* 현재 컨텐츠 정보를 준비 중에 있습니다.

[닫기]

Arbitration has become the most momentous means among the alternative dispute resolution, not by a court trial. Particularly in international business transactions, arbitration is preferred over litigation due to lack of understanding of language and legal culture, difficulties in case of possible bias, and prejudiced judgment in the court of the other country. Nevertheless, the private autonomous dispute resolution method, is inextricably linked to the role of the courts in advancing the arbitration proceedings and approving and executing the arbitral awards. With the utmost respect for the party s intention to resolve disputes by arbitration, there is little doubt that the court should consider the extent of its involvement in them to a minimum, and that it will need the court s procedural support for an efficient and swift resolution. It cannot be overemphasized that the most important thing in the process is the agreement of the parties. In other words, it is the position of precedent and practice that, when an arbitration violation is disputed in an approval or enforcement proceeding, it is most important that the agreement of the parties and the willingness of the parties are more important than the object or extent of the violation. The issue of waiving the right to appeal should not be mentioned by overextending the effect of arbitration agreements, and as the use of arbitration as a means of dispute resolution in various international business transactions, the disobedience of those who lost in the arbitration is increasing proportionately, too, citing various previously unforeseen reasons. It cannot be neglected that another dispute should not arise in the process of dispute resolution through arbitration. Equally accentuated is the need to accept international coordination or conformity in the process of overhauling and implementing institutional procedures for the development of arbitration procedures. The main purpose of this article is to introduce, with some analysis, the Supreme Court s cases and low-level court practices(II). In addition, after reviewing the 2016 Amendment Arbitration Act concerning the recognition and enforcement of arbitration awards and some issues that still remain open to interpretation(III), It will be examined briefly the current practices so far since the amended Arbitration Act in 2016(Ⅳ). 중재판정의 승인과 집행(Recognition or Enforcement of Arbitral Awards), 중재판정 취소사유(Lawsuit for Setting Aside Arbitral Awards), 중재합 의의 서면성(the writing requirement of arbitration agreement), 중재판정 부의 구성과 중재절차(The composition of the arbitral tribunal or arbitral proceedings), 국제적 공사(international public order), 2016년 개정 중재 법(the revised Arbitration Act of 2016)

[닫기]