한국에서의 외국중재판정의 승인과 집행

• 영문명: Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards in Korea
• 발행기관: 한국중재학회
• 저자명: 김상호
• 간행물 정보: 『중재연구』 제17권 제3호, 3~30쪽, 전체 28쪽
• 주제분류: 사회과학 > 무역학
• 파일형태: PDF
• 발행일자: 2007.12.30

영문 초록

The New York Convention(formally called United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards ) done in New York on June 10, 1958 has been adhered to by more than 140 States at the time of this writing, including almost all important trading nations from the Capitalist and Socialist World as well as many developing countries. The Convention can be considered as the most important Convention in the field of arbitration and as the cornerstone of current international commercial arbitration. Korea has acceded to the New York Convention since 1973. When acceding to the Convention, Korea declared that it will apply the Convention to the recognition and enforcement of awards made only in the territory of another Contracting State on the basis of reciprocity. Also, Korea declared that it will apply the Convention only to differences arising out of legal relationships, whether contractual or not, which are considered as commercial under the national law of Korea. The provisions relating to the enforcement of arbitral awards falling under the New York Convention begin at Article Ⅲ. The Article Ⅲ contains the general obligation for the Contracting States to recognize Convention awards as binding and to enforce them in accordance with their rules of procedure. The Convention requires a minimum of conditions to be fulfilled by the party seeking enforcement. According to Article Ⅳ(1)， that party has only to supply ① the duly authenticated original award or a duly certified copy thereof, and ② the original arbitration agreement or a duly certified copy thereof. In fulfilling these conditions, the party seeking enforcement produces prima facie evidence entitling it to obtain enforcement of the award. It is then up to the other party to prove that enforcement should not be granted on the basis of the grounds for refusal of enforcement enumerated in the subsequent Article V(l). Grounds for refusal of enforcement are stipulated in Article V is divided into two parts. Firstly, listed in the first Para, of Article Ⅴ are the grounds for refusal of enforcement which are to be asserted and proven by the respondent. Secondly, listed in Para. 2 of Article Ⅴ, are the grounds on which a court may refuse enforcement on its own motion. These grounds are non-arbitrability of the subject matter and violation of the public policy of the enforcement country. The three main features of the grounds for refusal of enforcement of an award under Article Ⅴ, which are almost unanimously affirmed by the courts, are the following. Firstly, The grounds for refusal of enforcement mentioned in Article V are exhaustive. No other grounds can be invoked. Secondly, and this feature follows from the first one, the court before which enforcement of the award is sought may not review the merits of the award because a mistake in fact or law by the arbitrators is not included in the list of grounds for refusal of enforcement set forth in Article Ⅴ. Thirdly, the party against whom enforcement is sought has the burden of proving the existence of one or more of the grounds for refusal of enforcement. The grounds for refusal of enforcement by a court on its own motion, listed in the second Para, of Article Ⅴ, are non-arbitrability of the subject matter and public policy of the enforcement country. From the court decisions reported so far at home and abroad, it appears that courts accept a violation of public policy in extreme cases only, and frequently justify their decision by distinguishing between domestic and international public policy. The Dec. 31, 1999 amendment to the Arbitration Act of Korea admits the basis for enforcement of foreign arbitral awards rendered under the New York Convention. In Korea, a holder of a foreign arbitral award is obliged to request from the court a judgment ordering enforcement of the award. Because Korea requires enforcement to be based on a judgment, the result is that arbitral

목차

Ⅰ. 서론

Ⅱ. 외국중재판정의 의의와 적용범위

Ⅲ. 외국중재판정의 승인 및 집행의 요건

Ⅳ. 외국중재판정의 승인 및 집행거부사유

Ⅳ. 결론

참고문헌

ABSTRACT

키워드

뉴욕협약 외국중재판정 승인과 집행 집행거부 New York Convention foreign arbitral award recognition and enforcement refusal of enforcement