RISS 학술연구정보서비스

검색
다국어 입력

http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.

변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.

예시)
  • 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
  • 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
닫기
    인기검색어 순위 펼치기

    RISS 인기검색어

      검색결과 좁혀 보기

      • 좁혀본 항목

      • 좁혀본 항목 보기순서

        • 원문유무
        • 음성지원유무
        • 원문제공처
        • 등재정보
        • 학술지명
        • 주제분류
        • 발행연도
        • 작성언어
        • 저자

      오늘 본 자료

      • 오늘 본 자료가 없습니다.
      더보기
      • 무료
      • 기관 내 무료
      • 유료
      • KCI등재
      • KCI등재

        한국 중재산업 발전 방안

        윤진기 한국중재학회 2018 중재연구 Vol.28 No.4

        '스콜라' 이용 시 소속기관이 구독 중이 아닌 경우, 오후 4시부터 익일 오전 7시까지 원문보기가 가능합니다.

        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

      • KCI등재후보

        중국 CIETAC 중재규칙상의 보전신청에 관한 연구

        윤진기 韓國仲裁學會 2004 중재연구 Vol.13 No.2

        '스콜라' 이용 시 소속기관이 구독 중이 아닌 경우, 오후 4시부터 익일 오전 7시까지 원문보기가 가능합니다.

        The problems on application for custody in CIETAC Arbitration Rule are examined in this paper. First, The issue of jurisdiction for application for custody is arisen from the expansion of material jurisdiction of CIETAC. Until 1998, CIETAC had a jurisdiction only for the cases involving foreigners, but now, it has a jurisdiction not only for the cases involving foreigners but also for domestic cases. In the cases of arbitrating disputes involving foreigners, if the parties concerned apply for the preservation of property, CITEAC shall forward the application to and obtain a ruling from an intermediate people's court in the place where the object of the application resides, or where the property is located. But in the cases of arbitrating domestic disputes, if the parties concerned apply for the preservation of property, CITEAC shall forward the application to and obtain a ruling from an ground-level people's court in the place where the object of the application resides, or where the property is located. Therefore, "People's court" in article 23 of CIETAC Arbitration Rule includes both intermediate people's court and ground-level people's court in its meaning. Second, in the cases that the party concerned submits arbitration to CIETAC, it is not permitted for the party to ask the people's court for custody of property before submitting an arbitration. But there still can be the urgent cases that interests of the party concerned are at stake, and legitimate rights and interests of the party concerned may be damaged beyond remedy, if no application for custody of property is filed immediately. In that cases, even if the party may apply for custody of property with the people's court after submitting an arbitration, it might be too late to preserve property. Therefore, Chinese laws and rules have to be revised so that the party may ask the people's court for custody of property before submitting an arbitration. When revising laws and rules, according to the today's legislation trends, it must be considered that court and arbitration tribunal both have a right to decide the custody of property. When arbitration tribunal decides it, the procedural provisions executing it must be provided. It is also required that China permit to apply preservation of evidence as well as custody of property before submitting an arbitration. It is also strongly recommended that China permit custody of property or preservation of evidence even in the cases that an arbitration is submitted to the arbitration institute which is located in foreign country, not in China.

      • KCI등재
      • KCI등재후보

        중국 중재법

        윤진기 한국기업법학회 2003 企業法硏究 Vol.12 No.-

        This paper is a study on Chinese Arbitration Law, which includes some issues such as the background of legislation, recent development, status and system, main contents and problems of the arbitration law, and the recent revision of CIET AC arbitration rule.<br/> The Chinese Arbitration Law is enacted on August 31th, 1994 and came into force from September 1st, 1995. It is a basic law which rules Chinese arbitration system.<br/> Chinese Arbitration Law still has a lot of problems such as lack of a clause about the governing law of arbitration agreement, too strict necessary conditions of arbitration agreement, limitations in party autonomy, insufficient measures for preserving property and evidence, a problem in selecting the chief of arbitrators, substantial judicial review for arbitration award, and difficulty in execution of arbitration award etc..<br/> It seems the best way to resolve above mentioned problems that China accepts the UNCITRAL model arbitration law. However, it seems difficult for China to take this kind of approach because of her domestic arbitration situation.<br/> CIET AC revised its arbitration rule on September 5th, 2000, and the rule came into force from October 1st, 2000. CIET AC made three important amendments in this revision. That is, the jurisdiction of CIET AC extended to domestic cases, arbitration fee is reduced, and the arbitration procedure is readjusted to keep it from intentional delay.

      • KCI등재

        東歐圈貿易 仲裁制度와 우리나라 仲裁制度와의 比較硏究

        尹晋基 한국중재학회 1991 중재연구 Vol.1 No.1

        '스콜라' 이용 시 소속기관이 구독 중이 아닌 경우, 오후 4시부터 익일 오전 7시까지 원문보기가 가능합니다.

      맨 위로 스크롤 이동