• 의정연구
• /
• 제25권2호
• /
• pp.141-177
• /
• 2019

본 연구는 법체계(legal system)를 중심으로 국가 간 부패인식수준의 차이를 설명한 선행연구를 비판적으로 검토하고 역사 결정론적 성격을 완화한 법문화(legal culture) 개념에 주목했다. 사법문화를 자국 사법체계에 대한 시민들의 공유된 인식으로 정의하고, 이를 사법서비스에 대한 접근성과 법원(재판)의 공정성에 대한 시민인식으로 포착하여 국가 간 부패수준의 차이를 설명하고자 했다. 78개국을 대상으로 한 교차국가분석을 통해 1) 법원(재판)의 공정성이 부패인식의 국가 간 차이를 일관되고 통계적으로 유의하게 설명하고 있다는 점과 2) 사법서비스에 대한 접근성은 국가 간 부패인식수준의 차이를 설명하지 못한다는 점을 확인했다. 연구결과가 갖는 정책적 함의는 부패방지뿐만 아니라 광의의 사법정의 실현을 위한 개혁의 초점은 법조서비스의 공급측면보다는 법관의 중립성과 독립성을 저해하는 관행과 제도의 개선에 두어야 한다는 점이다. 아울러 사법문화의 요체가 자국 사법시스템에 대한 시민들의 공유된 인식이라고 정의한 바와 같이, 본 연구는 평등하고 공정한 사법절차에 대한 폭넓고 견고한 시민의식이 "공권력의 사적 오·남용인 부패"를 방지하는 필수 불가결의 사법문화임을 주장한다.

• 한국조리학회지
• /
• 제13권1호
• /
• pp.1-10
• /
• 2007

Co-branding of food courts is turning into a trend with the activation of recent entrance of famous restaurants into shopping departments and other large-size buildings. This research analyzes the effects of co-brand food courts on the choices of dining enterprises by dealing with the customers of these newly activated food courts in shopping malls and large-size buildings. By analyzing the effects of the present status of customers' using food courts according to the characteristics of their choices of dining enterprises, food and brand elements were found to have an effect on the restaurant brand recognition of food courts, and price factor was found to have an effect on an visitors' recommendation intension. Therefore, customers who set importance on food and brand elements tend to take the brand of food courts into consideration as well; therefore, the maintenance of food quality and strengthening of brand image are mandatory in case of food court operation.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제12권2호
• /
• pp.263-302
• /
• 2003

Since new Korean arbitration law was modeledafter UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration Law, the judicial review on the arbitral award is at most limited to fundamental procedural justice. Thus, drafting valid arbitration clause is paramount important to enforce arbitral awards in the new legal environment. A losing party in arbitral process would often claim of the invalidity of arbitration agreement to challenge the arbitral award. Especially, the validity of arbitration clause in the construction contracts is often challenged in Korean courts. This is because the construction contracts usually include selective arbitration agreement in multi-tiered dispute resolution clause that is drafted ambiguous or uncertain. In this paper selective arbitration agreement means a clause in a contract that provides that party may choose arbitration or litigation to resolve disputes arising out of the concerned contract. On the hand multi-tiered dispute resolution clause means a clause in a contract that provides for distinct stages such as negotiation, mediation or arbitration. However, Korean courts are not in the same position on the validity of selective arbitration agreementin multi-tiered dispute resolution clause. Some courts in first instance recognized its validity on the ground that parties still intend to arbitrate in the contract despite the poor drafted arbitration clause. Other courts reject its validity on the ground that parties did not intend to resort to arbitration only with giving up their right to sue at courts to resolve their disputes by choosing selective arbitration agreement. Several cases are recently on pending at the Supreme Courts, which decision is expected to yield the court's position in uniform way. Having reviewed recent Korean courts' decisions on validity and applicability of arbitration agreement, this article suggests that courts are generally in favor of arbitration system It is also found that some courts' decisions narrowly interpreted the concerned stipulations in arbitration law despite they are in favorable position to the arbitration itself. However, most courts in major countries broadly interpret arbitration clause in favor of validity of selective arbitration agreement even if the arbitration clause is poorly drafted but parties are presume to intend to arbitrate. In conclusion it is desirable that selective arbitration agreement should be interpreted favorable to the validity of arbitration agreement. It is time for Korean courts to resolve this issue in the spirit of UNCITRAL model arbitration law which the new Korean arbitration law is based on.

• 의료법학
• /
• 제10권2호
• /
• pp.11-36
• /
• 2009

This thesis introduces the trends of korean courts' ruling on damages in medical malpractice cases for past 10 years. First of all, Korean courts' ruling have had a tendency to pay only non-economic damages for not taking the informed consent. If a doctor cannot get the informed consent from a patient, he compensate only non-economic damages for the infringement of self-determination rights of patient. It's enough for the plaintiff to prove the infringement of self-determination rights, if the plaintiff just want to get non-economic damages. The Korean Supreme court have ruled that if plaintiffs want to get economic damages for the infringement of self-determination rights or informed consent, plaintiffs must prove that the infringement of self-determination rights is the proximate cause of the economic damages of patient. There is another tendency for the Korean Supreme court to limit the damages in medical malpractice cases on the ground of patient's diseases' dangerousness or patient's idiosyncrasy. In the past courts often limit the damages only to 70~80% of total damages, but now a days courts mostly limit the damages to 20~30%. This thesis also introduce the Korean courts' trends about Valuing damages in personal injury actions awarded for gratuitously rendered nursing and medical care.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제22권2호
• /
• pp.53-77
• /
• 2012

Competence-competence refers to an arbitratorpower to determine whether he or she has jurisdiction to decide a controversy. Although arbitrators power to rule on their own jurisdiction is generally recognized throughout the world, in the United States, neither the courts nor legislative bodies have recognized its significance or the reasoning behind its widespread adoption. Section 3 of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) is notorious among arbitration statues for its failure to incorporate competence-competence. When courts rule on an issue of competence-competence, it is referred to as a question of who decides the arbitrability of the case. In the United States, the use of competence-competence as a term of art is still limited to scholarly writings. The answer to the competence-competence inquiry is found in an interpretation of section 3 of the FAA which empowers the courts to decide arbitrability issues. The cases of the Supreme Court and most commentators interpreted sections 2 and 3 of the FAA as conferring issues of arbitrability on the federal courts, including the ability to rule on the validity and scope of the arbitral agreement. Traditionally, United States courts have denied the competence-competence to arbitral tribunal. Recently, however, they have confounded the rules by placing primary importance on the arbitration agreement between the parties. The Supreme Court, in a series of cases, has underscored the necessity of giving full effect to the intentions of the parties as expressed in their agreement to arbitrate. The result of the Supreme Court's emphasis on contractualism in determining the issue of arbitrability is most evident in the Courtdecision in the First Options case. Under First Options, courts are to decide arbitrability issues unless there is a clear and unmistakable contractual assignment of these issues to the tribunal itself. The Court is appraised that it has attempted to compromise between contractual freedom in the arbitration setting and the rule of law that is necessary in a society that depends on the concept of ordered liberty. In the decision in Howsam, the Court clarified the definition of arbitrability by attempting to draw a clear line between questions of arbitrability that are to be decided by courts and those matters that bear on the allocation of decisions between courts and arbitrators but are not questions of arbitrability.

• Journal of Korea Trade
• /
• 제24권6호
• /
• pp.101-114
• /
• 2020

Purpose - This paper examines the "Arrangement Concerning Mutual Assistance in Court-ordered Interim Measures in Aid of Arbitral Proceedings by the Courts of the Mainland and of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region" (the Arrangement), which became effective on October 1, 2019, calling on courts of mainland China and Hong Kong for reciprocal commitment in support of court-ordered interim measures in aid of arbitral proceedings. Because the Hong Kong courts have granted interim measures in aid of arbitral proceedings seated in and outside of Hong Kong even prior to the Arrangement becoming effective, this paper focuses on the significance of the Arrangement making Hong Kong the first and only seat outside of mainland China from which parties to arbitral proceedings may successfully obtain interim measures to preserve of assets, properties, and/or evidence from Chinese courts to be enforced in China. Design/methodology - The significance of interim measures in international arbitration and the existing circumstances of interim measures in support of international arbitral proceedings in mainland China and Hong Kong are discussed first in this paper. Due to the confidential nature of arbitral proceedings, while the details of applications for interim measures pursuant to the Arrangement cannot be discussed, in examining the implications of the Arrangement, the relevant and necessary information was made available from the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre, as it is one of the six qualified arbitral institutions under the Arrangement. Findings - This groundbreaking Arrangement provides a mechanism for parties with China-related matters to more effectively resolve their disputes, the opportunity for Hong Kong to become an unparalleled seat of arbitration, and for mainland China to overcome some of its negative perceptions in international arbitration. Because the Arrangement also allows parties to directly apply for interim measures from mainland Chinese courts, parties with China-related matters should take note of this potential bypassing of the procedural hurdle, which usually requires an arbitral institution to submit such applications in China, and make strategic decisions accordingly as may be appropriate. Originality/value - Because the Arrangement is a recent yet a significant agreement calling on courts of mainland China and Hong Kong for reciprocal commitment in support of court-ordered interim measures in aid of arbitral proceedings, this study will provide useful guidance for parties with China-related matters all over the world, especially in light of China's rapid economic growth and extensive and prominent trade relationships in today's world. Parties who foresee the need for interim measures from mainland Chinese courts should designate Hong Kong as their seat of arbitration and select one of the six qualified arbitral institutions under the Arrangement to administer their arbitral proceedings in order to benefit from the Arrangement.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제30권
• /
• pp.91-120
• /
• 2006

An Arbitration agreement is one kind of contracts between two or more contracting parties; any possible disputes that arise concerning a contract will be settled by arbitration. Contracting parties who have made a valid arbitration agreement will submit a dispute for settlement to private persons(arbitrators) instead of to a court. Arbitration may depend upon the agreement of the private parties, but it is also a system which has been built on the law and which relies upon that law in order to make it effective both nationally and internationally. That is to say, arbitration is wholly dependent on the underlying support of the court. The complementarity of the courts and of the arbitrators is a well-established fact; they seek for the common purpose, the efficacy of international commercial arbitration. Most states' laws contain the provisions which have been set for the supportive role of the courts relating to arbitration; (1) the enforcement of the arbitration agreement(rulings on validity of the arbitration agreement), and the establishment of the tribunal at the beginning of the arbitration, (2) challenge of arbitrators, interim measures, and intervention during evidence in the middle of the arbitral proceedings, (3) filing of the award, challenge of the arbitral award, and recognition and enforcement of the arbitral award at the end of the arbitration. Most international instruments and national laws concerning arbitration believe that authoritative courts should play their power not to control and supervise arbitration but to support and develop the merits of arbitration at most. 1985 UNCITRAL Model Law also expressly limit the scope of court's intervention to assist arbitration, not to control it.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제16권2호
• /
• pp.121-150
• /
• 2006

Under the New York Convention, parties can petition the courts of the United States to confirm foreign arbitral awards. Although there is no definition in the Convention for 'non-domestic' awards, in the United States, federal and state courts read the Convention broadly and interpret this as permitting the enforcing authority to supply its own definition of 'non-domestic' in conformity with its own domestic law. There are a number of federal cases on this point. The court preferred this broad construction of 'non-domestic' awards because it comported with the intended purpose of the Convention, which was entered into to encourage the recognition and enforcement of international arbitral awards. This means that in applying the New York Convention, U.S. courts have responded to the underlying spirit rather than the technical letter of the Convention. In brief, the New York Convention has much broader application in the United States. It is applicable not only to awards rendered outside of the United States, but also to non-domestic awards rendered within United States. As this article suggests, the general attitude towards foreign awards is more pro-enforcement in the United States, whether the award is rendered in favor of the American party or in favor of the foreign party.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제24권3호
• /
• pp.79-103
• /
• 2014

In light of increasing international trade in recent years, international arbitration has been more widely used by international parties to resolve their conflicts. Thus, the need for reliable and effective enforcement of foreign arbitral awards has amplified. To facilitate the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards, the New York Convention lists grounds for the refusal of recognition and enforcement in Article V. This paper examines prominent U.S. case law on Article V(1)(b), which is put in place to ensure that arbitration proceedings are conducted properly in accordance with due process requirements: proper notice to parties and an opportunity to a fundamentally fair hearing. This examination of case law conveys that U.S. courts refuse to enforce foreign arbitral awards pursuant to Article V(1)(b) only when due process rights of the party against whom the award is to be enforced are clearly violated by the arbitral tribunal. This paper also reveals that U.S. courts mainly defer to arbitral tribunals' discretion, especially as to evidentiary matters. Therefore, it is predicted that U.S. courts will likely continue to narrowly construe the grounds in Article V to facilitate reliable and effective enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in the U.S.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제12권2호
• /
• pp.93-114
• /
• 2003

The Federal Arbitration Act and the States Arbitration acts of the United States approve that the an arbitration clause should be construed broadly and the Courts interpreted it broadly without being curbed by the written meaning of clause itself. The Courts also divided the interpretation of arbitration clause from the interpretation of other clauses of contract to approve the validity of arbitration clause and further expanded the scope of arbitration. However, the Arbitration Act of Korea does not specify a general principle about how an arbitration clause should be interpreted. The Supreme Court did not have a case yet but the lower courts kept their posture that an arbitration clause should be clear by resulting narrow interpretation and should be written to the extent that it excludes the power of courts from jurisdiction. As a result, there would be cases that arbitration is not permitted although an arbitration clause exists. The parties intending arbitration are frustrated about how to draft an arbitration clause into their agreement. There were the cases that the parties which took the prevailing position attempted to delay dispute resolutions by dragging disputes into litigation even if they agreed to resolve through arbitration, on the basis that an arbitration clause was incomplete. Although the arbitration statutes of the United States cannot apply in Korea, the way of their approaches to the interpretation of arbitration clause can be taken into consideration in view of the globalization of arbitration.