• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제69권
• /
• pp.127-151
• /
• 2016

UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts(PICC) was published in 1994. PICC has been functioned as a guideline of international commercial contracts, an applicable law to govern a contract by the agreement of the parties to a contract, general principles of law and lex mercatoria. In addition, PICC has a role of interpreting or supplementing international uniform law instruments as well as domestic laws, and also has served as a model for national and international legislations. PICC has been accepted as a authoritative source of knowledge of international trade usages of international commercial contracts to the arbitral tribunal rather than domestic court because it excluded the characteristics of hard law at the drafting stage. This article dealt with the rule on gross disparity of validity which fall outside the scope of UN Convention on Contract for the International Sale of Goods(CISG), which has obtained a leading legal position of uniform law in international sales of good. In other words, PICC suggests a series of meaningful solutions to the issue of gross disparity of contract which is the most complicated among legal disputes occurring during the process of conclusion of contact and also extremely different and diverse between legal systems. This article covered the issue of gross disparity of contract at the conclusion of contact and suggested the legal basis of several rules related to the gross disparity by analysing gross disparity rule of PICC. Furthermore, this article suggested legal check points or implication as well as interpretation and evaluation on doctrine of laesio enormis and undue influence or unconscionability. This article also dealt with a comparative analysis with Principles of European Contract Law(PECL) and Common European Sales Law(CESL) which have important legal positions in the area of international commercial contract as well as in terms of close relationship to PICC by linking with recent court or arbitral tribunal rulings.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제18권1호
• /
• pp.185-207
• /
• 2008

한국 기업과 프랑스 기업 간에 한국기업이 프랑스기업으로부터 의약품의 임상자료 등에 관한 비밀정보 (Confidential information)를 받아서 한국식품의약품안전청에 의약품 제조허 가를 받기 위해 활용하는 과정에서 체결한 비밀유지 계약 (Secrecy Agreement)의 위반행위 여부의 분쟁이 발생하였다. 이 분쟁은 비밀유지계약 내의 중재조항에 의거하여 프랑스기업에 의해 프랑스 파리 소재 국제중재 판정부 (ICC Court Arbitral Tribunal) 에 회부되었고 한국기업이 응소하여 중재판정부에서 분쟁 사실들에 관한 양 당사자 회사들의 전문가들의 증언, 준비 서면들을 검토하여 비밀유지계약 각각의 조문의 해석을 통해 중재판정이 내려졌다. 이 중재판정은 ‘외국중재판정의 승인 및 집행에 관한 뉴욕협약’에 의거하여 중재판정 집행지국인 우리나라의 법원에서 집행판결을 거치게 되었다. 이때 한국법원에서는 뉴욕협약상의 집행거부 사유들에 관한 판단을 한 후 프랑스기업의 일부 승소의 집행판결을 내렸다. 본 사례연구의 시사점을 보면, 중재조항에 의거한 ICC 중재판정부의 심사절차는 각 나라 고유의 판례나 규정보다는, 중재인들의 건전한 상식에 근거하여 중재판정이 내려졌다는 것이다. 우리나라 법원 역시 중재인의 건전한 상식에 근거를 둔 중재판정의 세부적 내용에 대하여 중재권한, 국제적 공공질서 상의 심각한 문제점이 존재하지 않은 점을 고려하여 일부분을 제외하고는 외국중재판정을 그대로 집행함을 인용하는 판결을 내렸다는 점이다. 따라서, 한국기업들이 국제분쟁에 대비하기 위해서는 중재판정이 내려진 후 집행단계에서 중재판정 내용을 바꾸려는 노력을 하기보다는, 중재 절차 진행단계에서 한국 기업에게 객관적으로 입증할 수 있는 유리한 증거들을 중점적으로 적극 활용하여 중재인들의 건전한 상식에 바탕을 둔 중재판정을 유리한 방향으로 내리도록 유도하는 것이 더욱 바람직한 것이다.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제55권
• /
• pp.63-93
• /
• 2012

The purpose of this paper is to examine the consideration factors, from both parties' perspective, to select the most appropriate arbitral institution when they inset an arbitration clause in their contract. Accordingly, the author analyzed the advantages of institutional arbitration compared to non-institutional arbitration. The typical advantages of institutional arbitration would include: $\bullet$ Benefits of using an established set of rules $\bullet$ Services provided by the institution $\bullet$ Low risks of obstruction $\bullet$ Enhancement of the possibilities of enforcement $\bullet$ Forecast of the estimated cost $\bullet$ Specially useful for existing disputes Next, this author examined the consideration factors when selecting the institution in respect of the following factors: $\bullet$ Institution's arbitration rules $\bullet$ Institution's rule regarding the appointment of arbitrators $\bullet$ Ability of administrators of each institution $\bullet$ Reputation of the arbitral institution and the likability of enforceability of its award $\bullet$ Cost $\bullet$ Choice of the arbitral institution in relation to the choice of place of arbitration Finally, this author reviewed Model Arbitration Clause of major international or local Institutions, including ICC, AAA, LCIA, KCAB, CIETAC, ICSID and WIPO. Further examination was given to the selection of the numbers of the arbitral tribunal, the seat of arbitration and the language of arbitration, according to the designated articles in each institution's arbitration rules.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제26권1호
• /
• pp.107-134
• /
• 2016

국제상사중재는 <국제물품매매계약에 관한 유엔협약>을 적용하는 중요한 영역이고 본 협약이 국제 통일법적인 역할을 발휘하는데 중요한 지원을 제공하고 있습니다. 중국국제 경제무역중재위원회(CIETAC)는 협약을 가장 많이 적용하여 중재사건을 해결하는 중재위원회이다. 중재재판소는 체약국 법원과 마찬가지로 협약내용을 정확하게 이해하고 정확하게 적용함으로써 사건재판의 질을 제고하고 판결의 공신력을 강화한다. 하지만 중재재판소의 민간성과 독립성으로 인하여 재판소가 협약을 적용하는 법률기초는 소재국 국내 중재법, 중재절차 및 국제중재관례이고, 소재국이 협약을 이행함에 있어서의 국제조약의무가 아니다. 협약과 중국 계약법은 CIETAC 중재재판소가 주요하게 적용하는 법률이다. 중국 계약법 규정에는 협약 제75조, 76조의 내용에 해당하는 차액배상제도가 존재하지 않기 때문에, 판사와 중재재판소는 손해배상금을 확정함에 있어서 보다 많은 자유재량권을 가지므로 협약을 적용하는 것과 중국 계약법을 적용하는 것은 당사자에게 서로 다른 영향을 일으킨다.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제15권3호
• /
• pp.113-137
• /
• 2005

In the provisions of 'the Arbitration Law of China, there are special provisions for international arbitration. When a court refuses the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards or cancel the domestic awards relating to international arbitration, they have to adopt the provisions of 'Chinese Civil Procedure Law'. These provisions are the same as the provisions of Korean Civil Procedure Law concerning the reasons of renewal. In the Korean Arbitration Act, those provisions disappeared when it was revised on December 31, 1999. Among the characteristics of the Chinese arbitration system, a serious question is that it provides only institutional arbitration and there is no ad-hoc arbitration in the Chinese Arbitration Law. On the other hand, when the parties appoint three arbitrators according to their agreement, the parties appoint the third arbitrator by mutual agreement and when they fail to agree, the Arbitration Committee appoints the third arbitrator. In practice, as the parties hardly agree on the third arbitrator or sole arbitrator, the Committee usually appoints them. And appointing an arbitrator from out of their panel of arbitrators is permitted these days only under examination by the Arbitration Committee in accordance with the arbitration rules of the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission, Other arbitration committees except the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission are still prohibited from making appointments from out of their panel of arbitrators. Accordingly, arbitration in China cannot be predicted and poses a question about legal stability as party autonomy is restricted in the appointment of arbitrators and arbitral procedure. Such being the case it is strongly recommended to select Korea as the place of arbitration in transactions with China. However it is better to arbitrate than to file a law suit in China.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제8권1호
• /
• pp.35-54
• /
• 1998

In recent years, there has been a significant increase in the number of large-scale projects involving construction, public works and the installation of industrial plants. These projects usually require the participation of a number of public and private entities and involve more than one contract. When disputes arising in connection with these projects are to be submitted to commercial arbitration, the parties often wish to have all disputes decided by one arbitral tribunal, in a single comprehensive proceeding. It has become apparent that the resolution of all major disputes which may arise in connection with such a project in a single comprehensive arbitration proceeding presents a number of advantages. The arbitral institution can provide for a multiparty arbitration proceeding only where all of the parties have agreed to it either at the time the disputes arise or at the time the parties enter into their various contractual arrangement. The discussion about multiparty arbitration centers on the question whether courts should have the power to order the consolidation of arbitration proceedings absent the consent of the parties. As the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly denied certiorari to cases presenting the consolidation-question, the conflict between the Court of Appeals' positions remains. The common method of selection in a bilaterial proceeding is the formula by which each party appoints one arbitrator and the two party-chosen arbitrators then mutually agree on a third, neutral arbitrator. This popular method poses, however, both a policy and practical problems In a 3-party-proceeding. It seems that the better solution is to have courts or arbitral institutions appoint all arbitrators for a multiparty proceeding. American courts have employed a variety of methods to appoint arbitrators for multiparty disputes in cases in which the parties had not provided for or could not agree upon a method themselves.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제24권4호
• /
• pp.49-97
• /
• 2014

This study is about the availability of Chinese internal arbitration institutions by Korean invested companies. Generally, Chinese internal arbitration institutions lack independence from government. However, because parties seeking an arbitration award have ways to get neutrality from internal arbitration institutions that guarantee party autonomy, these Korean companies can use Chinese internal arbitration institutions to resolve disputes in China. Special attention should be given to the following. First, because Korean companies invested in China are legally in the same position as Chinese companies, unless foreign-related factors intervene, when disputes occur with Chinese companies or individuals, the disputes correspond to internal dispute, and when it comes to choosing the arbitration institution, these Korean companies must choose either a Chinese internal arbitration institution or foreign-related arbitration institution. Second, most Chinese internal arbitration institutions still lack independence from government, which can influence the fairness of arbitration in the future. Therefore, Korean companies invested in China should think about alternative ways to get a minimum impartiality in arbitration cases. Third, the parties are allowed to choose arbitration rules freely in Beijing, Xian, Chongqing, Guangzhou, and Hangzhou arbitration commissions. Therefore, in arbitration cases, the parties can get impartiality by choosing arbitrators according to the arbitration rules which they agree on, or by choosing partially modified arbitration rules of those arbitration commissions. Fourth, in order to get an impartial arbitration award from Chinese internal arbitration institutions in China, it is important for Korean lawyers or arbitration experts -- fluent in Chinese -- to be registered in the List of Arbitrators of Chinese internal arbitration institution by way of signing a MOU between the Korean Commercial Arbitration Board, or the Korean Association of Arbitration Studies and arbitration commissions such as those of Beijing, Xian, Chongqing, Guangzhou, and Hangzhou which comparatively do guarantee party autonomy. Fifth, because application of the preservation of property before application of arbitration is not approved in China, in practice, in order to preserve property before application of arbitration, it is best to file another suit in China based on other legal issue (e.g., tort) independent from the contract which an arbitration agreement is applied to. Sixth, in arbitration commissions which allow different agreement regarding arbitration procedures or arbitration rules, it is possible to choose a neutral arbitrator from a third country as a presiding arbitrator via UNCITRAL arbitration rules or ICC arbitration rules. Seventh, in the case of Chinese internal arbitral award, because the court reviews the substantive matters to decide the refusal of compulsory execution, the execution rate could be relatively lower than that of foreign-related cases. Therefore, when Korean companies invested in China use Chinese internal arbitration institution, they should endure low rate of execution. Eighth, considering the operational experiences of public policy on foreign-related arbitration awards so far, in cases of Chinese internal arbitration award, the possibility of cancellation of arbitral award or the possibility to refuse to execute the award due to public policy is thought to be higher than that of foreign arbitral awards. Ninth, even though a treaty on judicial assistance in civil and commercial matters has been signed between Korea and China, and it includes a provision on acknowledgement and enforcement of arbitral award, when trying to resolve disputes through Chinese internal arbitration institution, the treaty would not be a big help to resolve the disputes, because the disputes between Korean companies invested in China and the party in China are not subject to the treaty. Tenth, considering recent tendency of conciliation by the arbitral tribunal in China and the voluntary execution rate of the parties, the system of conciliation by the arbitral tribunal is expected to affect as a positive factor the Korean companies that use Chinese internal arbitration institution. Finally, when using online arbitration, arbitration fees can be reduced, and if the arbitration commissions guaranteeing party autonomy have online arbitration system, the possibility of getting impartial arbitration award through them is higher. Therefore, the use of online arbitration system is recommended.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제29권4호
• /
• pp.77-100
• /
• 2019

Third-party funding in international and domestic disputes is a fast-growing trend and it is increasingly used by large, solvent companies that simply wish to share risk in their finance. On January 10, 2017, the Civil Law Amendment Bill was passed in Singapore and on June 2017 an "Arbitration and Mediation Legislation (Third Party Funding) Bill" in Hong-Kong had a third-party funding to finance the international arbitration and other dispute resolutions expressly approved. This arbitral tribunal's expanding discretion over critical interim measure of security cost was in issue. In Essar v. Norscot (2016), the arbitrator found that the additional third-party funding costs were recoverable as "other costs of the parties." In here, the decision showed the issue of a tribunal's power over cost measures could spread out to be reviewed and broadened through the legislative process. A recent investor-state arbitration case of ICSID, RSM Production Corporation v. Saint Lucia, covered the express awarding of security for costs where a claimant was funded by a third-party funder. It seems inevitable that the volume of third-party funding industry will grow more as time goes on. The next step would be to formulate guidelines on how to determine criteria against which an application for security for costs is measured.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제29권2호
• /
• pp.133-159
• /
• 2019

This paper reviews 2019 new arbitration rules of Japan Commercial Arbitration Association (JCAA). JCAA has amended its Commercial Arbitration Rules, and its Administrative Rules for UNCITRAL Arbitration. Also, it has introduced a new Interactive Arbitrations Rules. These new rules take effect from 1 January 2019. First, principal amendments of JCAA Commercial Arbitration Rules are such as arbitrator impartiality, tribunal secretaries, no dissenting opinions, expedited proceedings, arbitrator fees, administrative fees. Second, JCAA's new Interactive Arbitration Rules compel communication from the arbitral tribunal to the Parties and introduce a system of fixed compensation for arbitrators. Third, JCAA's Administrative Rules for UNCITRAL Arbitration are designed to provide the minimum essentials to allow the UNCITRAL Rules to be overseen by an institution. The only significant updates focus on arbitrator remuneration. This paper presents the intent and some implications of JACC's 2019 new rules for Korean Commercial Arbitration Board (KCAB) arbitration rules. Also, it seeks to provide a meaningful discussion and improvement on the facilitating of arbitration system in Korea.

• 무역학회지
• /
• 제43권6호
• /
• pp.139-160
• /
• 2018

본 연구는 중재판정부의 임시적 처분에 대하여 중국 정부가 어떤 기준에 근거하여 판단하고 있는지 관련 사례분석을 통해 규명하고자 하였다. 먼저 대부분의 국가에서 중재판정부 에 의한 임시적 처분을 인정하고 있는 반면, 중국은 여전히 법원 고유의 권한으로 인정하고 있다. 이는 국제적 추세와 불일치하는 판단이기도 하다. 특히 주요법률 규정인 중재법과 민사소송법이 2017년에 개정되었음에도 임시적 처분에 대한 규정은 변화가 없고 여전히 중재규칙간의 불일치로 인한 문제가 남아 있다. 따라서 중재절차상 임시적 처분이 어떻게 적용하고 집행하는지 중국의 입장과 태도에 대해서 주의를 기울일 필요가 있다.