중재판정의 기판력에 관한 고찰 = A Study on the Res Judicata of Arbitral Awards

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Arbitration is a private and contractual means of dispute resolution. As a creature of contract, any particular arbitration owes its existence-and attendant limitations-to an arbitral agreement. This means that, in practice, the parties select their own judges, forum, and rules. By agreeing to arbitration, parties hope to achieve several goals. And arbitration has proven to be quicker, cheaper, and more predictable than litigation as a means of resolving many types of claims.
As a primary method of conflict resolution, it is now worthwhile to consider carefully any procedural mechanism designed to promote the central aims of this alternative to litigation. It is helpful to frame any particular analysis according to (1) the type of decision for which preclusive effect is sought (arbitral award or court judgment) and (2) the type of subsequent proceeding in which preclusion is sought (an arbitration or a litigation). Res judicata may well bar litigation of that claim between the parties, but non-parties (affiliates or individuals) will not benefit from this bar unless the arbitral tribunal makes findings sufficient to satisfy the elements of collateral estoppel. The final permutation to be considered involves an arbitral award's preclusive effect on a subsequent arbitration.
Whether a prior court decision should preclude issues or claims in a subsequent arbitration presents the easiest case for analysis. It is the easiest primarily because there is generally little room to debate whether adequate procedures were followed in a litigation. That is, one can safely assume that the rules of evidence and the rules of civil procedure were followed and that formal records sufficiently memorialize both the proceeding itself and the ultimate decision. Procedural regularity is mentioned not necessarily because it is an analytic tool, but because so many jurists and scholars see it as an impediment to the application of preclusionary doctrines.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 "주석 중재법" 대한상사중재원 2006

2 "조정조서의 기판력 제한에 관한 소고" 한국비교사법학회 11 (11): 2004.3

3 "재판상 화해에 대한 모색" 성균관대학교비교법연구소 16 (16): 2004

4 "기판력의 객관적 범위와 모순된 반대관계" 한국민사소송법학회 10 (10): 2006.5

5 "民事調停の旣判力" 判例タイムズ社 1994

6 "民事調停と民事訴訟 民事調停和解の硏究" 信山社 1991

7 "新民事訴訟法" 弘文堂 2003

8 "新判例コンメンタル民事訴訟法(6)" 三省堂 1995

9 "全訂民事訴訟法1" 靑林書院 1989

10 "仲裁法コンメンタル" 商事法務 2003

11 "仲裁法の沿革の槪觀とその余惠" 信山社 1991

12 "仲裁法(新版" 有斐閣 1988

13 "仲裁手續と和解調停" 有斐閣 1998

14 "仲裁判斷の效力の主觀的範圍について" 名城法學 第42卷 1992

15 "仲裁判斷の效力" 有斐閣 1998

16 "仲裁判斷の承認執行とその取消" 商事法務 2002

17 "中點講義民事訴訟法" 有斐閣 2000

18 "Res Judicata" Oxford University Press 2001

19 "International Commercial Arbitration in the United States" Kluwer, the Hague 2001

20 "Die Rechtskraft und Aufhebbarkeit des Schiedsspruchs im Verhltnis zur Verbindlichkeit des staatlichen Richterspruchs" 2000

21 "ADRㆍ仲裁法敎室" 有斐閣 2001