• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.12 no.1
• /
• pp.207-239
• /
• 2002

The redemption system for consumer's claim is intended to deal with the conflicts between consumers and firms in their transaction of goods and service ensuring consumer's basic right. In general, the redemption system for consumer's claim requires promptness of redemption, free charge of claim procedure for consumers and constructive response of firms. However, the current redemption system in Korea has some limitations in its authority in the sense that it has only the right for mediation of consultation and agreement and thus the involved consumer should forfeit his/her claim or should go to legal suit which requires high cost and time when the mediation work is failed between two parties. As it is shown in result of survey on empirical cases produced by the Consumer Dispute Mediation Committee in Consumer Protection Board of Korea in 2001, the 20.3％ of total claims have failed to reach final mediation, while the BBB case in the U. S. has recorded 19％ of arbitration success after its failure in mediation. Therefore, it is strongly recommended for Korea to augment current. arbitration system toward assuring firm's cost liability, the principle of quick procedure through agreement on arbitration upon consumer's request. It is thus prerequisite for firms to be armed with the concrete entrepreneurship of responsibility on cost liability. In conclusion, we suggest restructuring of currently existing institution, rather than establishing new one through substantial augmenting the role of Consumer Dispute Mediation Committee In Consumer Protection Board of Korea and enlarging its business criteria of The Korean Commercial Arbitration Board by progressive development of the consumer protection program through amendment of current law for consumer protection.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.23 no.1
• /
• pp.55-84
• /
• 2013

There should be an arbitration agreement between concerned parties in order to resolve a dispute through arbitration. The arbitration procedures, including the selection of the arbitrator and the adjudicative rights of the arbitrator, are based on the arbitration agreement. In other words, the arbitration procedure and adjudication can be carried out within the boundaries of the arbitration agreement. Traditionally, the Doctrine of Separability of the arbitration agreement has been acknowledged in order to emphasize its importance and to clearly separate it from the contract. Today, when the Doctrine of Separability of the arbitration agreement is well established, overemphasizing this separability could hamper its effectiveness and the autonomy of the parties. Moreover, arbitration agreements in the past were required to be written, clarifying the existence of the agreement and determining the scope of its validity. Further, an arbitration agreement was considered as narrowly as possible. However, since arbitration has become a generalized resolution for disputes, the formal or content requirements should be reconsidered. In terms of validity, the subjective and objective scope should necessarily be extended as a means to resolve disputes related to an arbitration agreement and reduce the resolution cost and duration. Under this perspective, the arbitration theory should now focus on arbitration agreements rather than the place of arbitration. We should break from the nationalistic view, which understands that the arbitration system is a part of the national legal system and that arbitration is allowed solely by permission of the nation. Instead, we should extensively reinterpret the subject of arbitration agreement and its range of effects so that disputes can be resolved between the concerned parties under a single procedure and norm, a necessary step forward. Moreover, in spite of the positive contribution and role of the New York Convention toward the establishment and development of the international arbitration system, there should be an effort to overcome its deterioration. As mentioned in the recommendations regarding the interpretation of the arbitration agreement in the New York Convention in 2006, we should begin by striving to match the Convention as a means of interpretation with the changes of the twenty-first century. Ultimately, we should meet the demands of the new era through amendments to the Convention.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.20 no.2
• /
• pp.3-26
• /
• 2010

In 2006, the UNCITRAL Working Group II started a new project on the revision of the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules of 1976. Ever since that time, 9 sessions of the Working Group II were devoted to the discussions on such topic. The Arbitration Rules has been acknowledged to be used for settling international disputes involving various disputing parties. In recent years, many treaty-based arbitrations have been subject to the Arbitration Rules. This article focuses on the discussions made in the 52nd session of the Working Group II where the third reading of the revised draft of the Arbitration Rules was completed except for a few provisions. Among the draft rules, the delegations were hardly able to reach an agreement with regard to Articles 2(2), 34(2), 41(3), (4), and (6). It is expected that those provisions would be agreed in the coming 43rd plenary session of the UNCITRAL. The use of the Arbitration Rules is dependent on the agreement by the disputing parties. It is not like the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration which was adopted in Korean legal system in 1999. However, the proper functioning of arbitration rules is essential for the efficient and successful operation of the arbitration system in a particular country. That is the reason why we should keep close attention on the discussions of the UNCITRAL with regard to the revision of the Arbitration Rules.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.27 no.3
• /
• pp.53-76
• /
• 2017

Korean businesses, and their legal representatives, have observed the improvements of enforcement of commercial judgments through arbitration over traditional collections litigation in U.S. Courts-due to quicker proceedings, exceptional cost savings and more predictable outcomes-in attaching assets within U.S. jurisdictions. But how are the 2016 interim measures implemented by the Arbitration Act of Korea utilized to avoid jurisdictional and procedure pitfalls of enforcement proceedings in the Federal Courts of the United States? Authors examine the necessary prerequisites of the U.S. Federal Arbitration Act as adopted through the New York Convention, to which Korea and the U.S. are signatories, as distinguished from the Panama Convention. Five common U.S. arbitration institutions address U.S. "domestic" disputes, preempting U.S. state law arbitrations, while this article focuses on U.S. enforcement of "international" arbitration awards. Seeking U.S. recognition and enforcement of Korean arbitral awards necessitates avoiding common defenses involving due process, public policy or documentary formality challenges. Provisional and conservatory injunctive relief measures are explored. A variety of U.S. cases involving Korean litigants are examined to illustrate the legal challenges involving non?domestic arbitral awards, foreign arbitral awards and injunctive relief. Suggestions aimed toward further research are focused on typical Korean business needs such as motions to confirm foreign arbitration awards, enforce such awards or motions to compel arbitration.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.26 no.2
• /
• pp.115-134
• /
• 2016

Arbitration is a consensual process in which a dispute is resolved by an impartial arbitrator outside the courts. Arbitration is flexible, neutral, time- and cost-efficient, and confidential. In 1985, the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law(UNCITRAL) enacted the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration to help countries reform and modernize their arbitration laws. In 1999, South Korea adopted the model law. Later in 2006, UNCITRAL amended the model law to promote international arbitration. The amended model law includes, among other things, specific provisions regarding interim measures. In 2016, in order to adopt the newly amended version of the model law, South Korea revised its Arbitration Act. The revised act includes a more comprehensive legal regime regarding interim measures, including definitions, types, processes, requirements, the court's recognition and enforcement, and liability. This paper examines the revision of the Arbitration Act of Korea and its legislative intent, presents the problems, and offers recommendations for resolving the problems.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.30 no.3
• /
• pp.137-167
• /
• 2020

As arbitration is widely used as an alternative dispute resolution mechanism, third-party funding, which is a person or entity with no prior interest in the legal dispute providing non-recourse financing for one of the parties, has become more prevalent with increasing costs of international arbitration. In particular, Hong Kong and Singapore are the first jurisdictions to adopt and implement legislations to specifically permit third-party funding of international arbitration. Thus, in this article, relevant issues with respect to third-party funding of arbitration, such as, conflicts of interest, disclosure, privilege and confidentiality of information, cost allocation, security for costs, and control over arbitral proceedings by the third-party funder are examined with pertinent provisions of the recent legislations. While the respective legislations of Hong Kong and Singapore may not directly address every issue raised by third-party funding of arbitration, as they make it clear that such is no longer prohibited by the old common law doctrines of champerty and maintenance, they have clarified conflicting case law as well as proactively promoted themselves as leading seats of international arbitration.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.23 no.1
• /
• pp.85-105
• /
• 2013

The entertainment industry has developed along with current Korean wave fever, and so entertainment-related disputes are increasing rapidly. Litigation is a poor fit for entertainment disputes because of characteristics such as temporal sensitivity. Thus, in the US, the entertainment industry resolves these disputes through ADR mechanisms like arbitration, but cases of settling such disputes through arbitrations are very rare in Korea. This study examined the characteristics and types of entertainment disputes and considered the compatibility of arbitration as a method for settling disputes, and then suggested tasks for revitalizing arbitration systems as entertainment dispute resolution procedures. Arbitrations have many merits, such as the rapid pace of procedures, confidentiality, satisfying the long-term desires of business relationships, the low cost of settling disputes, judgments rendered by experts, etc.; thus, it is a very suitable mechanism to settle entertainment-related disputes. The study proposes necessary steps for revitalizing arbitration systems for entertainment disputes. First, awareness of entertainment industry workers about the arbitration system should be raised. Second, special educational programs for members the of Korean Commercial Arbitration Board related to entertainment should be set up and operated together with encouraging positive attitudes toward actions like establishing a dedicated arbitration unit on entertainment disputes. Third, neutral, professional arbitrators should be secured and aggressive disclosures made. Fourth, a professional ADR organization such as an "Entertainment Arbitration Committee" should be established.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.23 no.1
• /
• pp.177-200
• /
• 2013

Recently, many international arbitration institutions have responded to the business requirements of their users and have revised their rules to enhance the time and cost efficiency. Korean Commercial Arbitration Board (KCAB) revised the international arbitration rule in 2011, introducing new arbitration mechanisms like the expedited procedure. Also other Asian arbitration institutions introduced the expedited procedure in their international arbitration rules. Now expedited procedures are regarded as a very attractive system in the field of international arbitration. Accordingly, this paper reviewed the expedited procedures of four Asian countries, including China(CIETAC), Hong Kong (HKIAC), Singapore(SIAC) and Korea(KCAB). The purpose of this study is to find out meaningful implications to improve the Korean system. Based on this review, some recommendations are suggested as follows. First, the scope of the expedited procedure has to be adjusted upward than the current 200 million won. Second, there should be a fee schedule only for the expedited procedure. Third, in case of small amount international disputes, written examination should be more used in the expedited procedure. Finally, KCAB should make strong efforts to improve the awareness and usage of the expedited procedure in Korea.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.26
• /
• pp.225-253
• /
• 2005

Nowadays we does not hesitate to definite answer that the arbitration is the most developed dispute settlement out of court in the international commercial transaction. Online arbitration is desirable for the reasons of speed and cost effectiveness to settle the dispute about the international commercial transaction. Online arbitration is fast because it uses the communication technologies that allow information to be sent fast and efficiently. But in online arbitration too much speed and efficiency may lead to a violation of due process rights and consequently the online arbitration awards run a risk to be set aside or refused its enforcement under the international commercial arbitration mechanism. Speed and efficiency may conflict with the procedural guarantee characterizing each adversary dispute resolution process. As arbitration is exclusive of recourse to courts, a state must guarantee that arbitral proceeding should be satisfied with the claim rights requirement. The main question regarding the sources of regulation is particularly for the due process whether or not this is provided by the availability of grounds to set arbitral award aside. In other words, does it respect due process in the arbitration proceeding including information communication and technology under the online arbitration. In this paper it is discussed about how the main issue in arbitration should be implemented in online arbitration proceedings to cope with the due process requirements in national and international.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.13 no.2
• /
• pp.321-351
• /
• 2004

According to increase of Franchise Agreements, troubles related to those agreements and trading acts occur frequently. As Franchise system had come from Western countries, franchise agreement troubles tend to international disputes. In fact, those parties entered into a franchise agreement prefer arbitration to lawsuit as a dispute resolution system because arbitration is easy to risk-management for cost and time. The essential conditions for Franchise agreements are as follows ; for Franchise to grant Intellectual Properties to Franchisee, to give an impression of the same company between Franchise and Franchisee, to control and support Franchisee, for Franchisee to be an independent merchant, and to pay Franchiser license fee. Because Franchise Agreement is also based on liberty of contract, Franchise and Franchisee could enter into any kind of agreement. However, Franchiser can make an unfair agreement abusing a position of advantage. This paper check those unfair terms and conditions in Franchise agreement. Once they enter into an agreement, they should fulfil their contract. In case of trouble on performing the contract, both of them have to discuss to solve that trouble faithfully. But, they enter into either lawsuit or arbitration in accordance with agreement when they can't reach a decision in general. Specially, which is the most popular dispute resolution hands in case of Intellectual Property License agreement. General international Franchise Agreements have arbitration terms, but there is other case such as separate Arbitration Agreement if the want, which is separate from Franchise License agreement, so even though Franchise License agreement is invalidated, Arbitration agreement continues to exist, This paper reviews Franchise system and the terms of arbitration in Franchise agreement.