2016년 개정 중재법의 중재판정 집행에 관한 문제점 (Problems on the Arbitral Awards Enforcement in the 2016 Korean Arbitration Ac)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 한국중재학회
· 수록지 정보 : 중재연구 / 26권 / 4호 / 3 ~ 41페이지
· 저자명 : 윤진기

초록

이 논문은 2016.5.29.에 통과된 개정 중재법상의 중재판정 집행에 관한 문제점을 다루고 있다. 개정 중재법에서는 중재판정 집행절차를 집행판결에서 집행결정으로 개선함으로써 중재판정의 간이하고 신속한 집행을 도모하고 있지만, 여전히 중재판정의 집행권원성을 인정하지 않고 있기 때문에 여러 가지 문제점이 존재한다.
특히 개정 중재법은 제35조 단서에 중재판정의 효력을 제한하는 규정을 두었는데, 이 단서 규정으로 인하여 중재제도의 근간이라고 할 수 있는 중재판정 취소에 관한 규정을 사문화시키고, 기존의 중재판정 취소와 중재판정의 승인 및 집행 거부에 관한 법적인 틀을 바꾸어버린 결과를 초래할 수 있게 되었는바, 이 논문에서는 이를 피할 수 있는 새로운 해석론을 제시하고 있다.
이 외에, 중재집행 절차에서 야기될 수 있는 절차의 지연, 비용 증가, 중재 홍보 과정에 발생할 수 있는 법적 책임, 임시적 처분의 집행절차와 관련된 문제 등 개정 중재법의 제반 문제점을 분석하고 있다.

영어초록

This paper reviews the problems on the arbitral awards enforcement in the 2016 Korea Arbitration Act. In order to get easy and rapid enforcement of the arbitral awards, th new arbitration act changed the enforcement procedure from an enforcement judgemen procedure to an enforcement decision procedure. However, like the old arbitration act, th new act is stil not arbitration friendly. First of al, there are various problems in the new act because it does not aprove that an arbitral award can be a schuldtiel (tile o enforcement) of which the arbitral award can be enforced.
In this paper, several problems of the new act are discused: efect of arbitral award aproval to res judicata of enforcement decision, diferent trial proces and result for sam ground, posibilty of abuse of litgation for seting aside arbitral awards and delay o enforcement caused by seting aside, infringement of arbitration customer’s right to b informed, and non-internationality of enforcement of interim measures of protection, inter alia The new arbitration act aded a proviso on article 35 (Efect of Arbitral Awards) Acording to article 35 of the old arbitration act, arbitral awards shal have the same efec on the parties as the final and conclusive judgement of the court. The proviso of article 3 in the new act can be interpret two ways: if arbitral awards have any ground of refusal o recogniton or enforcement acording to article 38, the arbitral awards do not have th same efect on the parties as the final and conclusive judgement of the court; if arbitra awards have not recognised or ben enforced acording to article 38, the arbitral awards d not have the same efect on the parties as the final and conclusive judgement of the cour In the case of the former, the parties canot file action for seting aside arbitral awards i article 36 to the court, and this is one of the important problems of the new act.
In the new act, same ground of seting aside arbitral awards can be tried in diferent tria proces with or without plead acording to article 35 and 37. Therefore, progres o enforcement decision of arbitral awards can be blocked by the action of seting aside arbitra awards. If so, parties have to spend their time and money to go on unexpected litgation.
In order to simplify enforcement procedure of arbitral awards, the new act changed enforcement judgement procedure to enforcement decision procedure. However, there is stil rom for the court to hear a case in the same way of enforcement judgement procedure.
Although the new act simplifies enforcement procedure by changing enforcement judgement procedure to enforcement decision procedure, there stil remains action of seting aside arbitral awards, so that enforcement of arbitral awards stil can be delayed by it.
Moreover, another problem exists in that the parties could have to wait until a seventh trial (maximum) for a final decision. This result in not god for the arbitration system itself in the respect of confidence as wel as cost.
If the arbitration instiution promotes to use arbitration by emphasizing single-trial system of arbitration without enough improvement of enforcement procedure in the arbitration system, it would infringe the arbitration customer’s right to be informed, and further raise a problem of legal responsibilty of arbitration instiution.
With reference to enforcement procedure of interim measures of protection, the new act did not provide preliminary orders, and moreover limit the court not to recognize interim measures of protection done in a foreign country. These have a bad efect on the internationalization of the Korean arbitration system.

참고자료

· 없음