연구논문 : 선택적 중재조항에 대한 소고

최성수 ( Sung Soo Choi ) 단국대학교 법학연구소 2014 법학논총 Vol.38 No.3

Clearly there are aspects that optional arbitration clause is not valid in the side of the nature of the arbitration itself. And it more or less implies the possession of the problems in terms of ensuring legal stability. And giving one party the right to choose the forum is unfair and may offend public policy. As a result, using an optional arbitration clause may increase the risk of a court refusing to give effect to an arbitration agreement, by taking jurisdiction over a dispute or by refusing to enforce an award. The problem lies in the fact that the optional arbitration clause is used especially in government contract. If we deny the validity of the optional arbitration clause in government contract, we can face the issue of validity of the contract itself in reality, so it is practically inevitable that we need to interpret it as a valid direction. On the one hand, it should be considered that it leads the consequences of the limit of the access to the arbitration, if we do not allow a arbitration clause. But logical development to admit the validity of the optional arbitration clause is also possible not just by policy reasons, but also by theory. Even though the arbitration agreement itself is selected with litigation, we can recognize the validity of the optional arbitration agreement by widely admitting the arbitration agreement, in the condition that it does not require only exclusive arbitration agreement is valid in the Arbitration Act. Since arbitration is the product of the exercise of contractual freedom, parties will naturally be inclined to make the process fit their predilections. So the issue is how we can constrain the economically stronger party not to use that freedom to their advantage. It is resonable that the parties` freedom should be circumscribed when maintenance of arbitration as a socially acceptable form of dispute resolution for both parties so requires. Thus, even though the optional arbitration clause is inserted in a government contract, it is considerable that it implies the first principle of arbitration is perceived in the optional arbitration clause. The court should be contributing to activation of arbitration, if possible, by inducing to arbitration when the case containing the optional arbitration clause is filed. To be on the safe side, parties should investigate whether such unilateral optional arbitration clauses are valid under (a) the law at the seat of the arbitration, (b) the law governing the arbitration agreement, if different, and (c) the law at the place where enforcement is likely to be sought. In any event, optional clauses need to be drafted with care, to ensure it is clear how, when and by whom the option may be exercised, to avoid a pathological clause.

국제투자계약상의 중재조항(Arbitration Clause)의 주요 구성요소에 관한 연구

오원석(Oh Won Suk),서경(Seo Kyung) 한국무역상무학회 2008 貿易商務硏究 Vol.38 No.-

  The purpose of this paper is to examine the major elements of Arbitration Clause in international investment contracts and to help the investor, especially foreign investors, considering these elements when they draft the contracts.<BR>  First of all, to describe the extent of the arbitrable issues broadly is very important by using the phrase such as "disputes in connection with". Furthermore in order to be enforceable, the issues must be a subject-matter to be submitted to arbitration in accordance with the laws of the place of arbitration and the law application to the merits of the disputes (N.Y. Convention, Art. Ⅱ). Second, the appointment of the arbitrators usually shall be based on the principle of freedom of contract. If the parties do not agree on the appointment, it is decided in accordance with the arbitration rules of the institution by the tribunal. Third, the procedural rules of the arbitration are the arbitration rules of the arbitration institution in case of institution arbitration, unless otherwise agreed. Forth, what is the most importance element of Arbitration Clause is the place of arbitration. In this case, also the principle of freedom of contract has priority.<BR>  Unless otherwise agreed, Washington is the place of arbitration in case of ICSID Arbitration, but in case of ICC Arbitration, neutral third country may be the place of arbitration. However in case of ad hoc arbitration, both parties should indicate the place. If not, the whole arbitration may be paralysed by an uncooperative party.<BR>  Besides the major elements, I examined the relation between the arbitration clause and award enforcement in terms of sovereign immunity. The enforcement of awards in the field of state contracts many encounter the problem of the sovereign immunity, which means that the State itself or the State enterprise is the contract partner. To avoid the this problems, it is advisable for the parties insert the clause such as ICSID Model Clause XIX.

국제중재에서 비계약상 청구에 대한 계약에 포함된 준거법조항의 적용과 그 한계

김인호 국제거래법학회 2017 國際去來法硏究 Vol.26 No.1

Arbitration is a flexible dispute-resolution mechanism resorting to arbitrators’ expertise and experience in considering the nature and content of the dispute, and the relationship of the parties. On the other hand it is necessary to promote the foreseeability of the parties by preventing arbitrary decision of the arbitral tribunal. An arbitration agreement between the parties is often contained in the contract to function as a part of the dispute-resolution mechanism for disputes arising out of the contractual relationship between the parties. Also the contract often contains a choice-of-law clause designating its governing law. The arbitration agreement and choice-of-law clause are contained in the contract but are separated from the contract. Disputes between contracting parties often involve more than just contractual liability. When a party argues for a non-contractual claim in its request for arbitration with respect to the disputes arising from the contractual relationship between the parties, the arbitral tribunal should characterize the claim in question. In doing so the tribunal is to identify the substance of the claim over the form. Once the claim in question is characterized as a non-contractual claim, then it should be determined whether the arbitration agreement encompasses the non-contractual claim. It is how to interpret the arbitration agreement, which favors a wide interpretation that channels all the disputes arising out of the contractual relationship between the parties to the arbitral procedure. If the arbitration agreement encompasses the non-contractual claim, it is necessary to determine whether the choice-of-law clause encompasses the claim. It is also how to interpret the choice-of-law clause based upon the parties’ intent. It would comply with the parties’ reasonable intent to interpret the clause as consistently as possible with the arbitration agreement so that the clause encompasses the non-contractual claim. The sphere of application of the choice-of-law clause is reasonably delimitated by the existence of mandatory law or public policy restrictions. When the choice-of-law clause fails to encompass the non-contractual claim or is lacking, there is no uniform way to determine the law applicable to the claim, which undermines foreseeability. Still it is possible to reasonably adjust the parties’ interests and to promote foreseeability and legal certainty by indirectly extending the applicable law to the contract through the preexisting contract between the parties to the non-contractual claim. Whether the arbitration agreement and choice-of-law clause encompass the non-contractual claim is determined by balancing efficiency of resolving disputes by uniform governing law in a channelled procedure and case by case necessity for divided procedures as well as by adjusting conflicting foreseeability and legal certainty on the one hand and flexibility on the other. This research could contribute to promoting international arbitration by reducing lingering uncertainty and enhancing foreseeability and legal certainty with reasonably delimitation of the scope of the arbitration agreement and the scope of the choice-of-law clause with respect to the non-contractual claim. 중재는 분쟁의 성질, 내용, 당사자의 관계를 고려하고 중재인의 전문지식이나 경험에 비추어 유연한 판단으로 분쟁해결을 도모하려는 제도이나 중재판정부의 자의적 판단을 방지하여 당사자의 예측가능성을 확보할 필요가 있다. 당사자간의 중재합의는 흔히 계약의 일부로 포함되어 당사자간의 계약관계로부터 발생하는 분쟁에 대한 해결메커니즘의 일부로기능한다. 또한 계약은 이를 규율할 준거법을 지정하는 준거법조항을 포함하는 경우가 많다. 중재합의와 준거법조항은 계약에 포함되어 있으나 한편 독립된 분쟁해결메커니즘으로독립적으로 파악하여야 한다. 계약상의 분쟁은 불법행위에 기한 청구 등 비계약상 청구로비화하는 경우가 많다. 당사자가 중재합의에 기하여 계약관계로부터 발생하는 분쟁에 대하여 중재신청을 하면서 비계약상 청구를 제기하는 경우 해당 청구가 계약상 청구인지 비계약상 청구인지의 성질결정을 하여야 한다. 그러함에 있어 청구의 형식이 아니라 실체를 기준으로 하여야 한다. 그 다음 해당 청구가 비계약상 청구로 성질결정이 된 경우 해당 청구가 중재합의의 범위에 속하는지를 검토하여야 한다. 이는 중재합의의 해석의 문제로 당사자간의 계약관계로부터 발생하는 모든 분쟁을 하나의 중재절차에 집중하여 해결하려는 당사자의 합리적 의사를 구현하여야 할 것이다. 해당 비계약상 청구가 중재합의의 범위에 속하는 것으로 판단되는 경우에는 나아가 준거법조항은 이를 포함하고 있는 계약에 적용될것을 의도하고 있는데 이러한 준거법조항이 비계약상 청구에까지 확대되어 적용될 수 있는지를 검토하여야 한다. 이 또한 준거법조항의 해석의 문제로 당사자의 의사를 기초로 하여야 하는바, 당사자자치가 비계약상 청구에까지 확장되어 적용될 수 있는 것으로 보는 것이분쟁을 효율적으로 해결하려는 당사자의 합리적 의사에 부합한다. 당사자자치를 비계약상청구에 확장하여 적용하더라도 공공의 질서나 강행규정의 법리를 통하여 합리적인 경계를획정하여 준거법조항의 적용 범위를 조절할 수 있다. 준거법조항이 비계약상 청구에 적용되지 아니하거나 당사자가 계약에 준거법조항을 두고 있지 아니한 경우에는 중재판정부는비계약상 청구에 대한 준거법을 어떻게 결정하여야 하는지에 관하여 통일되어 있지 않아예견가능성이 제약되나 이 경우에도 당사자간에 존재하는 계약의 준거법을 비계약상의 청구에 대하여 우회적으로 확장하여 적용함으로써 당사자간의 이익을 합리적으로 조율하고예견가능성과 법적 안정성을 제고할 수 있다. 중재합의와 준거법조항의 범위가 비계약상청구를 포괄하는지 여부는 예견가능성 및 법적 안정성과 유연성이라는 갈등하는 지표를 함께 고려하면서 당사자간의 분쟁을 하나의 분쟁해결절차에 집중하여 하나의 준거법으로 해결하여 효율성을 추구할 것인지 아니면 구체적 사정에 비추어 분산된 적정성을 추구할 것인지의 상충된 이익의 합리적 조율을 통하여 판단되어야 한다. 이 연구가 비계약상 청구와관련하여 계약에 포함된 중재합의와 준거법조항의 적용 범주를 당사자의 진정한 의사에 기초하여 합리적으로 획정함으로써 불확실성을 제거하고 예견가능성과 법적 안정성을 제고하여 국제중재의 활성화에 기여할 수 있기를 기대한다.

선하증권상 국제상사중재 합의에 관한 비교법적 고찰

양석완 한국경영법률학회 2013 經營法律 Vol.23 No.3

Arbitration is a method of dispute resolution involving one or more neutral third parties who are usually agreed to by the disputing parties and whose decision is binding. Sometimes parties agree to provisions that appear only to consider arbitration as an optional or unilateral means of dispute resolution if future disputes arise, but not to require mandatory submission of future disputes to arbitration. If the dispute is subjected to arbitration, the claimant has the option to arbitrate either in the place designated in the agreement or in any other place chosen from a list that tracks article 66(a)'s list of permissible forums under the Rotterdam Rules, namely, in the place of arbitration in additional agreements. Just as choice-of-court agreements in volume contracts are enforceable under defined circumstances, so the place of arbitration in exclusive arbitration agreement is binding on the immediate parties to a volume contract if essentially the same requirements are met. On the other hand, the requirement is that the words of incor- poration must be apt to describe the charter party clause sought to be incorporated - the ‘description issue’. While the attitude of the courts has varied in the strictness of their approach over the years, the effectiveness of suitably drafted words of incorporation may be illustrated by the range of charter party provisions which have been held enforceable against the bill of lading holder. It is rather usual that carrier attempts to make the terms and conditions of charter party applicable to Bills of Lading by incorporation clause. The court judgment distinguished a general incorporation clause and a specific incorporation clause and held that in order for an arbitration clause in the charter party to be validly incorporated by a specific incorporation clause. The arbitration agreement shall be in writing. An agreement is in writing if it is contained in a document signed by the parties or in an exchange of letters, telex, telegrams or other means of telecommuni- cation which provide a record of the agreement, or in an exchange of statements of claim and defence in which the existence of an agreement is alleged by one party and not denied by another. The reference in a contract to a document containing an arbitration clause constitutes an arbitration agreement provided that the contract is in writing and the reference is such as to make that clause part of the contract.

국제상사계약 체결에서 중재합의조항에 관한 실무적 고려사항

정홍식(Chung Hong Sik) 법무부 국제법무정책과 2014 통상법률 Vol.- No.115

The dispute resolution clause is usually found near the end of a contract, alongside such items as addresses for serving notices and other general provisions. It may ultimately prove to be the most important provision of all. Rights and obligations carefully defined elsewhere in the contract are only as reliable as the courts or tribunals called upon to give effect to them. Underlying the arbitration process in almost every case will be an agreement to arbitrate, through which the parties convey not just their willingness to have their dispute resolved by arbitration, but also aspects of the process which they wish to adopt. In light of this, ensuring an effective arbitration clause that reflects the parties' needs and wishes is a crucial step in the process. With astonishing regularity, however, international contracts contain defective dispute resolution clauses. Even lengthy and complex agreements, drafted by negotiators whose understanding of everything else is highly sophisticated, often reflect ignorance of the mechanisms of international dispute resolution. This article is designed to help achieve effective arbitration clause which unambiguously embody the parties' wishes. It reflects understandings of the best current international practices and provides both a framework and detailed provisions for drafters of international arbitration clauses. Thus, this article generally provides the essential elements of an effective clause and what features of the process are open to parties to determine in advance. It also informs parties both of the choices available and the pitfalls to avoid. This article tackles some of the more complex drafting issues which arise when an arbitration agreement goes beyond the typical bipartite arrangement and involves multiple parties and/or a range of related contractual agreements. Further, it deals with the special drafting considerations that arise when mainland China is either the place of arbitration or the place of possible enforcement of an arbitral awards. As a result, this article is applicable and appropriate not just for simple, straightforward arbitration clauses, but also for the most complex, and indeed the spectrum between the two.

다단계 분쟁해결조항과 “중재가능성”에 관한 연구-중재인의 권한판단권한에 대한 미국 연방 판례를 중심으로-

김규진 국제거래법학회 2018 國際去來法硏究 Vol.27 No.2

An arbitration is an alternative dispute resolution method in which disputes are resolved by arbitration in accordance with the arbitration agreement made between the parties. Many of recent international commercial agreements adopt arbitration as a means of dispute resolution, and often they adopt it by including a provision known as the “multi-tier dispute resolution clause”. A multi-tier dispute resolution clause is a provision which states that when a dispute arises, parties have to take procedures such as negotiation, expert determination or mediation before bring it to an arbitration. The main purpose of having such pre-arbitration procedures is to provide more efficient and prompt way to resolve a dispute. However, these pre-arbitration procedures can often be a starting point of additional set of complex disputes. Is it possible for one party to bring a dispute to arbitration, skipping the pre-arbitration procedures? And more importantly, who has the jurisdiction to decide on such matter? A court, or an arbitral tribunal? If disputes arise over these issues, the procedures introduced for procedural expeditiousness may actually hinder the dispute resolution procedure. Unlike many other countries which approach these issues as a matter of validity of arbitration agreement and a matter of competence-competence, the power of an arbitral tribunal to determine its own jurisdiction, the United States approaches these issues in a very unique way. That is, they use the concept of “arbitrability" to address these issues without explicitly mentioning the validity of arbitration agreement and the competencecompetence principle. This paper examines such unique approach of the United States and finds ways to improve arbitration laws of both the U.S. and Korea on relevant issues by comparative legal studies. 중재는 당사자 간의 분쟁을 법원의 재판으로 해결하지 않고 당사자 간의 합의에 따라 중재판정에 의하여 해결하는 분쟁해결 방식이다. 그런데 최근 중재를 분쟁해결수단으로 채택하고 있는 여러 국제계약, 특히 건설 및 에너지관련 계약에서는 기존과 같이 해당 계약 관련 분쟁을 중재로 해결하기로 하는 단순한 중재합의조항이 아닌 보다 복잡한 구조의 이른바 “다단계 분쟁해결조항”(multi-tier dispute resolution clause)을 채택하고 있는 경우를 종종발견할 수 있다. 다단계 분쟁해결조항이란 중재로 분쟁을 해결하기에 앞서 협상, 건축가/엔지니어 판단, 혹은 조정 등의 중재 전 절차를 먼저 거치도록 하는 조항을 지칭한다. 이러한 다단계 분쟁해결조항이 탄생한 목적은 기존의 단순한 중재조항 하의 분쟁해결 방법보다 더욱 더 신속하고 효율적인 분쟁해결 방법을 마련하기 위해서였다. 문제는, 신속한 분쟁해결을 위하여도입된 이러한 중재 전 절차들이 오히려 복잡한 분쟁의 단초가 되는 경우가 있다는 점이다. 당사자 일방은 중재 전 절차를 건너뛰고 중재를 신청하고, 상대방은 이에 대하여 중재전 절차를 거치지 않았다는 이유로 이의를 제기할 경우, 과연 해당 분쟁에 대하여 중재가가능한가? 그리고 그러한 쟁점에 대한 판단권한을 가진 자는 중재판정부인가 혹은 법원인가? 이러한 쟁점에 대하여 분쟁이 발생하는 경우 절차적 신속을 위하여 도입된 절차들이오히려 분쟁해결 절차의 신속을 저해할 수 있는 것이다. 미국 판례에서는 다단계 분쟁해결조항에 대한 위와 같은 문제점을 인식하며 이를 중재가능성이라는 개념을 중심으로 다룬다. 특히 중재가능성의 판단의 권한이 누구에게 귀속되는지의 문제를 competence-competence 원칙을 중심으로 접근하지 않고 실질적 중재가능성이라는 개념과 형식적 중재가능성이라는 개념을 중심으로 접근하여 해결하는 것이 미국 판례법의 특징이다. 이 논문에서는 다단계 분쟁해결조항에 대한 미국 판례법의 이와 같은 태도를 검토하며, competence-competence 원칙을 규정하는 우리 중재법 제17조와 함께 생각해볼 때 관련 주제에 대하여 양 법계가 고민해보아야 할 시사점은 무엇인지를 살펴보았다.

国际商事仲裁中混合仲裁条款效力的认定 - 中国大陆立法和司法的立场

侯国跃,谢鹏 동아대학교 법학연구소 2015 國際去來와 法 Vol.- No.14

国际商事仲裁中混合仲裁条款效力的认定 - 中国大陆立法和司法的立场 侯国跃․谢鹏 对于国际商事仲裁条款的效力争议,中国已确定地方高级法院和最高法院的专享裁判权。认定混合仲裁条款效力的准据法应遵循“当事人约定的法律、仲裁地法律、法院地法律”这样的顺位予以确定。根据中国大陆立法和司法的立场,影响混合仲裁条款效力的关键因素为仲裁意愿、仲裁事项和仲裁机构,而通常无关仲裁规则。在国际商事合同中,为规避法律风险,建议慎重选择混合仲裁条款,并审视仲裁规则是否包含排他适用的规定,考虑仲裁规则是否有限制修改的规定,注重合同关于仲裁机构、仲裁规则以及准据法等问题的准确表述。 对于国际商事仲裁条款的效力争议,中国已确定地方高级法院和最高法院的专享裁判权。认定混合仲裁条款效力的准据法应遵循“当事人约定的法律、仲裁地法律、法院地法律”这样的顺位予以确定。根据中国大陆立法和司法的立场,影响混合仲裁条款效力的关键因素为仲裁意愿、仲裁事项和仲裁机构,而通常无关仲裁规则。在国际商事合同中,为规避法律风险,建议慎重选择混合仲裁条款,并审视仲裁规则是否包含排他适用的规定,考虑仲裁规则是否有限制修改的规定,注重合同关于仲裁机构、仲裁规则以及准据法等问题的准确表述。 Affirmation on the Effectiveness of Hybrid Arbitration Clause in the International Commercial Arbitration - from the perspective of legislation and judicature in Chinese mainland HOU GUOYUE·XIE PENG Chinese mainland has already recognized that the Higher People’s Court and the Supreme People’s Court have the exclusive judicial power over the effectiveness of the international commercial arbitration clauses. The proper law applying to affirm the effectiveness of hybrid arbitration clause shall be in accordance with the following order, namely the laws agreed upon between the parties, the laws at the place of arbitration, and the laws at the locality of the court. From the perspective of legislation and judicature in Chinese mainland, the critical elements which affect the hybrid arbitration clause are arbitration intention, arbitration matter and arbitration institution, but not arbitration rules. To evade the legal risks in the international commercial contract, this paper provides following advises. The hybrid arbitration clause shall be applied prudently in the contract. Whether the arbitration rules contain provisions relating to the exclusive use shall be well examined. Whether the arbitration rules involve the provisions which limit the modification of stipulation shall be concerned. And the accurate expression with regard to the arbitration institution, arbitration rules and proper law in the contract shall receive adequate attention.

로테르담 규칙상 분쟁해결절차로서의 중재제도

김인현 한국경영법률학회 2012 經營法律 Vol.22 No.4

The newly adopted Rotterdam Rules in 2008 by the UN will replace the current Hague-Visby Rules. The Rules has a substantive provisions on the jurisdiction and arbitration as opposed to the Hague-Visby Rules but similar to the Hamburg Rules. The exclusive jurisdiction clause which was inserted by the carrier on the reverse side of the Bill of Lading is known as a disadvantage to the shipper or cargo interest. Under the Rotterdam Rules it became one of connecting fact for the claimant to select the relevant court for bring about the law suit. In general, it is widely accepted that the freedom of contract principle prevails in the arbitration agreement. During the negotiations for the Rules many delegations worried about the possible circumvention of the carrier to insert the exclusive arbitration clause even in the Bill of Lading for the purpose of evading the compulsory application of strict jurisdiction clause. As a result, the Rules came to have several provisions on the arbitration. The exclusive arbitration clause in the Bill of Lading will be subject to the Rules and thus the claimant is allowed to select one of three other places including the place of receipt or delivery for the arbitration regardless of the presence of the exclusive arbitration clause. Charter party is excluded from the application of the Rules. The Rules will not be applicable between the carrier and the holder of the Bill of Lading if the arbitration clause is lawfully incorporated in the Bill of Lading and thus the exclusive arbitration agreement is effective. The States which do not want to be bound by this kind of new legal regime on the arbitration will enjoy current status of freedom of contract in relation to arbitration if it ratify without accepting opt-in provision in Art. 78. It seems to the writer that under the Rules the carrier will be frequently put in disadvantageous place if the claimant select another place as the arbitration place other than the place in the exclusive arbitration clause.

해상운송계약상 외국 중재합의 및 관할합의 조항의 효력에 대한 비교법적 고찰

남도현 단국대학교 법학연구소 2022 법학논총 Vol.46 No.3

Due to the nature of sea transport contracts, contracts are concluded between various parties of various nationalities and the operation of ships or cargo is carried out across countries, so what laws will be applied to potential disputes that may arise in the course of all related legal actions and which arbitration or jurisdiction will resolve them. Consequently, arbitration and designation to the competent court are decided as a solution to potential disputes related to these contracts. In the event of an actual dispute, the effect of the foreign arbitration clause or choice of court clause will be an important issue if one party files an arbitration or a lawsuit in its own country, which is different from the agreement in the choice of court clause. In Vimar Seguros y Reaseguros v. M/V Sky Reefer, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the foreign arbitration clause was enforceable, and in M/S Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co. the Supreme Court expended the decision holding the foreign arbitration and choice of court clauses are valid in respect of the agreement of the contracting parties. Unlike the United States, courts in countries such as Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and South Africa, which adopt protectionist policies, differ in their judgment on the effectiveness of foreign arbitration provisions on bill of lading and choice of foreign court clauses. Countries that adopt active protectionism, such as South Africa and Australia, have banned foreign arbitration or choice of court, while New Zealand, which adopts quasi-protectionist legislation, has banned the choice of court provisions, but foreign arbitration provisions are valid. In addition, in the case of Canada, which shows hybrid approach, foreign arbitration agreements are not explicitly stipulated as invalid, but the parties may proceed with arbitration or litigation in Canada. In Korea, if following requirement are met, the choice of court clause can be valid: first, the choice of court clauses are not exclusive jurisdiction of Korean courts; second, the provisions should not be unreasonable or contrary to public policy; third, there should be a reasonable relationship between foreign courts; and, forth, the agreement between the parties should not be significantly unreasonable or unfair. Therefore, the Supreme Court of Korea basically adopts protectionism for these clauses of foreign jurisdiction, but the effect of the provisions of choice of court clauses is determined based on practical judgment on specific matters in each case. In addition, the revised Private International Law effected on July 5, 2022 established regulations on choice of jurisdiction, prioritizing agreement between the parties to eliminate uncertainty and increase predictability in the event of a dispute by specifying the requirements for choice of jurisdiction. Considering the economic structure of Korea, where exports and imports account for an absolute proportion of the entire country’s industry, it is necessary to promote legal stability for sea transport along with the court’s judgment on each case. In other words, as discussed above, it is necessary to review the legislation to protect the interests of Korean citizens and ensure smooth commercial activities with other parties in international transactions by referring to legislative examples according to the level of protectionism. 해상운송계약의 특성상 다양한 국적의 당사자들 간에 계약을 체결하게 되며 선박의 운항이나 화물의 운송이 여러 국가에 걸쳐 이루어지므로, 일련의법률행위의 과정상 발생할 수 있는 잠재적 분쟁에 대하여 어떤 법을 적용할것이며 어느 중재기관 또는 관할 법원에서 그러한 분쟁을 해결할 것인지에 대한 문제가 항상 수반된다. 따라서 이러한 계약과 관련된 잠재적 분쟁에 대한해결 방안으로, 당사자들은 사전에 중재 및 관할 법원에 대한 지정을 약정하게 된다. 다만, 실제로 분쟁이 발생하였을 때 일방의 당사자가 자신의 이익이나 소송 비용 등을 고려하여 외국 중재 조항 또는 외국 관할 법원 지정 조항상의 약정과는 다른 국가 소재의 중재기관 또는 법원에 중재 또는 소송을 제기할 경우에는 우선 해당 외국 중재합의 또는 관할합의 조항의 효력이 중요쟁점이 될 것이다. 기존의 미국 법원은 COGSA에 근거하여 선하증권상 외국 관할 법원 지정조항의 효력을 인정하지 않고 미국에서의 소송을 허가하였으나, 1995년 Sky Reefer 사건에서 연방대법원은 연방중재법에 근거하여 이를 뒤집고 선하증권상의 외국 관할합의 조항의 효력을 인정하였고, M/S Bremen 사건에서는 계약당사자의 합의를 존중하여 미국 국적 당사자에 대해서도 외국 관할합의 조항을 유효하다고 결정하여 연방대법원의 결정을 확고히 하였다. 그러나 미국과는 달리 보호주의 정책을 채택하고 있는 호주, 캐나다, 뉴질랜드, 남아프리카공화국 등과 같은 국가의 법원에서는 선하증권상 외국 중재합의 또는 관할합의 조항에 대한 판단을 달리하고 있다. 즉, 남아프리카 공화국과 호주와 같이 적극적인 보호주의를 채택하고 있는 국가들은 외국 중재 또는 법원의 선택 조항을 전면적으로 금지하였고, 준보호주의 입법례를 채택하고 있는 뉴질랜드의 경우에는 외국의 법원 지정 조항을 금지하였지만 외국 중재 조항의 효력은 인정하고 있다. 또한 절충적 입법례를 보여주고 있는 캐나다의 경우에는 명시적으로 외국 중재 약정을 무효라고 규정하고 있지는 않으나 당사자들은 캐나다에서도 중재 또는 소송을 진행할 수 있다. 우리나라 법원은 외국 법원 관할합의 조항에 대하여 우리나라 법원의 전속관할이 아니며 해당 조항이 불합리하거나 법정지 공서에 반하지 않아야 하고, 외국법원과 관련 사건간에 합리적인 관련성이 있어야 하며, 당사자 간의 합의가 현저히 불합리하거나 불공정하면 안된다는 요건이 충족될 경우 그 효력이인정될 수 있다고 판결하였다. 따라서, 이러한 외국 관할합의 조항에 대한 우리나라 대법원은 기본적으로는 보호주의를 채택하고 있으나, 각 사건의 구체적인 사안에 실질적인 판단에 따라 외국 관할 법원 지정 조항의 효력을 결정하고 있다. 또한 2022년 7월 5일 개정된 국제사법은 합의관할에 대한 규정을신설하여, 그동안 판례 및 국제협약으로 정립된 합의관할에 대한 요건을 구체화하여 분쟁 발생시 불확실성을 제거하고 예측가능성을 높여 신속하고 합리적인 해결을 도모하기 위한 당사자 간의 합의를 우선시하게 되었다. 그러나 수출입이 국가 전체 산업에서 차지하는 비중이 절대적인 우리나라의 경제 구조를 고려하여, 각 사건에 대한 법원의 판단과 더불어 해상운송에대한 법적 안정성을 도모할 필요가 있다. 즉, 위에서 살펴본 바와 같이 보호주의의 수준에 따른 입법례를 참고하여 우리나라 시민의 이익을 ...

한국 중재산업 발전 방안

윤진기 한국중재학회 2018 중재연구 Vol.28 No.4

This paper aims to explore ways to develop the arbitration industry in Korea. The prospects for the promotion of the arbitration industry in Korea are never dim. International arbitration competitiveness is somewhat lower than its competitors at present, but the international economic base to support it is solid, and the domestic arbitration environment seems to be sufficient to support the development possibility of arbitration. Since geographical and economic factors have already been defined, Korea must at least improve the arbitration act with passion and vision for the best one. The arbitration act that is the most accessible to arbitration consumers is the best arbitration act. The important thing is to have an arbitration act that makes people want to use more than litigation or other dispute resolution procedures. There is no hope of remaining as a “second mover” in the field of arbitration law. One should have a will and ambition to become a “first mover” even if it is risky. Considering the situation of the current arbitration law, it is necessary to start an arbitration appeal system in order to become a consumer-friendly arbitration law, and it is necessary to examine ways of integrating the grant of execution clause and enforcement application procedures. The abolition of the condition of Article 35 of the Arbitration Act, which rules the validity of the arbitration award, will help promote international arbitration. Exclusion agreements of setting aside against arbitration awards must also be fully recognized. It is also important to publish a widely cited international arbitration journal. In order to respond to the fourth industrial revolution era, it is necessary to support the establishment of a dispute resolution system that utilizes IT technology. In order to actively engage the arbitrators in the market, it is necessary to abolish the regulations that exist in the Attorneys-at-Law Act. There is also a need to allocate more budget to educate arbitration consumers and to establish arbitration training centers to strengthen domestic arbitration education. It is also necessary to evaluate and verify the Arbitration Promotion Act so that it can achieve results. In the international arbitration market, competition is fierce and competitors are already taking the initiative, so in order not to miss the timing, Korea needs to activate international arbitration first. In order to activate international arbitration, the arbitration body needs to be managed with the same mobility and strategy as the agency in the marketplace. In Korea, unlike in Singapore and Hong Kong, it is necessary to recognize that the size of the domestic arbitration market is very likely to increase sharply due to the economic size of the country and the large market potential it can bring from litigation. In order to promote the arbitration industry, what is most important is to make arbitration activities in accordance with the principles of the market and to establish an institutional basis to enable competition. It is urgently required to change the perception of the relevant government departments and arbitration officials. 우리나라가 「중재산업 진흥에 관한 법률」(이하 ‘중재진흥법’이라 한다)을 제정하고 2015년 8월 17일 법무부는 「중재산업 진흥에 관한 법률」 제정안을 입법예고하고, 2015년 10월 14일 여의도 한국가정법률상담소에서 ‘중재법 및 중재산업 진흥에 관한 법률 제·개정 공청회’를 개최하는 등 입법에 노력을 기울였으나, 2015년 11월 5일 중재진흥법률안이 정부발의로 18대 국회에 제출되어(의안 제1917603호) 해당위원회에서 심사 중 국회임기 만료로 자동 폐기되었다. 이후 2016년 8월 9일 「중재산업 진흥에 관한 법률」 제정안이 국무회의를 통과하고, 2016년 8월 18일에 19대 국회에 제출되어, 2016년 12월 8일 국회 본회의를 통과하였다. 2016년 12월 27일 「중재산업 진흥에 관한 법률」[법률 제14471호]이 제정되어, 2017년 6월 28일부터 시행되게 되었다. 2017년 6월에 시행하면서 국제중재 활성화에 박차를 가하여 아시아지역에서 국제중재 3국시대가 시작되려고 하고 있다. 아시아에서 국제중재에 영향력이 비교적 큰 국가는 중국의 본토와 홍콩, 그리고 싱가포르 두 나라였다. 이에 우리나라가 2017년부터 본격적으로 국제중재 활성화를 선언하고 이에 끼어듦으로서 3국이 되었다. 중재업무에 대한 주무부서가 산업통상자원부에서 법무부로 바뀌고, 중재진흥법이 제정되면서 국제중재 활성화의 계기가 마련되었고, 정부의 지원까지 겸하여 국제중재 활성화에 필요한 물적 시설도 구비되었다. 이로써 필자가 생각하는 첫 번째 방안으로 우리나라 중재정책이 가닥이 잡아졌고, 법무부에서는 필자가 글을 쓰기 훨씬 이전인 2011년부터 국제중재 활성화에 관심을 가져왔던 것으로 알려져 있다. 특히 2013년5월27일 서울중국제중재센터(SIDRC)를 개관한 후 지속적으로 국제중재 활성화를 위해서 노력해 왔다. 중재진흥의 계기가 마련되었다고 볼 수 있다. 아시아권에서 중재가 새로운 산업으로 지칭될 정도로 관심을 모으고 있는 것은 아시아의 세기가 거론되고, 아시아의 시대가 가시화 되면서 아시아 국가들의 경제력이 세계경제에 미치는 영향이 대폭 증가하고 있는데 기인하는 것으로 생각된다. 그러나 이 아시아의 세기가 3국의 중재 경쟁국 모두에게 충분히 일거리를 제공할 것인지는 확실하지 아니하다. 치열할 것으로 예상되는 중재 3국시대에 후발주자인 우리가 승자가 되어 중재패권을 잡을 수 있는 조건이 무엇인지에 대해서 검토해볼 필요가 있다