당선소감_강수미

강수미 문예운동사 2008 수필시대 Vol.3 No.-

중재판정의 효력에 관한 연구

강수미 한국중재학회 2017 중재연구 Vol.27 No.1

The effects of an arbitration agreement depend on the legislative policy of the nation where arbitral awards are made and where awards are worked out in the private procedures. According to the main body of Article 35 of the Korean Arbitration Act, arbitral awards have the same effects on the parties as the final and conclusive judgment of the court. This is only possible if the awards are formed by satisfying all the legal requirements, have gone into effect, and have become final and conclusive. It is for the legal stability and the effectiveness of the settlement of disputes that the Act grants arbitral awards. While investigating the effects of an arbitral award, the character of the arbitration in which the party’s autonomy applies should be considered, along with the substance of the disputes which parties intend to resolve by an arbitration agreement. The proviso of Article 35, which was added in the 2016 Act, says that the main body of the Article shall not apply if recognition or enforcement of arbitral awards is refused under Article 38. Two stances have been proposed in interpreting the proviso. One of them is that there are grounds for refusing the recognition and enforcement of the awards. The other one is that the ruling of the dismissal of a request for enforcement has been final and conclusive. According to the former, it is really unexplained as to its relations with the action for setting aside arbitral awards to court and the distinction between nullity and revocation, and so on. Therefore, its meaning must be comprehended on the basis of the latter so that the current Act system with revocation litigation could be kept. The procedures of setting aside, recognizing, and enforcing arbitral awards are independent of one another under the Act. It is apprehended that the duplicate regulations may lead to the concurrence or contradiction of a court’s judgment and ruling. Thus, we need to take proper measures against the negative sides by interfacing and conciliating these proceedings. 당사자 간의 중재합의에 기초한 사적 중재절차에서 이루어진 중재판정에 어떠한 효력을 인정할 것인지는 그 중재판정이 이루어진 국가의 입법정책에 의해 정해질 사항인데, 우리나라 중재법 제35조 본문에 따르면 당사자 간에 법원의 확정판결과 동일한 효력을 인정하고 있다. 중재판정에 이러한 효력이 인정되기 위해서는 중재판정이 법정의 요건을 구비하여 성립되어야 하고, 그 효력이 발생되어야 함은 물론 확정되어야 한다. 중재법이 사적 중재절차에서 이루어진 중재판정에 확정판결과 동일한 효력, 즉 기판력을 인정하는 것은 분쟁해결의 실효성을 확보함으로써 법적 안정성을 도모하기 위한 것으로 볼 수 있다. 다만 중재판정의 효력의 구체적인 내용을 검토함에 있어서는 중재합의에 근거하여 개시된 중재절차에서 이루어진 중재판정은 당사자의 의사에 따른 것으로 볼 수 있다는 중재제도 자체의 특성 및 당사자가 중재합의를 통해 해결하고자 하였던 분쟁의 실체를 고려하여야 한다. 2016년 개정을 통해 신설된 중재법 제35조 단서규정과 관련해서는, 중재판정의 승인·집행이 거절되는 경우에는 확정판결과 동일한 효력이 인정되지 않는다는 것을 중재판정에 승인·집행거부사유가 존재하는 경우로 볼 것인지, 아니면 중재판정에 승인·집행거부사유가 존재함을 이유로 승인·집행신청을 기각한 결정이 확정된 경우를 의미하는 경우로 볼 것인지가 문제된다. 전자의 의미로 해석할 경우 중재법상의 중재판정취소의 소와의 관계나 무효와 취소의 구별 등을 제대로 설명하기 어려운 측면이 있다. 따라서 위 단서규정의 의미를 중재판정의 승인·집행신청을 기각한 결정이 확정된 때를 의미하는 것으로 이해하는 것이 중재판정취소의 소가 현존하는 현행 중재법의 체제를 유지할 수 있는 해석일 것이다. 취소사유가 존재하는 중재판정에 대하여 승인·집행이 허용되어서는 안 되고, 승인·집행이 허용되어서는 안 되는 중재판정은 취소되어야 하는데, 중재법상 중재판정의 취소와 승인·집행은 별개의 제도로 인정되고 있는 결과, 동일한 중재판정이 이중의 규율을 받아 이에 대한 법원의 판단이 경합하거나 모순·저촉될 염려가 있으므로, 이를 적절히 조절할 필요가 있다.

투자협정중재에 의한 중재판정의 승인·집행에 대한 뉴욕협약 적용에 관한 고찰

강수미 한국중재학회 2019 중재연구 Vol.29 No.1

As international transactions have grown more numerous, situations of disputes related to the transactions are getting more complicated and more diverse. Cost-effective remedies to settle the disputes through traditional methods such as adjudications of a court will be insufficient. Therefore, nations are attempting to more efficiently solve investor-state disputes through arbitration under organizations such as the ICSID Convention, the ICSID Additionary Facility Rules, and the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules by including the provisions on investor-state dispute settlement at the conclusion of an investment agreement. In case of an arbitration under the ICSID Convention, ICSID directly exercises the supervisorial function on arbitral proceedings, and there is no room for the intervention of national courts. In time of the arbitration where the ICSID Convention does not apply, however, the courts have to facilitate the arbitral proceedings. When the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award under the ICSID Convention are guaranteed by the Convention, it should be considered that the New York Convention does not apply to them under the Convention Article 7 (1) fore-end. In exceptional cases in which an arbitral award under the ICSID Convention cannot be recognized or enforced by the Convention, the New York Convention applies to the recognition and enforcement because the award is not a domestic award of the country in which the recognition or enforcement is sought. It is up to an interpretation of the New York Convention whether the New York Convention applies to ISDS arbitral awards not based on the ICSID Convention or not. Although an act of the host country is about sovereign activities, a host country and the country an investor is in concurring to the investment agreement with the ISDS provisions is considered a surrender of sovereignty immunity, and it will not suffice to exclude the investment disputes from the scope of application of the New York Convention. If the party to the investment agreement has declared commercial reservation at its accession into the New York Convention, it should be viewed that the Convention applies to the recognition and enforcement of the ISDS awards to settle the disputes over an investitive act, inasmuch as the act will be considered as a commercial transaction. When the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award on investment disputes about a nation’s sovereign act have been sought in Korea and Korea has been designated the place of the investment agreement arbitration as a third country, it should be reviewed whether the disputes receive arbitrability under the Korean Arbitration Act or not. 국제거래가 다양해짐에 따라 거래 관련 분쟁의 태양 또한 복잡·다양해질 수밖에 없는데, 이러한 분쟁을 소송 등 전통적인 분쟁해결방법으로 해결하고자 할 경우 효율적인 권리구제에 미흡할 수 있다. 따라서 국가간의 투자협정 체결시에 투자자와 투자유치국간의 투자분쟁을 해결하기 위한 ISDS규정을 둠으로써 ICSID협약에 따른 중재, ICSID 추가절차규칙이나 UNCITRAL 중재규칙에 의한 중재 등을 통한 투자분쟁의 효율적 해결을 도모하고 있다. ICSID협약에 따른 중재의 경우에는 ICSID가 중재절차를 감독하는 기능을 직접 담당함으로써 국가법원의 감독이 개입될 여지가 없지만, ICSID협약의 적용을 받지 않는 중재의 경우에는 국가법원이 중재절차를 감독기능을 담당하게 된다. 국가법원의 감독을 받지 않는 ICSID협약에 따른 중재판정에 대한 승인·집행이 ICSID협약에 의해 보증되어 있는 경우에는 뉴욕협약 제7조 제1항 전단에 의해 뉴욕협약이 적용되지 않는 것으로 보아야 한다. ICSID협약에 따른 중재판정을 ICSID협약에 따라 승인·집행할 수 없는 예외적인 경우 그러한 중재판정은 그 승인·집행지국의 내국판정이 아니므로 뉴욕협약의 적용대상이 되는 것으로 볼 수 있다. ICSID협약에 따르지 않은 ISDS 중재판정이 뉴욕협약의 적용대상이 되는지 여부는 뉴욕협약의 해석문제가 될 것인데, 오늘날 기업의 국제적 활동이 증가하는 가운데 국제투자의 발전 및 국제투자에서 발생하는 분쟁의 중재에 의한 원활한 해결을 도모하는 것이 뉴욕협약의 목적에 부합하게 될 것이다. 투자유치국의 행위가 주권적 활동과 관련이 있더라도 투자유치국과 투자자 소속국가간의 투자협정에서 중재에 의한 분쟁해결을 합의한 때에는 주권면제를 포기한 것으로 볼 수 있으므로 투자분쟁을 뉴욕협약의 적용대상에서 제외시켜서는 안 될 것이다. 투자협정의 체약국이 뉴욕협약 가입시 상사유보선언을 한 경우에도 투자자의 투자행위는 상행위에 해당하는 것으로 볼 수 있으므로, 이러한 투자행위로부터 발생한 분쟁을 해결하기 위한 ISDS 중재판정을 상사유보선언을 한 국가에서 승인·집행하는 때에는 뉴욕협약이 적용되는 것으로 보아야 할 것이다. 국가의 주권적 행위에 관한 투자분쟁에 대한 중재판정의 승인·집행이 대한민국에서 요구된 경우와 대한민국이 제3국으로서 투자협정중재의 중재지로 지정된 경우에는 해당 투자분쟁이 우리나라의 중재법상 중재적격을 가지는지를 검토하여야 한다.

仲裁合意의 成立 내지 效力에 관한 準據法

강수미 韓國仲裁學會 2006 중재연구 Vol.16 No.2

If the existence and effect of the arbitration agreement becomes an issue in international business transactions, it is the key point how we shall determine the applicable law by national rules for the conflict of laws, or by other methods. The argument in determination of the applicable law to the existence and effect of the arbitration agreement is related to regal nature of the arbitration agreement. As there are foreign factors in international arbitration, therefore we must consider such an aspect. Besides, we have to examine whether the general theory of contract is universally applicable to the arbitration agreement. Currently, it is the general trend that the party's autonomy principle is applicable in determining the applicable law for the arbitration agreement. However, it is a difficult problem to recognize the applicable law chosen by the parties, whether it is based on any regal standard(for example New York Convention or the private international law or the essential quality of the arbitration agreement). In the light of the actual transactions, when the parties don't make a choice of the applicable law expressly, it will finally come down to presuming the party's implied intent. Nevertheless, finding the implied intent is a difficult problem. Some argue that we shall presume the choice of applicable law by an objective standard such as a place of arbitration, to prevent too much expansion of the scope of the recognition. But we need to review that this interpretation harmonizes with the principle of party autonomy. Especially, if we desire to detect the vital point where it is most closely linked to the arbitration agreement, we have to inquire how we will decide such a relation by means of any standard. However, as the existing Arbitration Act doesn't offer the solution to these issues, therefore we have to settle these problems through the development of adjudications and theories.

다수당사자중재에 있어서 중재인 선정방법

강수미 韓國仲裁學會 2008 중재연구 Vol.18 No.2

When several parties are involved in a dispute, it is usually considered desirable that the issues should be dealt with in the same proceedings, rather than in a series of separate proceedings. This saves time and money, It avoids the possibility of conflicting decisions on the same issues of law and fact, since all issues are determined by the same tribunal at the same time. Where there is a multi-party arbitration, it may be because there are several parties to one contract, or it may be because there are several contracts with different parties that have a bearing on the matters in dispute. In international trade and commerce, for individuals, corporations or state agencies to join together in a joint venture or consortium or in some other legal relationship of this kind, in order to enter into a contract with another party or parties, where such a contract contains an arbitration clause and a dispute arises, the members of the consortium or joint venture may decided that they would each like to appoint an arbitrator. A different problem arises where there are several contracts with different parties, each of which has a bearing on the issues in dispute. A major international construction project is likely to involve not only the employer and the main contractor, but also a host of special suppliers and sub-contractors. Each of them will be operating under different contracts often with different choice of law and arbitration clauses. The appointment of the arbitrator or the composition of the arbitral tribunal should be in accordance with the agreement of the parties. The parties have to be equally treated in the constituting of the arbitral tribunal and the arbitral proceedings. However, the right of the parties to nominate a member of the arbitral tribunal could be taken away from them, if they are subject to the restrictions by means of the law of the country where the arbitration is taking place. That is, multiple parties jointly should nominate one arbitrator, where there they have to exercise their substantive right in common, or one of them exert his substantive right, then it has an effect on another parties, or they, whether as claimant or as respondent, get the same or similar treatment in the arbitral procedure. Therefore it is necessary to intend to settle multi-party disputes quickly and efficiently.

WTO 보복조치의 동등요건에 관한 연구

강수미 한국중재학회 2013 중재연구 Vol.23 No.2

The World Trade Organization (WTO) offers remedies for non-compliance by the introduction of compensation or retaliation in the Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU). There are no the provisions under the WTO DSU and it seems unclear what retaliation is attempting to achieve. Therefore, it is unclear whether the goal of WTO retaliation is to induce compliance or to restore the balance between the rights and the obligations of WTO members. It has been claimed the WTO has a strong dispute settlement system by providing retaliation when the recommendations and rulings of Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) are not complied with. But this seems to be inadequate to bring about effective and timely compliance. Especially there is a problem with free riding by a violating member because the level of retaliation is determined from the expiration of a reasonable period of time, providing an incentive to delay compliance. Also the level of the suspension of concessions or other obligations authorized by the DSB is equivalent to the level of nullification or impairment, according to DSU Article 22.4. However, if the member concerned objections to the level of the suspension proposed, the matter shall be referred to arbitration. The arbitrator shall not examine the nature of the suspension of concessions or other obligations to be suspended but shall determine whether the level of such suspension is equivalent to the nullification or impairment. The arbitrator makes an assessment standard of equivalence by comparing the suspension of concessions or other obligations and the nullification or impairment calculated in terms of the amount of trade. But it is necessary that other standards replace the quantitative standards when the level of the nullification or impairment cannot be quantified by concrete damages.

말없는 나무

강수미 문예운동사 2017 수필시대 Vol.12 No.7·8

미국 연방민사소송규칙상의 소송참가에 관한 고찰

강수미 한국민사소송법학회 2011 민사소송 Vol.15 No.1

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure establishes only intervention requirements, doesn’t provide intervention effects. Federal Rule 24 distinguishes between intervention as of right and permissive intervention. When intervention as of right, there is an implicit judgment that the nonparty’s right to right to participate should predominate; when intervention is declared to be permissive only, the court must ascertain whether the interests of the original parties will be prejudiced by allowing the outsider access to the litigation. Whether the intervention sought is as of right or permissive, an application for leave to intervene must be timely. The court which shall decide as to whether or not to permit an intervention, intervenor’s status in the U. S. considers the concrete circumstances in the individual cases and the details of an intervenor’s interests. The discrimination between intervention as of right and permissive intervention is not practically definite and there is the tendency to consider miscellaneous factors in defining the boundaries of an intervenor’s authority. Therefore, it would seem that intervention is not perfect system. However, it is worthy of notice the operating situation that represents an attempt to adjust the competing interests of the existing parties and those who seeking to participate. When intervention is an issue, it is necessary to take the background to the intervention into consideration and accommodate the procedural rights of the original parties and the intervenor. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure establishes only intervention requirements, doesn’t provide intervention effects. Federal Rule 24 distinguishes between intervention as of right and permissive intervention. When intervention as of right, there is an implicit judgment that the nonparty’s right to right to participate should predominate; when intervention is declared to be permissive only, the court must ascertain whether the interests of the original parties will be prejudiced by allowing the outsider access to the litigation. Whether the intervention sought is as of right or permissive, an application for leave to intervene must be timely. The court which shall decide as to whether or not to permit an intervention, intervenor’s status in the U. S. considers the concrete circumstances in the individual cases and the details of an intervenor’s interests. The discrimination between intervention as of right and permissive intervention is not practically definite and there is the tendency to consider miscellaneous factors in defining the boundaries of an intervenor’s authority. Therefore, it would seem that intervention is not perfect system. However, it is worthy of notice the operating situation that represents an attempt to adjust the competing interests of the existing parties and those who seeking to participate. When intervention is an issue, it is necessary to take the background to the intervention into consideration and accommodate the procedural rights of the original parties and the intervenor.

중재판정 취소사유를 확장한 중재합의의 효력에 관한 고찰 - 미국에서의 논의를 중심으로 -

강수미 한국중재학회 2022 중재연구 Vol.32 No.1

FAA는 미국에서의 중재 촉진을 입법목적으로 하고 있으며, 연방대법원의 Volt 판결이 확인한 바와 같이 당사자자치의 광범위한 허용을 기본 정책으로 채택하고 있다. 그런데 FAA 상의 당사자자치의 존중이라는 관점에서 취소사유를 확장한 중재합의의 효력을 인정할 수 있는지에 관하여는 견해가 대립하고 있다. 특히 FAA 제10조에 규정된 취소사유가 한정적 열거인지, 예시적 열거인지가 다투어지고 있는데, 이와 관련하여 중재판정에 대한 사법심사의 범위를 확장한 당사자 합의의 효력에 관한 법원의 판결도 서로 갈리는 상황에 있었다. 그런데 연방대법원은 Hall Street 사건에서 FAA 규정의 문언상으로 제10조와 제11조가 배타적인 사법심사사유를 규정한 것으로 판단하였고, FAA 제9조 내지 제11조를 분쟁의 신속한 해결을 위해 필요한 한정적인 사법심사를 통해 중재 우호적인 국가정책을 실현하기 위한 규정으로 보았다. 그러나 이 사건에서 연방대법원은 FAA가 중재판정에 대한 사법심사를 요구할 수 있는 유일한 수단이 아니라고 함으로써 법원이 직접 판단한 사항보다 더 많은 새로운 문제가 제기되었다고 할 수 있다. 그리고 중재합의에서의 당사자자치와 중재판정의 종국성의 충돌 문제는 장래 다른 쟁점을 포함하는 형태로 다시 법원에서 다투어질 여지가 있을 것이다. 취소사유를 확장한 중재합의의 효력은 이러한 합의가 허용되는 법제하에서 당사자가 명시적으로 그러한 합의를 한 경우에 한해 인정되는 것으로 보아야 할 것이다.

법인 아닌 사단에 관한 고찰 – 판례를 중심으로 –

강수미 한국민사소송법학회 2012 민사소송 Vol.16 No.1

In judging whether there is a capacity for being a party, it is governed by the Civil Act and other Acts unless otherwise prescribed in the Civil Procedure Act. According to Article 52 of the Civil Procedure Act, an association without judicial personality, in case where it has a representative, become a party to a lawsuit in the name of such association. Even the organization which doesn’t have a legal personality become a party to a civil procedure, but it is restricted to the positive law that is implemented at the present time. Only the organization that is considered as an independent unit of social activities by executing operations of an executive and a representative agency become a party to a civil litigation. Considering that an association without judicial personality doesn’t have a legal personality and a piece of property is owned collectively by the members of an association which is not a juristic person belongs to collective ownership, when an association without judicial personality performs the litigation as a party, it is necessary to interpret relevant Acts congruously. It would be desirable that the area of the law incorporates an association without judicial personality by applying on the analog of the Civil Act provisions on an incorporated association except ones are premised on a juristic personality, and we should resolve efficiently the disputes are related to an association without judicial personality. Doing so would be inconsistent with the legislative purpose of Article 52 Civil Procedure Act. When an association without judicial personality is a party of a legal relationship within the scope of its objects, we should understand that the legal effect reaches the association without judicial personality by the analog with Article 34 of Civil Act. If so, it would be possible to explain appropriately the structure of the lawsuit which an association without judicial personality is a party, especially the standing to sue of an action claiming performance and the sphere of the effect of the judgement.