지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
The legal systems about custody(interim measures of protection) in arbitration procedure between Korea and China are examined in this paper.
Though Korea and China both permit a custody in arbitration procedure, there are big differences between them. While the court and arbitration tribunal are vested to do a custody in Korea, the court only is vested to do a custody in China. Even in case that a custody is done by the court, the party may apply for a custody directly to the court in Korea, but the party have to apply for a custody to the court only through the arbitration commission in China.
These differences in arbitration system affect the efficiency of entire arbitration system. The important points needed to improve in both country's systems are as follows:
In the case of Korean arbitration system, the improving points are four. First, in order to execute a interim measures of protection which is ruled by arbitration tribunal, it is needed that Korea prescribes to force the court to execute the a interim measures of protection in arbitration law. Second, it is needed to discuss about whether interim measures of protection have to include a custody of evidence or not. Third, it is needed to make it clear that a custody has public character by removing the words "in the case that the parties have no other agreement" in article 18 of arbitration law. Forth, It is needed to treat differently maritime arbitration from international commercial arbitration, because the maritime arbitration has different character from international commercial arbitration
In the case of Chinese arbitration system, the improving points are four. First, according to the today's legislation trends, it must be considered that the court and arbitration tribunal both have a right to decide the custody of property. In the case that arbitration tribunal decide it, there must be provided procedural provisions to execute it. Second, Chinese laws and rules have to be revised so that the party may ask the people's court for custody of property before submitting an arbitration. Because even if the party may apply for custody of property with the people's court after submitting an arbitration, it might be too late to preserve property. Third, it is also needed that China has to permit to apply a preservation of evidence as well as a custody of property before submitting an arbitration. Forth, it is also strongly recommended that China permit a custody of property or preservation of evidence even in cases an arbitration is submitted to the arbitration institute which is located in foreign country, not in China.
Though Korea and China both permit a custody in arbitration procedure, there are big differences between them. While the court and arbitration tribunal are vested to do a custody in Korea, the court only is vested to do a custody in China. Even in case that a custody is done by the court, the party may apply for a custody directly to the court in Korea, but the party have to apply for a custody to the court only through the arbitration commission in China.
These differences in arbitration system affect the efficiency of entire arbitration system. The important points needed to improve in both country's systems are as follows:
In the case of Korean arbitration system, the improving points are four. First, in order to execute a interim measures of protection which is ruled by arbitration tribunal, it is needed that Korea prescribes to force the court to execute the a interim measures of protection in arbitration law. Second, it is needed to discuss about whether interim measures of protection have to include a custody of evidence or not. Third, it is needed to make it clear that a custody has public character by removing the words "in the case that the parties have no other agreement" in article 18 of arbitration law. Forth, It is needed to treat differently maritime arbitration from international commercial arbitration, because the maritime arbitration has different character from international commercial arbitration
In the case of Chinese arbitration system, the improving points are four. First, according to the today's legislation trends, it must be considered that the court and arbitration tribunal both have a right to decide the custody of property. In the case that arbitration tribunal decide it, there must be provided procedural provisions to execute it. Second, Chinese laws and rules have to be revised so that the party may ask the people's court for custody of property before submitting an arbitration. Because even if the party may apply for custody of property with the people's court after submitting an arbitration, it might be too late to preserve property. Third, it is also needed that China has to permit to apply a preservation of evidence as well as a custody of property before submitting an arbitration. Forth, it is also strongly recommended that China permit a custody of property or preservation of evidence even in cases an arbitration is submitted to the arbitration institute which is located in foreign country, not in China.
목차
Ⅰ. 서론
Ⅱ. 중재절차상의 보전조치
Ⅲ. 한국 중재절차상의 보전조치
Ⅳ. 중국 중재절차상의 보전조치
Ⅴ. 보전조치에 대한 한중비교
Ⅵ. 결론
참고문헌
〈Abstract〉
참고문헌 (18)
참고문헌 신청
함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
중국중재제도의 국제표준화에 대한 연구
중재연구
2008 .01
-
중국 중재제도의 특성에 관한 사례 연구
무역학회지
2004 .08
-
중재에 있어서 법원의 역할
무역상무연구
2006 .05
-
국제상사중재에서 잠정적 구제조치에 관한 연구
무역연구
2011 .01
-
중국에서의 국제상사중재합의 유효성에 관한 연구
무역상무연구
2011 .05
-
중재합의시 중재지 결정에 관한 연구
통상정보연구
2010 .12
-
중재제도의 활성화를 위한 연구
원광법학
2010 .01
-
중국 투자기업의 중국 국내중재기구이용 가능성에 관한 연구
중재연구
2014 .01
-
국제상사중재에 있어서 중재지의 의미
중재연구
2008 .01
-
북한의 중재법의 주요 특징과 시사점
중재연구
2007 .01
-
한국 중재산업 발전 방안
중재연구
2018 .01
-
국제상사중재합의의 요건과 내용에 관한 연구
무역학회지
2007 .08
-
한국중재의 영역확대 방안에 관한연구
중재연구
2010 .01
-
중국 중재계약의 형식과 내용에 관한 비교법적 고찰
비교법학연구
2003 .09
-
The Development History and Activation Measures of Commercial Arbitration System in Korea : With Respect to 40 Years of Korean Arbitration Law and Practice
무역상무연구
2006 .12
-
중재사건 실태분석을 통한 신속화 방안 연구
무역학회지
2006 .08
-
중국 중재제도의 새로운 발전과 외국중재판정 승인 및 집행에 관한 연구
중재연구
2015 .01
-
Recent changes to the Korean Arbitration Act and its Comparison with Singapore: Korea’s Potential to Become an Arbitration Hub
중재연구
2016 .01
-
중국 CIETAC 중재규칙상의 보전신청에 관한 연구
중재연구
2004 .01
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2009-366-017321240