본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

Korean case analysis of compelling arbitration in the United States

장병윤|김용길|David L. Welch
한국중재학회 (Korean Association Of Arbitration Studies(Kaas))|2018.03|중재연구 (JOURNAL OF ARBITRATION STUDIES)|제28권 제1호|pp. 99-123|DOI 10.16998/jas.2018.28.1.99

0

조회

0

다운로드

0

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

AgreementUnited StatesArbitrationKorean caseKorean Commercial Arbitration BoardFederal Arbitration ActMotion to compel
주제분류무역학

초록

Korean businesses engaging in transactions with U.S. entities are increasingly favoring arbitration clauses to address unexpected disputes. How best ought the parties’ arbitration contractual terms be drafted to avoid lengthy, protracted and expensive legal disputes? Authors examine the public policy favoring arbitration through the U.S. Federal Arbitration Act. Korean litigants seeking a “Motion to Compel Arbitration” rely on arbitration clauses designed to address four factors U.S. courts use to evaluate the enforceability of arbitration contract clauses. What role does U.S. state court jurisdiction hinder or help Korean businesses contracting with U.S. business entities located within certain boundaries? What is the effect of an arbitration clause that designates the Korean Commercial Arbitration Board in Seoul to arbitrate? All cases analyzed entail Korean business entities. Eleven cases demonstrate the results of seeking motions to compel arbitration in U.S. courts. Three cases illustrate motions to compel arbitration drafted to use the Korean Commercial Arbitration Board in Seoul. The results provide Korean businesses and legal practitioners insight into addressing the specific goals of including contractual arbitration clauses to enhance their international commercial interests in the United States.

Abstract

Korean businesses engaging in transactions with U.S. entities are increasingly favoring arbitration clauses to address unexpected disputes. How best ought the parties’ arbitration contractual terms be drafted to avoid lengthy, protracted and expensive legal disputes? Authors examine the public policy favoring arbitration through the U.S. Federal Arbitration Act. Korean litigants seeking a “Motion to Compel Arbitration” rely on arbitration clauses designed to address four factors U.S. courts use to evaluate the enforceability of arbitration contract clauses. What role does U.S. state court jurisdiction hinder or help Korean businesses contracting with U.S. business entities located within certain boundaries? What is the effect of an arbitration clause that designates the Korean Commercial Arbitration Board in Seoul to arbitrate? All cases analyzed entail Korean business entities. Eleven cases demonstrate the results of seeking motions to compel arbitration in U.S. courts. Three cases illustrate motions to compel arbitration drafted to use the Korean Commercial Arbitration Board in Seoul. The results provide Korean businesses and legal practitioners insight into addressing the specific goals of including contractual arbitration clauses to enhance their international commercial interests in the United States.

참고문헌 (32)

  1. "9 U.S.C. §§ 1–16, §§ 201–208 (1990)", ~ (1990)
  2. "GA Code § 9-9-6 (2016)", ~ (2016)
  3. "Agnes Xiaohong Xie v. JPMorgan Chase Short-Term Disability Plan, 2017 WL 2462675 (S.D.N.Y. June 7, 2017)", ~ (2017)
  4. "Andrew Kim v. Jeong Ji-Hoon, 2013 WL 12131262 (C.D. Cal. 2013)", ~ (2013)
  5. "Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. Cardegna, 546 U.S. 440, 126 S.Ct. 1204, 163 L.Ed.2d 1038 (2006)", ~ (2006)
  6. 장병윤, "Research Cases of the United States Concerning Arbitration of Intellectual Property Disputes", 중재연구, 22(3), pp.93~118 (2012), 한국중재학회[DOI]
  7. 장병윤, "Analysis, Recognition and Enforcement Procedures of Foreign Arbitral Awards in the United States", 중재연구, 27(3), pp.53~76 (2017), 한국중재학회[DOI]
  8. "CompuCredit Corp. v. Greenwood, 565 U.S. 95, 132 S.Ct. 665, 181 L.Ed.2d 586, 80 USLW 4034 (2012)", ~ (2012)
  9. "Dillon v. BMO Harris Bank, N.A., 856 F.3d 330 (4th Cir. 2017)", ~ (2017)
  10. "DirecTV, Inc. v. Imburgia, 136 S.Ct. 463, 193 L.Ed.2d 365 (2015)", ~ (2015)
  11. "First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan, 112 S.Ct. 1920 (May 22, 1995)", ~ (1995)
  12. "HDI Global SE v. Lexington Insurance Co., ― F.Supp.3d ―, 2017 WL 699818 (S.D.N.Y. 2017)", ~ (2017)
  13. "Kindred Nursing Centers Ltd. Partnership v. Clark, ― S.Ct. ―, 2017 WL 2039160 (May 15, 2017)", ~ (2017)
  14. "La Frontera Center Inc v. United Behavioral Health, Inc., ― F.Supp.3d ―, 2017 WL 2297036 (D.N.M. March 20, 2017)", ~ (2017)
  15. "Lapina v. Men Women N.Y. Model Mgmt., 86 F.Supp.3d 277 (S.D.N.Y. 2015)", ~ (2015)
  16. "Mediterranean Enterprises, Inc. v. Ssangyong Corporation, 708 F.2d 1458 (9th Cir. 1983)", ~ (1983)
  17. "Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 103 S.Ct. 927, 74 L.Ed.2d 765 (1983)", ~ (1983)
  18. "Nadeau v. Equity Residential Properties Management Corp., ― F.Supp.3d ―, 2017 WL 1842686 (S.D.N.Y. May 5, 2017)", ~ (2017)
  19. "National Labor Relations Board v. Alternative Entertainment, Inc., ― F.3d ―, 2017 WL 2297620 (6th Cir. May 26, 2017)", ~ (2017)
  20. "Rent–A–Center, West, Inc. v. Jackson, 561 U.S. 63, 130 S.Ct. 2772, 177 L.Ed.2d 403 (2010)", ~ (2010)
  21. "Scherk v. Alberto-Culver Co., 417 U.S. 506, 94 S.Ct. 2449, 41 L.Ed.2d 270 (1974)", ~ (1974)
  22. "Sunkyong Engineering & Construction Co., Ltd., v. Born, Inc., 149 F.3d 1174, 1998 WL 413537 (5th Cir. June 16, 1998)", ~ (1998)
  23. "The Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards", United Nations, ~ (1958)
  24. "The Federal Arbitration Act (9 U.S.C. §§ 1–16, §§ 201–208, §§ 301–307) (U.S.A., 1990)", ~ (1990)
  25. "The Inter-American Convention on international commercial arbitration, concluded at Panama City on 30 January 1975 (United Nations - Treaty Series, Vol. 1438,1-24384, 1986)", ~ (1986)
  26. "UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules (with new article 1, paragraph 4, as adopted in 2013), United Nations", United Nations, ~ (2014)
  27. "Volt Information Sciences, Inc. v. Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior Univ., 489 U.S. 468, 109 S.Ct. 1248, 103 L.Ed.2d 488, 57 USLW 4295, 51 Ed. Law Rep. 725 (1989)", ~ (1989)
  28. "VRG Linhas Aereass S.A. v. Matlinpatterson Global Opportunities Partners II L.P., 717 F.3d 322 (2d Cir. June 3, 2013)", ~ (2013)
  29. "Wilson v. 5 Choices, LLC, 2017 WL 1833106 (E.D. Mich. May 8, 2017)", ~ (2017)
  30. 김용길, "知識財産權紛爭의 裁判外 解決制度에 관한 硏究 - 調停과 仲裁를 中心으로 -", 중재연구, 19(1), pp.67~98 (2009), 한국중재학회[DOI]
  31. 김용길, "우리나라에서 외국중재판정의 승인과 집행에 관한 고찰", 중재연구, 20(3), pp.3~24 (2010), 한국중재학회[DOI]
  32. 김용길, "중재합의의 효력범위에 관한 고찰 - 대법원 2011.12.22. 선고 2010다76573 판결을 중심으로 -", 중재연구, 23(2), pp.1~35 (2013), 한국중재학회[DOI]

관련 논문AI추천

Analysis, Recognition and Enforcement Procedures of Foreign Arbitral Awards in the United States김용길, 장병윤, David L. Welch한국중재학회 · 중재연구2017 · 제27권 제3호The Finality of Arbitral Awards: The U.S. Practices하충룡한국중재학회 · 중재연구2020 · 제30권 제3호Arbitration Clause Prohibiting Class Action in Consumer Contracts이선한국중재학회 · 중재연구2017 · 제27권 제1호미국법원의 판례를 통한 선택적 중재합의의 지위박원형, 하충룡한국중재학회 · 중재연구2007 · 제17권 제1호Recent changes to the Korean Arbitration Act and its Comparison with Singapore: Korea’s Potential to Become an Arbitration Hub김재현, Bryan E. Hopkins한국중재학회 · 중재연구2016 · 제26권 제3호소비자중재합의의 미국계약법상 항변하충룡한국중재학회 · 중재연구2010 · 제20권 제2호

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (5건)

ICSID 협약 제52조의 계약상 포기에 관한 연구김용일, 홍성규pp. 3-26공기업의 ICSID 중재 신청과 관할권 성립: BUCG v. Yemen 사건을 중심으로장석영pp. 27-42스포츠분쟁해결기구로서의 스포츠중재재판소(CAS)에 관한 고찰손창주pp. 43-75CAS의 결정례로 본 도핑 위반 사건의 법리김현숙pp. 77-97환경분쟁조정제도의 현황과 과제이춘원, 윤이숙pp. 125-151
원문 보기