• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제30권1호
• /
• pp.3-37
• /
• 2020

The Korean Arbitration Act (KAA) enacted in 1966 was entirely revised in 1999, adopting the 1985 UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration. Korea is trying to be an international arbitration hub in the region, taking advantage of its geographical location in Asia and its highly open economy. KAA was revised in 2016 again in order to reflect the criticisms against the previous KAA, changes in the arbitration environment, and the 2006 amendment to the UNCITRAL Model Law. The basic direction of the revision was to maintain the UNCITRAL Model Law system and to deal with the national arbitration and international arbitration in the same framework. The scope of revision covers all fields of arbitration, including arbitration agreements, arbitrators, arbitral proceedings, interim measures of the arbitral tribunals, recognition/enforcement of arbitral awards, and their annulment. This paper aims to introduce the important issues of the 2016 revision of KAA, to offer important information discussed in the process of revision, and thus to help those concerned in the interpretation and implementation of KAA. The 2016 revision of KAA is expected to help greatly in promoting not only the national arbitration, but also the international arbitration in Korea.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제31권1호
• /
• pp.23-54
• /
• 2021

While maritime arbitration industry has not been prevalent in Korea, Korea ranked fifth in terms of export volume and its shipbuilding industry ranked top globally in shipbuilding order volume in 2020. The discrepancy between the maritime industry's productivity and relative lack of maritime arbitration has had a negative impact on Korea's economic development. To address these problems, this paper i) reviews preceding research, ii) examines the Korean maritime arbitration system's status and analyzes the KCAB's maritime arbitration statistics from 2005-2020, iii) examines major foreign maritime arbitration institutions' status and strategies including LMAA, SMA, SCMA, and HKMAG, and lastly iv) suggests practical ways to promote maritime arbitration in Korea. The Suggestions for promoting maritime arbitration are 1) to prepare and promote various maritime standardized forms for the Korean shipping industry, 2) to insert an arbitration clause in medium and large-size Korean shipping firms' B/L clause, 3) to expand professional maritime manpower training and other infrastructure, and 4) to enhance the predictability of the result of arbitration through maritime arbitral awards or by examining the feasibility of the appeal system against the arbitral award only on a point of law in the future. In conclusion, the success or failure of promoting maritime arbitration in Korea depends on the will, passion, cooperation and practice of the most important key players in maritime arbitration, such as the Asia Pacific Maritime Arbitration Center (APMAC), the Korean Commercial Arbitration Board (KCAB) and the Seoul Maritime Arbitrators Association (SMAA).

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제25권2호
• /
• pp.19-47
• /
• 2015

International arbitration is an increasingly popular means of alternative dispute resolution for cross-border commercial transactions. The primary advantage of international arbitration over court litigation is enforceability. An international arbitration award is enforceable in most countries in the world. Especially, statistics indicate of ASEAN such as Malaysia and Singapore that the vast majority of defeated companies comply with the terms of international arbitral awards against them or settle soon after the award is rendered. Unlike Malaysia and Singapore, in Indonesia, there are several grounds for refusal of enforcement of an award including where both the nature of the dispute and the agreement to arbitrate do not meet the requirements set out in the Arbitration Law. Because Indonesia does not acknowledge decisions of foreign courts, theoretically they could enforce an international arbitral award which was set aside by the court in the seat of arbitration. This paper introduces the legal system and cases of recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitration awards in ASEAN, especially Malaysia, Singapore, and Indonesia. Secondly, by comparing their law and cases, the paper emphasized the international suitability and global fitness in involved in recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitration awards.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제27권1호
• /
• pp.107-129
• /
• 2017

Arbitration has grown a unique resolving method for international commercial disputes. However, it has considered a similar court process, such as interim relief, during arbitration proceedings. Further, it would be asked for urgent measures before the arbitrators are constituted in the proceedings. In this case, the disputing party has to apply in the court. This is an unattractive factor in international arbitration; therefore, some institutions are trying to reform such an inconvenient system by adopting the emergency arbitrator. The purpose of this study is to look into ways of utilizing the emergency arbitrator for effective dispute resolution in shipbuilding and shipping industries. The emergency arbitrator needs to solve problems such as making a decision on leaving cargos in the ship, matters involving a ship arrest, or issues regarding vessels under construction. In order to utilize the emergency arbitrator system, it needs to make a close partnership with related institutions, prepare Korean-style standard shipbuilding and shipping contracts, and provide training programs for new emergency arbitrators and staff of institutions. Next, the arbitration institution has to have a great working relationship with a court. Finally, it should try to implement a new system, such as on-line service, for the procedures of the emergency arbitrator.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제17권2호
• /
• pp.23-41
• /
• 2007

The role of ICC Court of Arbitration in ICC Arbitration is critical in maintaining the good reputation and worldwide recognition. While most arbitration institutions are the products of regional on national private associations, which play a relatively limited role in appointing or confirming the arbitrators, the Court of Arbitration is not only international in the appointment of arbitrators through the each National Committee, but also intervene in the confirmation of the prospective arbitrators proposed by the parties. Thus the ICC Arbitration is undoubtedly the most highly-supervised form of institutional arbitration available. The purpose of this paper is to examine the appointment and confirmation system of ICC Arbitration, to find the distinctive features of the ICC Rules of Arbitration and to check how to apply the features in the Rules of International Arbitration for the Korean Commercial Arbitration Board(KCAB Rules). Although the KCAB Rules have inherent limitations in the appointment of the arbitrators comparing with the ICC Court. They do not have any confirmation system of the arbitrator proposed by the parties. Although no arbitral institutions is in a position to guarantee completely the ultimate quality and efficacy of the process, the ICC, more than any other institution has historically endeavored to do so through a combination of the efforts of its International Court of Arbitration and National Committees. Composed of legal professionals of more than 75 nationalities, the Court, with the support of its permanent Secretariat in Paris, brings to bear on the decisions that it is responsibility to make the collective and disparate knowledge and experience of a multinational body. Therefore, if the KCAB wants to attract many international disputes, it should try to benchmark the ICC Rules of Arbitration, expecially the Article 9, to secure the prominent arbitrators throughout the world, even though a lot of limitations are exist. The positive role of the ICC Court of Arbitration gives us very important signal.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제23권2호
• /
• pp.165-190
• /
• 2013

As intellectual property rights are perceived as the key element of creating added values and securing competitiveness, the result of intellectual property rights disputes play an important role in the success of companies. As seen from above strong points of an Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) system in Chapter III, intellectual property rights disputes increasingly tend to be resolved by ADR rather than litigation. Discussions about and operation of ADR are already being actively carried out in many countries, and major ADR institutions have been acquiring experience in a variety of intellectual property rights disputes. To enhance the use and recognition of ADR as the way of resolving the Intellectual Property Rights disputes in Korea, this study suggested the following three ways. First, domestic ADR institutions, the Korean Commercial Arbitration Board (KCAB) will need to establish cooperative systems with prominent overseas institutions to lead the disputing parties to fair resolutions as well as to instill trust in international arbitration institutions. Second, they will need to contribute to the promotion of arbitration systems throughout society by developing and applying a variety of arbitration systems as well as securing a pool of professionals. Finally, the arbitration rules will need to be continuously improved to deal with disputes promptly and reinforce privacy protection.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제19권2호
• /
• pp.73-94
• /
• 2009

There are significant differences between disputes among enterprises and disputes between consumers and an enterprise. A majority of consumers may suffer from the same damages at the same time with small amount concerned and sometimes low chances for find the real cause. Among these distinctive features, the most significant characteristic in consumer-business disputes can be found in that consumers are in a disadvantageous position compared to businesses. When it comes to consumer policy, the biggest aim lies with turning back the damage a consumer is suffering into normalcy. In this regard, the Consumer Dispute Resolution System is the most essential among consumer policies. In Korea, the Collective Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) System was introduced to the Consumer Dispute Resolution System in 2007 in line with revision on the Consumer Basic Law. However, smooth damage redress for consumers is still not taking place. Against this backdrop, this report suggests that 'consumer arbitration' program should be introduced to the Consumer Dispute Resolution System as part of making good and smooth progress for consumer damage redress.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제13권1호
• /
• pp.169-205
• /
• 2003

Arbitration means the procedure that a party inquires a third party arbitrator for a resolution on the dispute on certain matters of interest to follow through with the commitment of the arbitration, and a series of procedures performed by the arbitrator of the Korean Commercial Arbitration Board. Arbitration is implemented in accordance with the procedure determined by the Arbitration Act and Arbitration Regulations. In the event the parties reach to the reconciliation during the process of arbitration, the reconciliation is recorded in the form of arbitration award(decision), and in the event a reconciliation is not made, the arbitrator shall make the decision on the particular case. The arbitration award(decision) for reconciliation during the arbitration procedure (Article 31 of Arbitration Act, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') or the mediation under the Arbitration Regulation of the Korean Commercial Arbitration Board (Article 18 of the Arbitration Regulations) shall have the same effectiveness with the decision rendered by a court that, in the event a party does not perform the obligation, the enforcement document is rendered under the Rules on Enforcement Document on Mediation Statement of various dispute resolution committees of the Supreme Court to carry out the compulsory enforcement. However, in the event that the party to take on the obligation to perform under the arbitration award (decision) rendered by the arbitrator (Article 32 of the Act) does not perform without due cause, a separate enforcement decision in accordance with the procedure determined under the Civil Enforcement Act shall be obtained since the arbitration award(decision) cannot be the basis of enforcement under the Civil Enforcement Act. And, in order to enforce the judgment compulsorily in accordance with the regulations under the Civil Enforcement Act under the foreign arbitration judgment (Article 39 of the A.1), it shall fulfill the requirement determined under the Civil Litigation Act (article 217 of Civil Litigation Act) and shall obtain a separate enforcement decision in accordance with the procedure determined under the Civil Enforcement Act (Article 26 and Article 27 of Civil Enforcement Act) since the arbitration judgment of foreign country shall not be based on enforcement under the Civil Enforcement Act. It may be the issue of legislation not to recognize the arbitration award(decision) as a source of enforcement right, and provide the compulsive enforcement by recognizing it for enforcement right after obtaining the enforcement document with the decision of a court, however, not recognizing the arbitration award(decision) as the source of enforcement right is against Clause 3 of Article 31 of the Act, provisions of Article 35, Article 38 and Article 39 that recognized the validity of arbitration as equal to the final judgment of a court, and the definition that the enforcement decision of a court shall require the in compulsory enforcement under Clause 1 of Article 37 of the Act which clearly is a conflict of principle as well. Anyhow, in order to enforce the arbitration award(decision) mandatorily, the party shall bring the litigation of enforcement decision claim to the court, and the court shall deliberate with the same procedure with general civil cases under the Civil Litigation Act. During the deliberation, the party obligated under the arbitration award(decision) intended to not to undertake the obligation and delay it raises the claim and suspend the enforcement of cancelling the arbitration award(decision) on the applicable arbitration decision within 3 months from the date of receiving the authentic copy of the arbitration award(decision) or the date of receiving the authentic copy of correction, interpretation or additional decision under the Regulation of Article 34 of the Act (Clause 3 of Article 36 of the Act). This legislation to delay the sentencing of the enforcement and then to sentence the enforcement decision brings the difficulties to a party to litigation costs and time for compulsory enforcement where there is a requirement of an urgency. With the most of cases for arbitration being the special field to make the decision only with the specialized knowledge that the arbitrator shall be the specialists who have appropriate knowledge of the system and render the most reasonable and fair decision for the arbitration. However, going through the second review by a court would be most important, irreparable and serious factor to interfere with the activation of the arbitration system. The only way to activate the arbitration system that failed to secure the practicality due to such a factor, is to revise the Arbitration Act and Arbitration Regulations so that the arbitration decision shall have the right to enforce under the Rules on Enforcement Document on Mediation Statement of various dispute resolution committees of the Supreme Court.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제18권1호
• /
• pp.3-30
• /
• 2008

This paper is to research the current status of ADR in Korea, the qualifications of mediator (or conciliator) and arbitrator, the ADR education program of major foreign arbitration-related institutions and the efficient management device of ADR education program for the activation of the ADR system. In 2007, arbitration applications received at the Korean Commercial Arbitration Board numbered 320 and the amount involved those cases was US$ 216 millions. Mediation applications received at the KCAB numbered 552 and the amount involved those cases US$ 29millions. As of December 2007, the total numbers of arbitrators on the KCAB Panel of Arbitrators was 978. There are no provisions for the qualification of arbitrator in the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration and Arbitration Act of Korea. The KCAB has the consolidation regulation of the Panel of Arbitrator of which purpose is to regulate the criteria and procedure regarding the drawing up and maintenance of the panel of arbitrators. The UK Chartered Institute of Arbitrators has the criteria and qualifications for membership of which three grades are associate, member and fellow. The American Arbitration Association has the qualification criteria for admittance to the AAA National Roster of Arbitrators and Mediators. The Japan Association of Arbitrators has the official authorization regulation for membership of which three grades are special associate, ordinary associate and fellow. The UK Chartered Institute of Arbitrators has the ADR education programs which are composed of the mediation courses and arbitration courses. The American arbitrators Association has the ADR education programs which are composed of in-person training and online training. The Japan Association of Arbitrators has the ADR education programs which are composed of the cultivation courses of conciliator and the practical training courses of arbitrator. The efficient management devices of ADR education program are as follows: the execution of official authorization system of arbitrator, the establishment of specialized division for training and official authorization, the establishment of ADR regular training courses, the publication of ADR training texts and obtaining of instructors, and the consolidation of regulations related to the official authorization of arbitrator and ADR training. In conclusion, for the activation of ADR system, the KCAB and Korean Association of Arbitrators should make further effort to provide the ADR regular education and training programs for potential and practicing conciliators and arbitrators.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제26권3호
• /
• pp.121-147
• /
• 2016

Factual issues in most patent litigation are related to very complicated techniques. Thus, the courts has emphasised that the technology in dispute has to be read and understood through the eyes of a person to whom it is directed. Therefore, among the various processes in federal litigation, most litigation in the field of patent infringement relies on at least some expert evidence. This paper focuses on issues regarding patent dispute evidence, and explore whether there are unresolved issues in evidential rules and procedures of patent proceedings. Further, this paper seeks to demonstrate that both the parties and the courts in patent disputes generally benefit from the current evidence system. However, in a number of Australian cases, the scope of expert evidence in patent cases has been strictly limited. Australian Government identified uncertain issues associated with the present patent enforcement system, due to factors such as a low level of knowledge about what patent rights entail, the high degree of uncertainty of outcome in legal proceedings, etc. Arbitration shall be reviewed and suggested as an alternative to tackling the ongoing problems in the trial system.