• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제24권3호
• /
• pp.125-169
• /
• 2014

In France, arbitration, both domestic and international, has recently been subjected to a major reform. This article discusses the content of the 2011 reform and its aftermath, while putting into perspective the current arbitration act in South Korea, an arbitration-friendly jurisdiction that contemplates reforming its own law. The two legal systems are characterized by their concern for efficiency and rationalization of the arbitration proceedings, through the codification of essential principles previously established by case law and through the promotion of the independence of this ADR vis-$\grave{a}$-vis state courts. The efficiency consideration is strengthened at every stage of the proceedings: from the arbitration agreement often considered valid and rarely challenged, through the proceedings for annulment, recognition and enforcement of the award, up to the judicial assistance of the French supporting judge towards the actual arbitral proceedings. Finally, new concerns are emerging: the increase of transparency and the arbitrability of disputes in some uncertain fields of law.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제22권1호
• /
• pp.111-130
• /
• 2012

Judgment on the validity of patents on the subject of an arbitration does not. In other words, the occurrence of patents generated by the administrative action, and such administrative action by an authorized agency may be treated as legitimate until it is canceled. However, recent Supreme Court judgment on novelty and inventive step as well as judgments about the validity of the patent also made possible by the judiciary. This progress even in the mediation of an arbitral award which is premised on the validity of patents can be seen that possible. However, if the arbitration by an arbitrator if possible a certain portion of the limit exists. In other words, the effect of arbitration between the parties is valid. This patent is valid and invalid in arbitration even if the judgment relative to the effect ceases. In addition, the arbitration award and patent invalidation trial is in progress at the same time, if you consequently will reach a different conclusion. This can cause problems of double track. In addition, by extending the critical target recognition and enforcement in other countries can cause problems. Despite these problems, now about the validity of patents that it is possible intervention is necessary to discuss again.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제30권2호
• /
• pp.121-144
• /
• 2020

If the interim disposition of the Arbitration Tribunal is not immediately enforceable, it will only give pressure to the other party concerned and the arbitration could work against him if the other party fails to implement it. If enforcement is impossible, the disposition will have no practical effect or practical benefit. In addition, if a system is contrary to its unique characteristics or nature, it will not function as a system or it will become an unnecessary decoration. There is no room for argument that the above provisions are wrong or misinterpreted if the temporary disposition in arbitration cannot be characterized by its characteristics, such as its provisionality, urgency, incidentality, or invasibility. As attracting international arbitration cases can create enormous added value for the national economy, countries are scrambling to create a mediating-friendly legal environment in their countries, and Korea has been more active in arbitration than in the past. Despite various efforts, however, attracting international arbitration cases is still a long way off. Therefore, Korea should create a mediating-friendly, legal environment to attract arbitration cases. There are many reasons why arbitration is activated internationally, but the most important of them is that it is easier to approve and execute. The use of the approval and execution of heavy court is, in turn, the most important requirement of a mediating-friendly environment. It is natural that temporary dispositions made in arbitration should be as easy to approve and enforce as in the case of arbitration. In addition, it is natural for the parties to consider the use of approval and execution when deciding where to mediate or when applying for arbitration; thus, the degree of ease of execution, along with the procedural use of arbitration or provisional disposition, will be a measure of the likelihood of hosting international arbitration cases, as well as the activation of arbitration.