본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

징벌적 손해배상의 중재적격

The Arbitrability of the Subject-matter of Punitive Damages

0

조회

0

다운로드

9

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

주제분류무역학

초록

In response to complexity and diversity of a social phenomenon, the dispute also is various, therefore can not be settled efficiently by means of court adjudication to which applies a law strictly. To overcome such problems we are going to seek to make use of arbitration. According to Korean Arbitration Act Art. 3 (1), any dispute in private laws would be the object of arbitral proceedings. It could be the object of arbitral proceedings that disputes which are capable of a settlement by arbitration. It is a matter for debate that disputes containing punitive damages may be resolved by arbitration. This problem is concerning the arbitrability of the subject-matter of a dispute. To offer some solution to these issues, it is necessary to inquire into the nature of punitive damages. the policy and function of alimony, the fair apportionment of a loss. Moreover, international relations formed with international transactions should be considered. Punitive damages would be the object of arbitral proceedings as the dipute in private laws. When punitive damages pursue only punishment in the domestic arbitration that there is not foreign factors, arbitral tribunal could not make arbitral award containing punitive damages. However, if punitive damages are admitted under the rules applicable to substance of dispute, and there is the arbitration agreement in which is implied that the parties agree to submit to an arbitral award, arbitral tribunal could make arbitral award containing punitive damages in international arbitration. When it is questionable whether it is offend against our public policy or not, that we accept the effect of arbitral award containing punitive damages, and we admit the enforcement of it, we have to take the nature of punitive damages, the policy and function of alimony, the fair apportionment of a loss and the stability of international transactions into consideration.

Abstract

In response to complexity and diversity of a social phenomenon, the dispute also is various, therefore can not be settled efficiently by means of court adjudication to which applies a law strictly. To overcome such problems we are going to seek to make use of arbitration. According to Korean Arbitration Act Art. 3 (1), any dispute in private laws would be the object of arbitral proceedings. It could be the object of arbitral proceedings that disputes which are capable of a settlement by arbitration. It is a matter for debate that disputes containing punitive damages may be resolved by arbitration. This problem is concerning the arbitrability of the subject-matter of a dispute. To offer some solution to these issues, it is necessary to inquire into the nature of punitive damages. the policy and function of alimony, the fair apportionment of a loss. Moreover, international relations formed with international transactions should be considered. Punitive damages would be the object of arbitral proceedings as the dipute in private laws. When punitive damages pursue only punishment in the domestic arbitration that there is not foreign factors, arbitral tribunal could not make arbitral award containing punitive damages. However, if punitive damages are admitted under the rules applicable to substance of dispute, and there is the arbitration agreement in which is implied that the parties agree to submit to an arbitral award, arbitral tribunal could make arbitral award containing punitive damages in international arbitration. When it is questionable whether it is offend against our public policy or not, that we accept the effect of arbitral award containing punitive damages, and we admit the enforcement of it, we have to take the nature of punitive damages, the policy and function of alimony, the fair apportionment of a loss and the stability of international transactions into consideration.

참고문헌 (18)

  1. 목영준, "상사중재법론" (2001), 박영사
  2. 박준서, "주석 민법〔채권각칙(8)〕" (2000), 한국사법행정학회
  3. 석광현, "국제상사중재법연구 제1권" (2007), 박영사
  4. 양병회, "주석 중재법", pp.2006, 대한상사중재원
  5. 이점인, "징벌적 손해배상과 중재-미 연방대법원 Mastrobuno사건 판결을 중심으로", 동아법학, (24) (1998), 동아대학교 법학연구소
  6. 이태희, "국제계약법-이론과 실무" (2001), 법문사
  7. 장문철, "개정중재법해설", 인권과 정의, (284) (2000), 대한변호사협회
  8. 猪股孝史, "仲裁合意の本旨そして仲裁可能性", JCAジャ-ナル, 53(7) (2006), 日本商事仲裁協會
  9. 高田 薰, "行政事件の仲裁適格性(1)", JCAジャ-ナル, 46(12) (1999), 日本商事仲裁協會
  10. 田邊 誠, "民事紛爭の仲裁適格について-ドイツにおける議論を參考にして", 民事訴訟雜誌, (42) (1996), 法律文化社
  11. Barber,Horst, "Objektive Schiedsfähigkeit und ordre public in der internationalen Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit" (1994), PETER LANG
  12. David,René, "Arbitration in International Trade" (1985), Kulwer Law and Taxation
  13. Mann, Kenneth, "Punitive Civil Sanction : The Middleground Between Criminal and Civil Law", 101 Yale L. J, ~ (1992)
  14. Owen,David G, "Punitive Damages in Product Liability Litigation", 74 Mich. L, ~ (1976)
  15. Schütze, Rolf A., "Die Anerkennung und Vollstreckbarerklärung US-amerikanischer Schadensersatzurteile in Produkthaftungssachen in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland", Festschrift für Heinrich Nagel (1987)
  16. Schwab, Karl Heinz, "Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit" (2005), C. H. Beck
  17. Stein, Friedrich, "Bd.9" (2002), J. C. B. Mohr
  18. Zekoll, Joachim, "Zur Vollstreckbarkeit eines US-amerikanischen Schadensurteils", pp.302~ (1990), RIW

관련 논문AI추천

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (11건)