusive Contract for Entertainment Management (hereinafter referred to as "Exclusive Contract") to eliminate some types of unfairness that placed entertainers at disadvantage such as forced PR activities or activities without payment, excessive privacy infringement, and exemption of payment after the termination of the exclusive contract. The said Exclusive Contract was drafted by The Korean Commercial Arbitration Board (the "KCAB") in association with the Korean Entertainment Law Society (the "KELS") and KCAB has persistently persuaded Corea Entertainment Management Association (the "CEMA"; mainly actors management) and Korea Entertainment Producers' Association (the "KEPA"; mainly singers management) to adopt the above-mentioned Exclusive Contract, respectively, and especially arbitration clause instead of litigation. After KCAB's tens of meetings and persuasion, they finally decided to accept KCAB's offer and they have submitted the Exclusive Contract drafted by KCAB and KELS to KFTC on April 17, 2009. The arbitration clause drafted by KCAB was already accepted by unfair contract examination division and unfair contract advisory committee and the final standard model contract was supposed to be publicly announced on June 30, 2009 after final examination of unfair contract standing committee, but the announcement has been delayed owing to severe controversies between the concerned parties, such as CEMA, KAU (Korea Artists' Union), KEPA and KSA (Korea Singers' Association) related to delicate issues like contract period and ownership of intellectual properties, etc. But it is expected the announcement will be made very soon by which the contract will include the originally drafted arbitration clause by KCAB. Therefore, it is very timely to examine the various legal issues which can be arisen out of disputes, and arbitration appropriateness with Exclusive Contract of Entertainment Management on this paper.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제31권3호
• /
• pp.3-23
• /
• 2021

England is a significant base for international trade in Europe, and dispute resolution through arbitration is active. Therefore, due to the geographical relationship with the European continent, the settlement of trade transactions and disputes with European countries is one of the most essential tasks. In this regard, arbitration procedures in England have been actively used for a long time. In England, dispute resolution methods through arbitration have been developed centered on merchant groups such as guilds from the 16th century and have been actively used until today. However, the arbitration procedure also had the characteristics of the common law because there was no legislation related to arbitration. Therefore, arbitration based on common law was carried out until the first half of the 19th century. In the 'Arbitration Act 1889', two types of arbitration systems, 'common law arbitration' and 'statutory arbitration' coexisted. However, in the arbitration procedure, according to the newly enacted 'Arbitration Act 1889', the arbitration agreement was binding from the time the arbitration agreement was reached. There was a way to select an arbitrator even if it was not explicitly stipulated in the arbitration agreement, and the arbitration award was quickly enforced. Arbitration under contract was preferred over common law arbitration, where withdrawal and revocation of awards were possible. However, in response to these provisions, the England courts considered the arbitration system to deprive the courts of jurisdiction, while a strengthened judicial review of arbitration procedures was done. In particular, England unified the arbitration-related laws, which had been scattered for a long time, adopted the model law, and enacted the 'Arbitration Act 1996'. Under the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards in 'Arbitration Act 1996', Section 66 deals with the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards and foreign arbitral awards. Section 2 of the 'Arbitration Act 1950' is inherited and used as it is. Second, it deals with the execution of arbitral awards under the New York Convention: Article 100 (New York Convention), Section 101 (Approval and Enforcement of Awards), Section 102 (Evidence Presented by a Party Seeking Recognition and Enforcement), and Section 103 (Provides Matters Concerning Rejection Recognition and Enforcement).

• 아태비즈니스연구
• /
• 제10권1호
• /
• pp.117-133
• /
• 2019

This paper examines the most-favored-nation treatment clause on the BITs concluded by China and examines the attitudes of China on the application of the most-favored-nation treatment clause to the ISDs by period as the scope of arbitration increases. Moreover, this study pointed out the problems that would be exposed if the most-favored-nation treatment clause applies to ISDs and then also suggested solutions. The conclusions of this study are as follows; if the Chinese government strictly restricts the applicable expansion of the most-favored-nation treatment clause to the dispute settlement procedure by considering only the position of the capital importing country, it implies a contradiction against the development trend of the arbitration system related to international investment disputes. Of course, in order to protect the rights of Chinese investors investing abroad, expanding the applicability of the most-favored-nation treatment clause to the ISDs procedure unconditionally may have a negative impact under China's dual status of being a capital-importing country and a capital-exporting country. Therefore, China should clearly define the scope of application of the most-favored-nation treatment clause, the completion of the local remedy for the host country in cases of BIT to be concluded in the future or amended, and also clearly define that the most-favored-nation treatment clause should not be retroactively applied into BITs already concluded as an exception of applicability of the most-favored-nation treatment.

• Journal of Korea Trade
• /
• 제25권2호
• /
• pp.46-57
• /
• 2021

Purpose - In terms of human resource management, many Korean enterprises in China have experienced problems such as frequent resignations of Chinese employees and labor disputes. This can be mainly attributed to the fact that Chinese employees are not consistent with Korean vertical management methods, which is closely related to the national culture theory proposed by Hofstede, specifically the dimension of power distance and long- versus short-term orientation (LTO). Therefore, this research aims to investigate cultural differences between Korea and China from these two dimensions, and the impact on the human resource management of Korean-invested enterprises in China. Design/methodology - This research first utilizes the latest data (Wave 7) of the World Values Survey (WVS) to verify the difference in power distance and long- versus short-term orientation between Korean and Chinese cultures using responses from Korea and China, and then uses case analysis to analyze the impact of this cultural difference on the human resource management of Korean enterprises in China. Findings - Our main findings can be summarized as follows. Korea and China have significant differences in power distance and long- versus short-term orientation. In terms of power distance, Korean respondents show higher power distance compared to Chinese respondents. In the dimension of long- versus short-term orientation, it was found that Chinese respondents showed a shorter-term orientation, whereas Korean respondents showed a longer-term orientation. Originality/value - Previous studies put focus on the power distance and individualism-collectivism dimensions to explain cultural differences between Korea and China, and generated contradictory results. This research further confirms the cultural differences between Korea and China from the dimensions of power distance and long-versus short-term orientation using secondary data. The comparative studies from this perspective have long been underexplored and lack empirical confirmation.

• 무역학회지
• /
• 제42권4호
• /
• pp.139-157
• /
• 2017

투자협정상의 MFN 조항을 실체적인 규정 외에 절차적인 규정에까지 적용할 수 있는지에 대한 논의는 보호 범위를 결정하기 때문에 중요한 의의를 가진다. 그러나 투자협정마다 MFN 조항에서 대우의 범위를 조금씩 상이하게 규정하고 있어 이에 대한 해석의 차이가 존재한다. 그러므로 본 연구는 ICSID에서 판정한 중재사례에 초점을 맞추어 국제투자분쟁에서 외국인투자자가 원 투자협정상의 MFN 조항을 통하여 다른 투자협정상에 규정된 분쟁해결절차를 원용할 수 있는지를 분석함으로써 MFN 조항의 적용범위를 획정할 수 있는 기준들을 도출하여 유용한 시사점 및 실무적인 지침을 제시하고자 한다.

• 무역학회지
• /
• 제43권6호
• /
• pp.25-50
• /
• 2018

국제비즈니스에서 구상보증제도는 제도적 특성과 그 간편성으로 그 청구과정에서 많은 문제점에 노출되고 있으며, 또한 이와 관련하여 실제로 많은 분쟁이 발생되고 있는 것이 현실이다. 특히 보증은행 또는 그 보증수혜자의 부당한 또는 사기적 청구, 또는 그 과정에서의 사기의 공모 또는 묵인 등이 있다. 한편 특별한 사유없이 보증은행의 지급거절 또는 법원의 지급금지명령을 통하여 거래당사자 간의 분쟁해결의 수단으로도 악용될 수 있다. 본 연구는 구상보증제도상 보증은행의 부당한 지급거절과 그 관련 쟁점에 대해 사례를 중심으로 분석하였다. 또한 본 연구는 비즈니스 관점에서 그 시사점과 적법한 대응방안을 제시하였다.

• 무역학회지
• /
• 제43권3호
• /
• pp.199-218
• /
• 2018

국제물품매매 거래에서 불가항력은 당사자의 통제를 벗어나는 상황으로 인해 계약의 불이행이 발생하는 경우 책임소재와 분쟁해결을 위한 계약서의 명시조항으로 널리 사용되고 있다. 본 연구는 FTA 특혜관세 적용과정에서 발생할 수 있는 불가항력(예외적인 경우)에 대한 판단기준과 이와 관련된 한·ASEAN FTA와 한·EU FTA 검증과정에서 제기된 사례를 살펴보았으며, 이를 통해 동 FTA를 활용하여 특혜관세 혜택을 향유하고자 하는 무역기업에 다음과 같은 시사점을 제시하고자 한다. 먼저 한·ASEAN FTA와 한·EU FTA에서 규정하고 있는 특혜관세 배제조항의 확인과 관세당국의 예외적인 경우에 대한 판단기준을 파악하여야 한다. 그리고 원산지증명서의 유효기간에 대한 유예기준 확인과 수출국 관세당국의 검증결과 회신기준을 확인하여야 한다. 마지막으로 관세당국의 검증결과 회신 미요청 행위에 대한 신의성실의 원칙 위배여부를 확인하여야 한다.

• 무역학회지
• /
• 제48권4호
• /
• pp.67-92
• /
• 2023

국제상사중재에서 중재판정을 효율적으로 집행하기 위해 중재판정부가 중재판정을 내리기 전에 분쟁 당사자의 권리 혹은 재산을 즉각적으로 보호해주는 임시적 처분조치는 반드시 필요한 제도이고 많은 국가에서 중재판정부가 임시적 처분조치를 내릴 수 있도록 하고 있다. 중국상사중재에서도 임시적 처분조치를 인정하고는 있으나 중국의 경우에는 그 절차상 법원의 개입이 반드시 필요한데 이는 국제중재의 발전 방향과 맞지 않는다는 비판이 있다. 하지만 최근 중국도 중재활성화 측면에서 주요 중재기관들의 규칙을 개정함으로써 임시적 처분조치 부분에서 법원의 간섭을 최소화하는 방향으로 변화를 추구하고 있다. 이에 본 논문은 상사중재에서 임시적 처분의 국제적 추세를 먼저 살펴보고 중국 상사중재에서 임시적 처분조치가 어떤 방향으로 발전해 나가는지를 관련 사례와 법규를 분석하여 살펴보고자 한다. 이러한 연구를 통하여 한국 기업이 중국기업과 상사중재로 분쟁을 해결하고자 할 때 어떤 방식으로 임시적 처분 제도를 활용해야 하는지에 대한 실무적인 시사점을 제시하고자 한다.