韓國 商業仲裁制度의 發展的 方向에 관한 硏究 = (A) Study on the Development of Commercial Arbitration System in Korea

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

The purpose of this study is placed in contribution to developing and propagating the commercial arbitration system in Korea.
It was not until 1966 that the Arbitration Law enacted in our country. However, there is a long established tradition of arbitration in Europe and the U.S.A.
Dispute-settling mechanisms in any given society range from the informal to the formal and even ritualistic. They differ as to the solutions devised and as to whether they utilize "third parties" as deciders or purposes of solutions.
One major classification is third party machinery that is binding on the disputants, but such dispute-settling machinery is not all of the same type, either in our formal legal system or in our commercial groups.
In recent years, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of transnational arbitration cases filed in arbitration centers around the world. In the past arbitrations were simple, informal procedures, handled by commercial associations or commercial lawyers located in cities such as Paris or London. They often had little litigation experience.
Today, international arbitration centers are located in Paris, London, New York, Washington, and other cities around the world and handle highly sophisticated commercial disputes, involving millions or even hundreds of million dollars, in which parties are represented by litigation attorneys from major U.S. or foreign laws firms.
Because of this rapid expansion and growth in the use of arbitration system, the system has been faced with a number o f serious difficulties. While many lawyers and businessmen advocated the use of arbitration as the bettermethod of resolving international trade disputes, they sometimes failed to warn potentialusers that the system was still in its infant stage.
The reasons commonly given for abitration-speed, lower expense, more expert decision, greater privacy--are appealing to all businessmen, and yet not all utilize arbitration.
The first factor as being theoretically important in determining whether or not a particular trade needed institutionalized use of arbitration, was the nature of the economic function being performed in relation to the movement of the goods by the association.
The second major factor that we thought would be important in determining the need for arbitration was the participation cf the members of the association in foreign trade,
The third factor is related to the kind of goods dealt with by the members of the association, One of the major areas of dispute among businessmen centers on the quality of goods involved. If, therefore, the goods are such as not .to be readily susceptible of quality determination by third persons, arbitration or, indeed, inspection, is an unlikely method of settling disputes.
Since a commercial arbitration normally arises out of contracts between the parties to the dispute, and since its major issue is usually one of either in terpretation of the contents of the contract or the measurement of performance, it is obvious that one of the factors enhancing predictability of result is the extent to which the arbitrator is aware of the meaning of the contract terms and the significance of the various aspect of performance under it.
Procedures of arbitration are as follows ; The first phase deals with the filing of the case, the selection of arbitrators, and the setting of the hearing date.
The second phase consists of the hearings themselves.
The third phase consists of the deliberations among the arbitrators. Fact-finding norms of an informed nature in commercial matters are more likely to lie in arbitrators than in a judge. In that sense, the system of arbitration has advantages over the court system although competent counsel car. supply such norms for the judge.
The process of decision at the Korean Commercial Arbitration Association is as rational as the court process in terms of the logical decision. The difficulties in arbitration are the same as those in the courts, that is, how to provide the deciders with the norms and standards that are best suited to wise decision.
Whether the best procedures have been evolved for providing such knowledge either in arbitration or in the courts without sacrificing the other real values of an adversary system seems open to question.
This paper introduces commercial arbitration system an4 rules in relation to the international commercial arbitrotion, explains the statutory provisions for commercial arbitration in our country and the United Nations convention on the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards, and furthermore makes recommendations for the development of the commercial arbitration system in Korea.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• 목차 = 1
• 第一章 序論 = 9
• 第一節 序說 = 9
• 第二節 商事仲裁의 槪念 = 11
• 一. 商事仲裁의 意義 = 11
• 二. 商事仲裁制度의 基本構造上의 特質 = 12
• 三. 類似槪念과의 區別 = 15
• 第三節 商事仲裁制度의 效用 = 19
• 第四節 商事仲裁制度의 沿革 = 21
• 一. 古代의 仲裁制度 = 21
• 二. 中世의 商事仲裁制度 = 23
• 三. 近代의 商事仲裁制度 = 25
• 四. 國際商事仲裁制度의 趨勢 = 26
• 第二章 商事仲裁에 관한 各國의 制度 = 28
• 第一節 序說 = 28
• 第二節 各國의 法制 = 28
• 一. 英美의 仲裁法 = 28
• 1. Common Law에 있어서의 仲裁 = 28
• 2. 仲裁制定法 = 29
• (1) 英國의 仲裁法 = 29
• (2) 美國의 仲裁法 = 31
• 二. 大陸法系 諸國의 仲裁法 = 33
• 1. 프랑스의 仲裁法 = 33
• 2. 이탈리아 仲裁法 = 35
• 3. 獨逸의 仲裁法 = 37
• 4. 日本의 仲裁法 = 38
• 三. 共産圈의 仲裁法 = 39
• 四. 中東國家의 仲裁法 = 41
• 第三節 仲裁에 관한 國際條約 = 42
• 一. 槪說 = 42
• 二. 外國仲裁判定의 承認 및 執行에 관한 條約 = 43
• 1. 外國仲裁判定의 承認 및 執行의 必要性 = 43
• 2. 商事仲裁規範의 統一化 運動 = 44
• 3. 제네바 議定書 = 46
• 4. 제네바協約 = 47
• 5. 뉴욕協約 = 50
• 6. 韓·日, 韓·美 仲裁協定 = 54
• 7. 韓國과 其他國家間의 仲裁協定 = 55
• 三. 世界銀行의 投資紛爭解決에 관한 協約 = 56
• 1. 沿革 = 56
• 2. 協約의 內容 = 56
• 3. 協約의 特色 = 59
• 四. UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules = 59
• 1. 國際貿易去來에 관한 統一立法의 傾向 = 59
• 2. UNCITRAL의 國際貿易法의 內容 = 61
• 3. 國際貿易法中의 國際商事仲裁法規 = 62
• 4. UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules와 韓國商事仲裁法規와의 比較 = 63
• 五. 其他의 規則 = 65
• 1. 유럽仲裁協約 = 65
• 2. ICC의 調停 및 仲裁規則 = 66
• 3. MOSCOW 協約 = 66
• 第三章 韓國의 商事仲裁制度 = 67
• 第一節 槪說 = 67
• 第二節 仲裁地 = 69
• 第三節 仲裁機關 = 70
• 一. 槪觀 = 70
• 二. 社團法人 大韓商事仲裁協會 = 71
• 1. 沿革 = 71
• 2. 政府와의 關係 = 71
• 第四節 仲裁契約 = 72
• 一. 意義 = 72
• 二. 仲裁契約의 法的 性質 = 73
• 三. 仲裁契約의 要件 = 73
• 四. 仲裁契約의 效力 = 76
• 第五節 仲裁節次 = 77
• 一. 總說 = 77
• 二. 仲裁의 申請 = 78
• 1. 申請의 要件 = 78
• 2. 仲裁申請의 受理 및 通知 = 79
• 3. 答辯書의 提出 = 80
• 4. 反對申請 (Counter-Claim) = 80
• 5. 申請의 變更 (Change in the Request) = 80
• 三. 調停에 의한 解決 = 80
• 四. 仲裁人의 選定 = 81
• 1. 總說 = 81
• 2. 仲裁人의 資格 = 81
• 3. 仲裁人의 選定方法 = 82
• 4. 仲裁人의 忌避 = 83
• 5. 仲裁人의 補闕 = 83
• 6. 仲裁人의 報酬 = 83
• 五. 審問節次 = 83
• 1. 槪說 = 83
• 2. 審問의 開始 = 84
• 3. 商事仲裁에 있어서의 證據調査 및 檢證 = 84
• 4. 審問의 終結과 再開 = 85
• 5. 審問에 의하지 아니 하는 節次 = 86
• 6. 通知의 送達 = 86
• 六. 仲裁判定 = 86
• 1. 仲裁判定의 法的性質 = 86
• 2. 仲裁判定의 要件 = 87
• 3. 仲裁判定의 效力 = 88
• 4. 仲裁判定의 取消 = 89
• 第四章 韓國 商事仲裁制度의 發展的 方向 = 92
• 第一節 序說 = 92
• 第二節 商事仲裁制度의 問題点 = 93
• 一. 法的安定性과 豫見性의 缺知 = 93
• 二. 仲裁人의 妥協的 解決態度 = 93
• 三. 仲裁人의 代理人 意識 = 94
• 四. 上訴制度의 不在 = 94
• 五. 仲裁制度의 節次上의 問題点 = 95
• 1. 當事者 缺席時의 審問 = 95
• 2. 仲裁의 辯護士 費用 = 95
• 3. 仲裁地의 決定 = 95
• 4. 相對國의 仲裁立法의 有無與否 = 96
• 5. 仲裁條項의 內容과 作成 = 96
• 第三節 商事仲裁制度의 實態와 改善策 = 98
• 一. 商事仲裁判定의 現況 = 98
• 1. 槪觀 = 98
• 2. 輸出클레임의 現況 및 分析 = 100
• 3. 1977年度 클레임 센서스 集計結果 分析 = 104
• 4. 輸出클레임의 問題点 및 그 對策 = 106
• 二. 商事仲裁制度의 展望 = 107
• 三. 商事仲裁制度의 改善策 = 107
• 1. 合同仲裁協定의 必要性 = 108
• 2. 國際判定槪念의 確立 = 109
• 3. 仲裁鑑定制度의 必要性 = 110
• 4. 仲裁人의 資質向上 = 111
• 5. 大韓商事仲裁協會의 機能强化 = 112
• 第五章 結論 = 113