• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제17권2호
• /
• pp.3-21
• /
• 2007

Arbitration is a private and contractual means of dispute resolution. As a creature of contract, any particular arbitration owes its existence-and attendant limitations-to an arbitral agreement. This means that, in practice, the parties select their own judges, forum, and rules. By agreeing to arbitration, parties hope to achieve several goals. And arbitration has proven to be quicker, cheaper, and more predictable than litigation as a means of resolving many types of claims. As a primary method of conflict resolution, it is now worthwhile to consider carefully any procedural mechanism designed to promote the central aims of this alternative to litigation. It is helpful to frame any particular analysis according to (1) the type of decision for which preclusive effect is sought (arbitral award or court judgment) and (2) the type of subsequent proceeding in which preclusion is sought (an arbitration or a litigation). Res judicata may well bar litigation of that claim between the parties, but non-parties (affiliates or individuals) will not benefit from this bar unless the arbitral tribunal makes findings sufficient to satisfy the elements of collateral estoppel. The final permutation to be considered involves an arbitral award's preclusive effect on a subsequent arbitration. Whether a prior court decision should preclude issues or claims in a subsequent arbitration presents the easiest case for analysis. It is the easiest primarily because there is generally little room to debate whether adequate procedures were followed in a litigation. That is, one can safely assume that the rules of evidence and the rules of civil procedure were followed and that formal records sufficiently memorialize both the proceeding itself and the ultimate decision. Procedural regularity is mentioned not necessarily because it is an analytic tool, but because so many jurists and scholars see it as an impediment to the application of preclusionary doctrines.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제23권1호
• /
• pp.1-23
• /
• 2013

When a court recognizes an arbitral award, it acknowledges that the award is valid and binding, and thereby gives it a set of effects similar to those of a court's judgment, among which res judicata is the most important. The res judicata effect of an arbitral award generally forbids parties to an action from subsequently litigating claims that were raised in a prior arbitration. In common law countries, res judicata may also preclude re-adjudication of issues raised and decided in a prior arbitration. The Korean Arbitration Act acknowledges the rights of parties to an arbitral award to seek not only an enforcement judgment but also a recognition judgment on an arbitral award. Therefore, the question arises whether or not the winning party in an arbitration must acquire a recognition judgment on the arbitral award in order to enjoy the effects of a recognized award. However, according to the case law and generally accepted views, an arbitral award is automatically recognized without any additional procedure, as long as it satisfies the requirements for recognition. Therefore, in order to resolve this question, it is desirable to eliminate the statutory clause that stipulates the right to seek recognition judgment.