한ㆍ일 해사분쟁해결과 중재제도에 관한 고찰

유병욱(Yu Byoung yook) 한국무역상무학회 2014 貿易商務硏究 Vol.64 No.-

Arbitration is the dispute methods for speedy and economic resolutions in international commercial areas. In maritime disputes cases in East Asia, Korea and Japan are the regional benefits to cover and deal with the maritime cases on arbitration. And Korea and Japan are the competitive maritime industry for heavy shipbuilding industry, cargo carrier, processing and transhipment service on ports, and ship financial services in national competitive areas. Japan is the Tokyo maritime arbitration commission(TOMAC) as an uniquely capable of dealing with arbitrations involving problems arising in the sea field. TOMAC provides amended its arbitration rules 2014 aiming at matching with the maritime disputes circumstances with three maritime arbitration rules as ordinary rules, simplified rules and the rules of small claims arbitration procedure. KCAB however, as the unique commercial arbitration board in Korea is dealing on all of the commercial disputes on only the international commercial arbitration rules in 2011. Though KCAB is dealt with maritime dispute cases on international arbitration rules in Korea, it is small and simple compared with TOMAC in Japan. Maritime disputes are highly complicated and embroiled with multi-parties contract and subcontracts arising under contracts relating to bills of lading, charter parties, sale and purchase of ships, shipbuilding, ship financing and so forth. This paper is to provides a discussion and comparison on recently arbitration rules focus on the maritime aspects on Korea and Japan. We need to consider to make an independent and special institute and maritime arbitration rules including the multiparty consolidation and med-arb provisions for handling the disputes and resolution of maritime conflict cases in Korea.

해사중재 활성화의 전제조건에 관한 재검토

이정원 법조협회 2018 법조 Vol.67 No.6

In the meantime, the domestic arbitration industry has not been activated despite its importance, and it is highly likely that this will have a negative impact on the continued growth and development of domestic industries which are closely related to the arbitration industry. In light of this critical view, the government has enacted the Arbitration Promotion Act, which encompasses the ongoing demands of academia and the business community for the promotion of the domestic arbitration industry. Accordingly, the above law is expected to become an institutional device that will lead the growth of the overall intervention industry including the domestic maritime arbitration in the future. However, not only the detailed regulations for promoting the arbitration industry prescribed in the above-mentioned law have yet to be provided, but there are a few important points in the interpretation and application regarding the designation of the arbitration institution. These points need to be revised and supplemented in order to see the progress of the law. Meanwhile, the Asia-Pacific maritime arbitration center was established in Busan as an important touchstone for the revitalization of domestic maritime arbitration. It is expected that the center will contribute to the revitalization of domestic maritime arbitration in the future because it is the intention of the center to become the central agency of the dispute settlement of domestic maritime disputes and international maritime disputes beyond Busan area. However, the above changes are not sufficient conditions, only a part of the requirements for activation of maritime arbitration are satisfied. The domestic maritime arbitration workforce is still insufficient compared to Hong Kong or Singapore, and the reputation of domestic maritime arbitration capacity is not as high as internationally. In terms of hardware for activating maritime arbitration, it is also true that the personnel composition of the Asia-Pacific maritime arbitration center and the underdeveloped arbitration facilities do not reach our competitors such as Hong Kong. Given these various points, we still have to continue our efforts to revitalize maritime interventions. 그 동안 국내 중재산업은 그 중요성에도 불구하고 활성화되지 못한 상태였고, 이는 국내 관련 산업의 지속적 성장과 발전에도 부정적 영향을 미칠 수 있다는 우려가 높다. 이러한 비판적 견해를 감안하여 정부는 중재진흥법을 제정하였고, 위 법률은 국내 중재산업의 진흥을 위해 그 동안 학계와 실무계가 지속적으로 요구해온 사항들을 망라하고 있다. 이에 따라 위 법률은 향후 국내 해사중재를 포함한 중재산업 전반의 성장을 주도하는 제도적 장치가 될 것으로 기대된다. 다만 아직까지 위 법률에서 규정하는 중재산업 진흥을 위한 세부규정들이 갖추어지지 않았을 뿐만 아니라 중재교육기관의 지정 등과 관련해서는 그 해석과 적용에 있어 유의할 부분이 적지 않다. 이러한 점들은 추후 법률의 시행경과를 살펴 개정과 보완이 필요할 것으로 사료된다. 한편 국내 해사중재의 활성화를 위한 중요한 시금석으로서, 아시아-태평양 해사중재센터가 부산에 설립되었다. 위 센터는 부산지역을 넘어 국내 해사분쟁 및 국제 해사분쟁처리의 중심기관으로 발돋움하고자 하는 것이 그 설립취지라는 점에서, 향후 국내 해사중재의 활성화에 큰 기여를 할 것으로 기대된다. 다만 위와 같은 변화는 해사중재 활성화를 위한 필요조건의 일부만이 충족되었을 뿐 충분조건이 아니라는 점이다. 여전히 홍콩 또는 싱가포르에 비해 국내의 해사중재인력은 턱없이 부족한 실정이고, 국내 해사중재역량에 대한 평판은 국제적으로 그리 높은 것 같지 않다. 또한 해사중재 활성화를 위한 하드웨어적 측면에서도, 아시아-태평양 해사중재센터의 인적구성이나 낙후된 심리시설 등은 홍콩 등 우리의 경쟁국에 미치지 못하는 것이 사실이다. 이러한 여러 가지 점들을 고려할 때, 아직도 우리는 해사중재 활성화를 위한 노력을 계속하여야 한다.

싱가폴 해사중재제도와 그 시사점

김인현 한국상사법학회 2016 商事法硏究 Vol.34 No.4

Maritime arbitrations in Singapore are conducted by the SCMA and the SIAC as well. While the SIAC is a general arbitration board, the SCMA deals with only maritime arbitrations. The SCMA is an ad-hoc arbitration whereas the SIAC is an institutional arbitration. The SCMA which became independent from the SIAC in 2009 are gaining popularity from maritime industries because it provides party-oriented arbitration procedures. Parties involved in the maritime arbitration can find several experienced maritime arbitrator who focused on only arbitration other than practicing law. Compare to the SCMA, the KCAB is not so popular in Korea as the maritime arbitration board. Becasue the KCAB is a kind of the institutional arbitration, its secretariat controls the arbitration procedures. There is strong call for developing Korean maritime arbitration in order to keep abreast with the development of Korean maritime industry. The author argues that Korea should adopt the ad-hoc arbitration like SCMA and LMAA in order to meet the demand of the industry. The raising for experienced maritime arbitrators who focus only on the maritime arbitration is also essential for achieving such goal in Korea.

영국중재법상 해사중재와 관련된 LMAA 중재의 시사점에 관한 연구

한낙현 한국해양비즈니스학회 2018 해양비즈니스 Vol.- No.41

In Korea, maritime arbitration has been treated as a part of commercial arbitration, and has undertaken maritime arbitration in Korean Commercial Arbitration Board without an independent and professional maritime arbitration body. However, the number of domestic shipping companies submitting maritime disputes to Korean Commercial Arbitration Board is gradually decreasing, and most are being referred to London Maritime Arbitration. Since most of the contracts related to shipping are international, the London Arbitration Clause and the London Maritime Arbitration Association (LMAA) Terms based on the British law and the English Arbitration Act, which have developed maritime laws, may be felt equally to the parties to the dispute. This study analyzes the application scope of maritime and commerce in British Law, considering the fact that domestic shipping companies mainly use maritime arbitration system in the UK where maritime arbitration system is developed in case of maritime dispute. And also analyze the current status and issues of LMAA Terms. Based on this, it will be analyzed the issue of the procedure and operation of the LMAA arbitration and draw some implications.

협회 해사중재의 특수성과 한국에서의 발전방향

이철원 ( Chul Won Lee ) 한국해법학회 2018 한국해법학회지 Vol.40 No.2

Specialized maritime arbitrations including LMAA arbitration in England and SMA arbitration in the U.S. are compromise of the institutional arbitration and the ad hoc arbitration. But these specialized maritime arbitrations can be handled with less arbitration cost when compared with other institutional arbitration and with reduced procedural uncertainty when compared with pure ad hoc arbitration. They have arbitration rules which minimize the intervention of the arbitration organization with the exception of the authority of the arbitration organization in appointing arbitrator[s] when the parties fail to appoint the arbitrator[s] by agreement. This article uses the term “maritime association arbitration” for these existing specialized maritime arbitrations. The maritime association arbitration in most cases handles the disputes arising out of the standardized forms which are prepared by the industry groups like BIMCO and widely used by the industry.In addition, arbitrators in the maritime association arbitration are usually key members of the association as full time arbitrators who are appointed repeatedly. They have in most cases specialized knowledge on the industry practice and the construction of the standardized forms. In many cases, the procedures in the maritime association arbitration cases are similar to those of the domestic litigation of the country where the association is located. The industry is interested in learning the outcome of the arbitration as the award contains the construction of the standardized forms, therefore in many cases the awards in the maritime association arbitration are published. As a means to promote maritime arbitration in Korea, it is necessary to prepare standardized forms which can be used in the domestic shipping industry and to form group of experts as key members of the maritime arbitration who are knowledgeable to these standardized forms. In addition, the maritime arbitration in Korea should provide more convenient and expedited way of dispute resolution mechanism to the users when compared with the foreign maritime arbitration and/or the domestic court proceeding. The arbitration proceeding can be more suitable to the maritime disputes with the following features such as parallel proceeding of the back to back disputes, interim awards dealing with the preliminary issues, removal of translation requirement of English language documents, interim measures, document only proceeding for the small claim cases, etc. Lastly, the maritime arbitration awards need to be shared in the industry in order to enhance the certainty in construction of the standardized forms.

국내 해사중재규칙에 대한 소고

최성수 가천대학교 법학연구소 2018 가천법학 Vol.11 No.3

한국에서 해사법원․해사중재 활성화에 대한 논의가 증가하고 제도적으로 2018년 아·태해사중재센터와 서울해사중재협회 등 2개의 해사중재 기관 내지 협회가 동시에 출범함으로써 그 논의는 더욱 현실적인 것이 되었다. 이로써 한국에서 해사중재가 활성화되기 위한 기본적인 인프라가 구축이 된 셈이다. 양 기관은 해사중재규칙을 제정하였거나 제정 중에 있다. 해사중재규칙은 해사중재의 제도적 틀이기 때문에 매우 중요하다. 본고에서는 선진 LMAA 등 해사중재의 현황 및 해사중재규칙을 살펴봄으로써 우리에게 주는 시사점을 살펴보고 해사중재규칙 제정안을 제안하였다. 해사중재의 적용범위에 관하여는 등록된 해사중재인을 중재인으로 선임하면 해사중재 절차로 자동적으로 이동하는 방법을 고려한다. 관할에 관하여 중재의 범위를 확대하여 중재절차 개시 이후의 추가적 분쟁도 중재의 범위에 포함시키도록 한다. 중재절차에 있어서 당사자의 편의와 신속성을 위하여 당사자의 합의를 거쳐 서면으로만 심리가 가능하도록 한다. LMAA의 사전 회의 제도의 도입을 검토한다. 중재판정의 시한을 절차 종료 후 4주 이내에 판정이 이루어지도록 한다. 해사중재의 특성상 중재절차의 병합과 다수 중재절차의 병행심리가 허용되어야 한다. 중재 판정의 효과성을 보장하기 위하여 판정 전 중재판정부의 비용담보 제도를 도입할 필요가 있다. 기존의 LMAA 등 선진 해사중재규칙 중에서 우리가 특히 참고해야 할 부분으로는 신속한 중재절차를 위하여 배려한 부분이다. 여기에는 중재 판정 이유의 설시의 생략, 1인 중재인 선임원칙의 선언, 당사자의 합의에 따른 서면 만에 의한 심리, 중재판정의 시한 설정, 신속사건처리절차 내지 소액사건절차의 운용 등을 포함시킬 수 있을 것이다. The discussions became more realistic as the two maritime arbitration institutions were instituted in 2018, including the Asia-Pacific Maritime Arbitration Center and the Seoul Maritime Arbitration Association. This has provided a basic infrastructure for the revitalization of maritime arbitration in Korea. Both entities have or are preparing rules for maritime arbitration. The maritime arbitration rules are very important because they are the framework of the system. In this paper, we review the current state of maritime arbitration including the advanced LMAA and the rules of maritime arbitration, and examine implications for us and propose a draft maritime arbitration rule. Regarding the scope of the maritime arbitration, it is also possible to consider a method of automatically moving to the maritime arbitration procedure if the registered maritime arbitrator is appointed as the arbitrator. In relation to jurisdiction, additional disputes after the commencement of the arbitration proceedings are included in the scope of arbitration. For the convenience and promptness of the parties in the arbitration proceedings, the hearing shall be made only in writing through agreement of the parties. Review the introduction of the LMAA preliminary meetings system. The decision shall be made within four weeks after the end of the proceedings. In the nature of maritime arbitration, consolidation of disputes system can be introduced. In order to ensure the effectiveness of the arbitration award, it is necessary to introduce a request for security for costs system. Among the advanced maritime arbitration rules such as the existing LMAA, we should pay particular attention to the prompt arbitration procedure. This may include omission of the reasons for the arbitration award, the declaration of the principle of appointment of one arbitrator, the written hearing by agreement of the parties, the time limit for the arbitration award, and the operation of the fast or small case procedure.

중국의 해사중재제도에 관한 연구

오세영 동덕여자대학교 산업연구소 2005 산업연구 Vol.11 No.-

중국은 러시아와 함께 일찍이 해사분쟁을 대외무역분쟁과 분리하여 다르게 취급해 온 나라에 속한다. 역사적인 원인 때문에 중국의 해사분쟁의 처리는 특수성을 갖게 되었고, 그것은 대략 "4방법, 3기구, 2제도"로 표현할 수 있다. 해사분쟁을 해결하는 4방법은 화해, 조정, 중재 및 소송이며, 3기구는 항무감독, 해사중재위원회 및 해사법원이며, 2제도는 해사중재제도와 해사소송제도이다. 따라서 중국에서 해사중재제도는 해사소송제도와 더불어 중국의 해사분쟁을 해결하는 중용한 수단이 되고 있다. 중국에서 해상운송사업의 발전에 따라 해사분쟁은 날로 증가하여 왔으며, 해사중재는 해사분쟁을 처리하는 중요한 방법 가운데 하나가 되었다. 중국의 해사중재는 국제경제무역중재와 마찬가지로 국내의 국제중재의 성격을 지니고 있다. 양자는 중재기구와 사건수리범위가 다른 것을 제외하고는 많은 공통점이 있다. 중국해사중재위원회 업무의 또 하나의 중요한 특징은 중재와 조정의 상호결합의 정신을 관철하여, 조정이 가능한 모든 사건에 대해서는 가능한 한 조정으로 해결 한다는 것이다. 해사중재위원회가 매년 수리하는 사건의 반수 이상이 조정을 통하여 종결된다. 해사분쟁의 해결방법 가운데서 조정은 해사분쟁을 처리하는 경우에 반드시 거쳐야 하는 방법은 아니지만 지금까지 많은 해사분쟁이 이 방법을 통하여 해결 되어 왔다. 이러한 것은 일반적으로 해사분쟁을 조정에 의해 해결하는 것이 쉽지 않는 서구의 경향과는 상당한 차이가 있다. China is a nation that maritime disputes in distinction from overseas trade disputes have been dealt with. China has a peculiar practice of "four ways, three organizations and two systems on the maritime disputes. Four ways include compromise, conciliation, arbitration and suit. Three organizations are superintendence of harbour, maritime arbitration commission and maritime lawsuit court. Two systems are martitime arbitration and maritime suit. Therefore, in China, the maritime arbitration is one of important means to resolve the disputes arising from maritime affairs. China maritime arbitration has a nature of an international arbitration like international economic and trade arbitration. The former is almost equal to the latter except for the structure of commission and scope of application. Another trait of China maritime arbitration, if possible. More than half of disputes which the maritime arbitration commission accepts to resolve has been settled by means of conciliation. This is very different from the Western. They say that it is very hard to settle the disputes by conciliation.

해사중재 활성화를 위한 제도 개선 방안

정영석 동아대학교 법학연구소 2023 東亞法學 Vol.- No.101

Korea is the world's sixth largest exporter in 2022 and the eighth largest trading nation in the world. It is also a shipping powerhouse with a national flagged fleet of 15,725,000 tonnes (dwt, fifth largest in the world) and an annual revenue of $ 27.2 billion from ocean shipping. On the other hand, advanced maritime countries such as the UK and Singapore practically dominate the maritime industry through maritime business services such as maritime brokerage, marine finance, and maritime legal services, and provide high-income and high-quality jobs. Since the marine business industry is made through the legal means of international contracts, it can not grow without the development of the maritime legal service industry. The maritime brokerage and maritime financial service industry, which has a high level of expertise, promptness and internationality, is a highly knowledgeable industry that can be developed under the support of a rapid and stable dispute resolution system by experts. Despite the fact that we are building a world-class trading powerhouse, shipping and shipbuilding powerhouse, the development of the marine business industry shows that our marine industry is failing to create jobs for high value-added industries and high-quality human resources. There are many factors, but first of all, it is urgent to activate the maritime arbitration system as a solution system for various maritime disputes that arise in marine business. With the establishment of the Asia-Pacific Maritime Arbitration Center, Korea has also achieved some results from the perspective of institutionalizing maritime arbitration. However, it is necessary to accelerate the period of practical support for the maritime business industry by activating maritime arbitration early. From this point of view, it is necessary to consider the introduction of maritime litigation system through the establishment of maritime courts, the practical traction role of national financial institutions such as Korea Maritime Promotion Corporation and Korea Development Bank, the use of mediation system for maritime disputes, the establishment of permanent maritime dispute mediation committee, the expansion of maritime litigation and maritime arbitration cases, and the establishment of disobedience procedures in order to activate domestic arbitration in addition to international arbitration.

영국중재법상 중재제기의 통지에 관한 연구

한낙현,최병권 한국국제상학회 2017 국제상학 Vol.32 No.4

Purpose : The aim of this study is to analyse the UK Arbitration Act and the Arbitration Rules of the LMAA, which are adopted in most maritime disputes in Korea in relation to the notification of Arbitration. Research design, data, methodology : The Korean maritime arbitration is treated as the general commercial dispute in accordance with the Arbitration Act and the Commercial Arbitration Rules. If shipping practice, however, arbitration clauses are often included in contracts that require UK law to be the governing law in most maritime contracts. Accordingly, In this study, mainly literature studies are analyzed to derive such results. Results : The KCAB is the only standing arbitration agency, and the maritime arbitration is being handled by the KCAB as part of the arbitration. However, most maritime disputes in the maritime practice are based on the English law, and most of the maritime arbitration is conducted in the UK and the maritime arbitration in Korea is not activated. Conclusion : Korea should also strengthen its international competitiveness by establishing arbitration agencies dedicated to maritime arbitration such as the United K ingdom, the United States, and J apan. In a ddition, it is n ecessary to revise the arbitration procedures by ad hoc arbitration in Korea, and to establish rules for such arbitration 우리나라는 1966년에 중재법이 제정되고 대한상중재원이 설립되면서 우리나라의 해사중재는 중재법과 상사중재규칙에 의거하여 일반 상사분쟁과 동일하게 처리되고 있다. 그러나 해운실무상으로는 대부분의 해사계약에서 영국법을 준거법으로 하고 특히 용선계약관련 분쟁을영국중재로 해결하기로 하는 중재조항이 계약에 편입되는 경우가 많다. 런던중재는 크게 런던해사중재인협회 중재규칙에 의한 런던해사중재와 영국중재법에 의한 중재로 나눌 수 있으나, 중재조항에 런던해사중재인협회 중재규칙에 따르기로 약정하는 경우가 많다. 런던해사중재인협회 중재는 중재 합의에서 중재인을 지명 또는 지정한 경우 중재절차는 일방당사자가타방당사자에게 해당 분쟁을 중재인에게 회부하자는 서면통지를 송달한 시점에 개시된다. 우리나라는 대부분의 해사계약에서 영국법을 준거법으로 하고 있어, 본 연구에서는 중재제기의통지와 관련하여 영국중재법, 런던해사중재인협회 중재규칙을 중심으로 분석하고자 한다.

우리 나라 해사중재 활성화 방안

안영환 한국해운물류학회 2003 해운물류:이론과실천 Vol.- No.5

중재는, 법률전문가만으로 이루어진 법원의 판결에 비하여 해당 거래계의 관행과 해당분양의 법률전문가가 참여할 수 있는 폭이 넓고, 또 신속하고 경제적이라는 면에서 매력적인 분쟁해결수단임에는 틀림없다. 그러나, 이러한 매력에도 불구하고 중재 특히 해사중재는 활성화되지 못하고 있다. 본고에서는 대한상사중재원의 해사중재사건을 검토하고, 여기서 나타남 현황과 문제점을 지적하면서 중재제도를 활성화시키는 방안을 살펴본다. 해사중재가 활성화되기 위해서는 해상사건관련 당사자들로 하여금 중재제도가 신속경제적인 제도이면서 법원의 판결에 비추어 공정성이 뒤떨어지지 않는다는 신뢰감을 주어야 한다. 우선, 해사중재위원회의 설치, 해사중재인의 육성 등 제도적 개선을 이룸으로써, 해상관련당사자들이 중재제도를 신뢰할 수 있도록 하여야 할 것이다. 그런 다음, 해상관련당사자들에게 해사중재제도의 장점을 홍보하면서, 중재조항의 선하증권에의 삽입 등을 통하여 해사중재의 활성화를 모색하여야 할 것이다. Arbitration is an efficient, economical method of dispute resolution where the legal experts of the respective field may take a more active role in resolving a dispute. Despite these advantages, arbitration, especially arbitration involving maritime disputes, is yet to be widely used. In this writing, there will be a review of the maritime arbitration cases at Korea Commercial Arbitration Board (KCAB), and analysis of the circumstances and problems, ultimately, looking into ways to promote arbitration. In order for arbitration to be widely used in maritime disputes, the shipping/insurance industry must be convinced that arbitration is an efficient and cost-effective method of dispute resolution which does not compromise impartiality. In order to achieve this end, we should consider instituting a maritime arbitration board and fostering of maritime arbitrators, etc. Then, we should publicize the merits of arbitration in resolving maritime disputes, and persuade the maritime/insurance industry to include arbitration clauses in the bills of ladings.