• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제15권3호
• /
• pp.55-84
• /
• 2005

The arbitral award is the decision of the arbitrators on the dispute that had been submitted to them by the parties, either under the arbitration clause providing for the determination of future disputes or under submission of an existing controversy. The arbitral award has the same effect between the parties as a final and binding court judgment. The arbitration award shall acquire, as soon as it is given and delivered to each parties, the authority of res judicata in respect of the dispute it settles. The validity of an award is a condition precent for its recognition or enforcement. The validity of an award depends on the provisions of the arbitration agreement including any arbitration rules incorporated in it, and the law which is applicable to the arbitration proceedings. Such provisions usually address both the form and the content of the award. As the 'form', requires article 32 of Arbitration Act of Korea that an arbitral award should, at least, (1) be made in writing and be signed by all arbitrators. (2) state the reasons upon which it is based unless the parties have agreed that it should not, (3) state its date and place of arbitration. There are some further requirement which may have to be observed before an award which has been made by a tribunal can be enforced. (4) The duly authenticated award signed by the arbitrators shall be delivered to each of the parties and the original award shall be sent to and deposited with the competent court, accompanied by a document verifying such delivery. This rule can be interpreted as if the deposit of an arbitral award with the competent court is always required as a condition for its validity or as a preliminary to its enforcement in Korea. However, we must regard this rule which requires the deposit of an arbitral award with court, as rule of order, but not as condition of its validity. Because that the date on which the award is delivered to each party is important as it will generally determine the commencement of time limits for the making of any appeal which may be available. Furthermore, the party applying for recognition or enforcement merely has to supply the appropriate court with the duly authenticated original award or a duly certified copy thereof, not any document which proves that an the arbitral award is sent to and deposited with the competent court. In order to avoid some confusion which can be caused by its interpretation and application, the Article 32 (4) of Arbitration Act of Korea needs to be abolished or at least modified.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제24권2호
• /
• pp.109-136
• /
• 2014

The separability of an arbitration clause is generally recognized throughout the world, but there are no provisions of it under the Federal Arbitration Act(FAA) of the United States. As such, the controversy over the recognition of separability has developed with the rise of certain cases. The Supreme Court recognized this separability based on section 4 of the FAA in the decision of the Prima Paint case. The Court ruled that courts must decide the claim about the fraudulent inducement of an arbitration agreement itself, but they must not decide the claim about the fraudulent inducement of a contract involving a broad arbitration clause, and they have to proceed with the arbitration. The Court said that the subject of an arbitral award is set by the agreement of the parties, and thereby arbitrators can decide the issues about the fraudulent inducement of a contract on the basis of the arbitration clause when it is broad to the point of including the issues. Many courts have extended the separability beyond the fraud context to include other defenses to contract formation in the federal courts such as the occurrence of mistake, illegality, and frustration of purpose. In interpreting the parties' intention of ensuring arbitrator competence, the Supreme Court has treated differently the issues about whether the arbitration agreement exists or not and the issues about whether the preconditions for dispute resolution by a valid arbitration agreement is fulfilled or not. The Court holds that the federal policy in favor of arbitration does not apply to the former issues, and arbitrators can decide theses issues only when parties assign them clearly and unmistakably to them. However, the later issues receive a presumption in favor of arbitration; i.e., when the interpretation of a valid arbitration clause is contested, the arbitrators can decide these issues. In the First Options case, the former issue was questioned. The question of the separability of an arbitration clause is where the validity of the main contract involving the arbitration clause is contested. Therefore, the doctrine of separability did not operate in the First Options case in which the validity of the arbitration clause itself was questioned, and the decision in the First Options was irrelevant to the separability. I think that the Prima Paint case and the First Options case have different issues, and there is no tension between them.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제45권
• /
• pp.51-82
• /
• 2010

The "rules of private international law" or "conflict of law rules" work to determine the governing law, the law applicable to international contracts. These rules permit parties' autonomy to choose the law applicable to their contracts in cases of both litigations and arbitrations. In this regards, the present article examines parties' five options for the choice of the law governing their contracts, which the parties should consider when negotiating and drafting an international agreement. This means that parties in international contracting should check the contents of the law that they are to choose as the governing law before doing so. The first option is to submit the contract to its own law, which can be the safest and simplest solution generally. However this option is subject to the consent of the other party, and is not appropriate when the domestic law chosen contains mandatory rules strongly protecting the other party. Secondly, the option of choosing the other party's law is not preferable in general. Even though the other party is strong enough to succeed in insisting on applying its own law, the other party is advised to counter-offer a neutral solution by suggesting the application of a transnational set of rules and principles of international contract, such as Unidroit Principles. The third option to choose the law of a third country should be taken with the caution that it should be harmonized with either, in case of litigations, the international jurisdiction clause which makes the country chosen have the jurisdiction over the dispute arising under the contract, or, in case of arbitrations, the way of selection of the arbitrator who has good knowledge of the law chosen. The fourth option of submitting the contract to the lex mercatoria or the general principles of law including the Unidroit Principles can be a advisable solution when a dispute is designed to be submitted to experienced arbitrators. The final and fifth is to be silent on the choice of the governing law in contracting. This option can be usefully available by experienced negotiators who are well familiar with the conflict of laws rules and enables the parties to avoid the difficulties to agree on the governing law issue and leave it open until a dispute arises.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제18권1호
• /
• pp.71-96
• /
• 2008

Arbitration is fundamentally a matter of contract, whereby contractual parties may only be required to submit a dispute to arbitration pursuant to their formal agreement. However, there are several important exceptions to this rule that have developed under common law notions of implied consent. These doctrines may serve either to benefit or to harm a nonsignatory to an arbitral agreement because either (1) the nonsignatory may compel a signatory to the agreement to arbitrate a dispute or (2) the nonsignatory may be compelled to arbitrate a dispute despite never having signed an arbitration agreement. The Court has a long-standing domestic policy of favoring arbitration, and these doctrines reflect that policy. 1. incorporation by reference An arbitration clause may apply to a party who is a nonsignatory to one agreement containing an arbitration clause but who is a signatory to a second agreement that incorporates the terms of the first agreement. 2. assumption An arbitration clause may apply to a nonsignatory who has impliedly agreed to arbitrate. Under this theory, the nonsignatory's conduct is a determinative factor. For example, a nonsignatory who voluntarily begins arbitrating the merits of a dispute before an arbitral tribunal may be bound by the arbitrator's ruling on that dispute even though the nonsignatory was not initially required to arbitrate the dispute. 3. agency A nonsignatory to an arbitration agreement may be bound to arbitrate a dispute stemming from that agreement under the traditional laws of agency. A principal may also be bound to arbitrate a claim based on an agreement containing an arbitration clause signed by the agent. The agent, however, does not generally become individually bound by executing such an agreement on behalf of a disclosed principal unless there is clear evidence that the agent intended to be bound. 4. veil piercing/alter ego In the corporate context, a nonsignatory corporation to an arbitration agreement may be bound by that agreement if the agreement is signed by its parent, subsidiary, or affiliate. 5. estoppel The doctrine of equitable estoppel is usually applied by nonsignatory defendants who wish to compel signatory plaintiffs to arbitrate a dispute. This will generally be permitted when (1) the signatory must rely on the terms of the contract in support of its claims against the nonsignatory, or (2) the signatory alleges that it and the nonsignatory engaged in interdependent misconduct that is intertwined with the obligations imposed by the contract. Therefore, this article analyzed these doctrines centering around case-law in America.

• 통상정보연구
• /
• 제15권4호
• /
• pp.287-311
• /
• 2013

본 연구는 대위중재에서의 당사자적격성과 관련하여 복잡하게 전개될 수 있는 시비를 해결할 수 있는 방향의 설정에 대해 고찰하였다. 결함문제를 해결하기 위해 전례를 분석해 본 결과, 대위중재로 중재판정에 이른 사례는 찾아볼 수 있지만 대위중재 그 자체에 대한 판정이유는 불분명하다. 기존의 법원판례는 대위중재를 허용하는 듯 안 하는 듯 애매모호하고 대위중재의 허용여부에 대한 직접적인 법원의 판례는 찾아보기 힘들다. 또한 어느 한 국가의 판례로는 국제거래에서 발생하는 대위중재에 대해 단정할 수도 없다. 대위중재가 자동으로 허용되는지 아닌지 분명하지 않으면 전략적 차원에서 볼 때 분쟁해결절차의 경우의 수는 너무나 많아 수많은 사회적 비용을 치르게 된다. 따라서 향후 대위중재의 허용여부에 대한 국제적 통일지침의 확정이 긴요한 바, 본고에서는 자동차 대위중재제도, 공백과 상호주의 그리고 코즈정리의 관점에서 고찰한 결과 확정오퍼가설에 입각한 대위중재의 제도정립이 바람직하다는 결론에 이르렀다. 대위중재사건을 맡은 중재인들이나 판사들, 그리고 관련자들이 확정오퍼가설에 입각하여 대위중재에서의 당사자적격성을 판단한다면 본고에서 살펴본 대위중재와 관련한 문제점들을 대부분 해결할 수 있을 것으로 기대된다. 또한 국제적으로도 대위중재에 대한 확정오퍼가설이 확산됨으로써 대위중재의 일관된 해결원리가 확정오퍼가설로 수렴되기를 기대한다.

• 한국정보과학회논문지:정보통신
• /
• 제30권1호
• /
• pp.75-81
• /
• 2003

인터넷과 같이 신뢰할 수 없는 네트워크를 통한 통신에서 비밀성과 무결성 뿐만 아니라 원거리 사용자 인증은 시스템의 보안에서 중요한 부분이다. 그러나 사용자 인증정보로서 인간이 기억할 수 있는 패스워드의 사용은 패스워드의 선택범위가 사용자의 기억에 제한 받는 낮은 비도(Entropy) 때문에 공격자의 오프라인 사전공격에 취약하다. 본 논문은 원거리 사용자 인증과 키 교환에 적합한 새로운 패스리드 인증 및 키 협상 프로토콜을 제안한다. 이 프로토콜은 오프라인 사전공격을 예방할 수 있으며 공격자에게 패스워드가 노출되더라도 이전 세션의 복호화나 이후 세션키의 손상에 영향을 미치지 않는 PFS(Perfect Forward Secrecy)를 제공한다. 또한 사용자의 패스워드가 서버의 패스리드 데이타베이스 파일에 순수하게 패스워드 자체로 저장되지 않기 때문에 공격자가 패스워드 데이타베이스를 획득하더라도 직접적으로 프로토콜의 안전성을 손상하지 않으며 직접 서버에 접근을 요청할 수 없다. 또한 PKI 및 키서버와 같은 제3의 신뢰기관을 이용하지 않기 때문에 단순인증에 적합하다. 따라서 이 프로토콜은 웹을 통한 홈뱅킹이나 사용자의 모바일 환경이 요구되는 셀룰러 폰, telnet이나 ftp와 같은 로긴 시스템, 기존 패스워드를 이용한 인증시스템 개선 등의 어플리케이션에 유용한 인증형태를 제공하며 인증정보가 장기간 저장될 필요성이 있어 위험하거나 실용적이지 못한 경우와 SSL(Secure-Sockets Layer), SET(Secure Electronic Transactions), IPSEC(Internet Protocol Security Protocol) 서비스에 추가될 수 있다.

• 한국항만경제학회지
• /
• 제25권2호
• /
• pp.149-176
• /
• 2009

Count호 사건의 항해용선계약에서 선주는 양하항에서 Pongola호의 좌초사고에 의해 본선의 출항이 지연되었기 때문에 용선자의 안전항담보의무위반을 이유로 초과정박손해배상금을 청구하였다. 중재판정부는 양하항을 비안전항으로 보고 선주의 청구를 인정하였지만, 용선자는 중재판정에 다음과 같은 과오가 있다고 하여 영국 법원에 상소하였다. (1) 중재판정부는 Beira항이 안전하지 못하며 그 결과 용선자는 선주에게 초과정박손해배상금에 대해 책임이 있다고 판정한 것은 과오가 있으며, (2) 중재판정부는 Beira항에서 두 선박이 좌초했다는 사실과 관련하여 그 항이 안전하지 못하다고 판정한 것은 과오이며, (3) 선석에서의 양하를 종료하여 출항하려고 하였는데 거의 같은 장소에서 Pongola호가 좌초하여 항만당국에 의한 수로폐쇄에 의해 본선은 4일 후까지 출항할 수 없었다고 판정한 것 등이다. 본 연구에서는 항해용선계약과 관련하여 안전항담보의무위반에 따른 초과정박손해배상금의 청구에 대해 쟁점이 된 Count호 사건을 중심으로 분석하는데 목적이 있다.

• 한국건설관리학회논문집
• /
• 제20권4호
• /
• pp.104-113
• /
• 2019

공기연장과 관련한 분쟁은 해당 이슈들이 공기에 얼마나 영향을 미치는지에 대해 공기를 분석하고 법원과 같이 제3자의 판단을 돕기 위한 근거로 제출하는 특징이 있다. 하지만 대다수의 국내현장은 분석에 필요한 기초자료가 부재하거나, 분쟁 발생 이후 자료를 수집하는 등 대응을 위한 합리적인 업무 및 입증 방안의 프로세스가 정립되지 않아 공기연장에 따른 손실을 증명하는데 어려움이 있다. 따라서 본 연구는 공기연장 분쟁 시 입증의 수단인 공기분석에 필요한 정보를 수집, 정리하고 업무 프로세스를 제시함으로써 합리적인 처리지원 및 관리 효율성을 향상하고자 하였다. 제안된 프로세스를 사용하여 실제 공기연장 분쟁에 적용 검증한 결과, 프로세스 적용현장이 미적용 현장에 비해 실무자는 약 33%, 계약담당자는 약 46%, 법률자문가는 약 48% 더 높은 만족도를 나타냈으며 91%의 동일한 매트릭스 비교 결과가 나타났다. 본 연구를 통해 공기연장 분쟁에서 근거로 사용되는 공사기간 분석 업무의 효율화를 도모할 수 있을 것으로 판단되며, 향후 프로세스를 활용한 시스템 설계연구가 지속되어야 할 것으로 보인다.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제31권2호
• /
• pp.3-22
• /
• 2021

Civil and commercial disputes can be resolved through alternative dispute settlement systems other than court proceedings. Among them, the arbitration procedure is a system that is clearly distinguished from the mediation procedure in which the dispute is terminated by agreement between the parties. The arbitration proceedings shall have the same effect as the result of the final judgment by the decision of a third-party arbitrator, and its essence is a judgment. The Korean Arbitration Association Studies was founded in December 1990 to recognize the importance of arbitration procedures and conduct specialized research on them, with professional research on 'arbitration procedures' continuing until today. Thus, the Korean Arbitration Association Studies is positioned as the only specialized research organization in the field of arbitration. In the case of the Korean Arbitration Association Studies, which is the only society in Korea related to arbitration and alternative dispute resolution, the members are mainly scholars majoring in trade and commerce and ones majoring in law. This situation reflects the distinctive character of the arbitration system because it is a matter of dispute procedures related to trade and commerce and many scholars who research trade and commerce need to prepare for possible disputes. In addition, the arbitration procedure is a dispute settlement procedure that substitutes for litigation because it has research value as a legal system. In particular, the 'Journal of Arbitration Studies' published by the Korean Arbitration Association plays a role in mediation, as well as mediation and presentation of research papers in the ADR field. This study analyzes the trends of mediation and ADR-related papers published in 'Journal of Arbitration Studies', an academic journal of the Korean Arbitration Association Studies, in four dimensions, celebrating the 30th anniversary of the Korean Arbitration Association Studies. First, this study examined which sub-themes are mainly studied among the various viewpoints of mediation through thematic analysis. Second, it looked at what methodology was used to study intervention at the methodological level. Third, it assessed what countries and regions had been mainly studied at the regional level. Fourth, in terms of content, what kind of research had been mainly conducted and what kind of research was relatively insufficient was investigated, analyzing the research results of the last 30 years and presenting a milestone for the research direction of 'Journal of Arbitration Studies' in the future.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제38권
• /
• pp.181-226
• /
• 2008

The purpose of this paper is to describe the settling procedures of the investor-state disputes in the FTA Investment Chapter, and to research on the international arbitration system for the settlement of the investor-state disputes under the ICSID Convention and UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules. The UNCTAD reports that the cumulative number of arbitration cases for the investor-state dispute settlement is 290 cases by March 2008. 182 cases of them have been brought before the ICSID, and 80 cases of them have been submitted under the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules. The ICSID reports that the cumulative 263 cases of investor-state dispute settlement have been brought before the ICSID by March 2008. 136 cases of them have been concluded, but 127 cases of them have been pending up to now. The Chapter 11 Section B of the Korea-U.S. FTA provides for the Investor_State Dispute Settlement. Under the provisions of Section B, the claimant may submit to arbitration a claim that the respondent has breached and obligation under Section A, an investment authorization or an investment agreement and that the claimant has incurred loss or damage by reason of that breach. Provided that six months have elapsed since the events giving rise to the claim, a claimant may submit a claim referred to under the ICSID Convention and the ICSID Rules of Procedure for Arbitration Proceedings; under the ICSID Additional Facility Rules; or under the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules. The ICSID Convention provides for the jurisdiction of the ICSID(Chapter 2), arbitration(Chapter 3), and replacement and disqualification of arbitrators(Chapter 5) as follows. The jurisdiction of the ICSID shall extend to any legal dispute arising directly out of an investment, between a Contracting State and a national of another Contracting State, which the parties to the dispute consent in writing to submit to the ICSID. Any Contracting State or any national of a Contracting State wishing to institute arbitration proceedings shall address a request to that effect in writing to the Secretary General who shall send a copy of the request to the other party. The tribunal shall consist of a sole arbitrator or any uneven number of arbitrators appointed as the parties shall agree. The tribunal shall be the judge of its own competence. The tribunal shall decide a dispute in accordance with such rules of law as may be agreed by the parties. Any arbitration proceeding shall be conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Convention Section 3 and in accordance with the Arbitration Rules in effect on the date on which the parties consented to arbitration. The award of the tribunal shall be in writing and shall be signed by members of the tribunal who voted for it. The award shall deal with every question submitted to the tribunal, and shall state the reason upon which it is based. Either party may request annulment of the award by an application in writing addressed to the Secretary General on one or more of the grounds under Article 52 of the ICSID Convention. The award shall be binding on the parties and shall not be subject to any appeal or to any other remedy except those provided for in this Convention. Each Contracting State shall recognize an award rendered pursuant to this convention as binding and enforce the pecuniary obligations imposed by that award within its territories as if it were a final judgment of a court in that State. In conclusion, there may be some issues on the international arbitration for the settlement of the investor-state disputes: for example, abuse of litigation, lack of an appeals process, and problem of transparency. Therefore, there have been active discussions to address such issues by the ICSID and UNCITRAL up to now.