| 作为韩国和中国之间国际生意业务中产生的胶葛处理手腕，跟着仲裁的主要性增长，增强对于两国仲裁法和仲裁轨制的懂得具有主要的意义。两国的仲裁轨制成长过程也年夜体上同步，两国仲裁轨制的现状也有许多共通的课题。本文共分为十一章。第一章为绪论。第二章评介了韩国仲裁轨制的概略。第三章是中韩仲裁法准绳和根本轨制比拟研究。本章评论辩论当事人意思自治准绳与仲裁自力性准绳。在当事人意思自治准绳上，韩国仲裁法充足看重仲裁的契约性，将当事人意思自治准绳确立为根本准绳，该法的年夜部门划定均为随意率性性规矩。在仲裁自力性准绳上，韩国仲裁律例定自裁管辖权准绳，中国仲裁法对此尚缺少明文划定。第四章是中韩仲裁协定轨制比拟研究。本章从情势要件和本质要件两年夜方面评论辩论了中韩仲裁法的差别。韩国仲裁法对仲裁协定的书面情势采用更加宽松的要件，对可仲裁性等事项的请求比中国仲裁法的划定较为灵巧。第五章是中韩仲裁暂时办法轨制比拟研究。韩国仲裁法许可在仲裁法式开端前或仲裁法式停止中，仲裁协定的一方当事人可以向法院请求暂时保全办法。比拟而言，中国仲裁法上的暂时办法品种较少，韩语论文，且暂时办法的决议权专属于法院。第六章是中韩仲裁人轨制比拟研究。韩国仲裁法对仲裁人资历不采取严厉的法定前提轨制，与中公法分歧。另外，对于仲裁人的躲避与信息表露轨制，有较为完全的划定。第七章是中韩仲裁法式比拟研究。韩国仲裁律例定在不违背本法的强迫性划定的情形下，当事人可以自在商定仲裁法式事项。在审理措施等成绩上，韩语毕业论文，韩国仲裁法的划定绝对较为自在。第八章是中韩仲裁判决轨制比拟研究。韩国仲裁律例定，仲裁庭应该依据当事人商定的实体争议应该实用的司法规矩对争议作出判决，同时许可柑桔公允仁慈准绳作出判决。中公法不许可友爱仲裁。在判决的作出上，韩国不实施首席仲裁人决议制，与中公法分歧。第九章是中韩仲裁判决撤消轨制比拟研究。在此方面，中韩仲裁法重要差别有韩公法实施国际仲裁与国际仲裁同一化、不许可法院对判决停止实体审查、严厉限制判决撤消事由；中国仲裁法实施国际仲裁和国际仲裁两元化、许可法院实体审查，实施判决撤消和不予履行两重监视轨制。第十章是判决的认可和履行轨制。韩国对判决履行（特殊是国际判决）较为支撑，中国仲裁法因存在不予履行轨制中的广泛事由，而作用判决的有用率履行。第十一章是结论。韩国仲裁法的优势重要表现于（1）当事人在不违反强行律例则情形下可以充足行使对实体性事项和法式性事项的自在选择权；（2）从本质要件和情势要件上都尽最年夜能够认定存在仲裁协定和确认仲裁协定的效率；（3）仲裁庭可以决议其本身的管辖权；（4）增强对当事人权益的保全，包含尽可能放宽采用暂时性办法的机关和时光点；（5）划定除本法授与法院干涉的事项外法院不得干涉，而且对国际仲裁判决和涉外仲裁判决的撤消实施同一的、严厉限制于法式性事项的规矩。值得中国仲裁法参考的整体偏向是，扩大当事人的意思自治和仲裁庭的权利，减少法院干涉的规模的强度，详细轨制重要包含（1）充足尊敬与扩展当事人的意思自治，包含对实体性事项和法式性事项的选择自在；（2）对仲裁协定的情势要件作出更加宽松的划定，删除仲裁协定本质要件中对于选定仲裁委员会和仲裁事项的请求；（3）改造首席仲裁人由仲裁委员会指定的轨制；（4）授与仲裁庭自裁管辖权；（5）划定仲裁庭有权在仲裁法式开端之前或以后采用暂时性办法；（6）实施同一的仲裁判决撤消轨制，撤消法院对仲裁判决的实体成绩审查，破除国际仲裁判决的不予履行轨制。 Abstract: As the international business of South Korea and China, the production of the rubber Ge treatment wrist, along with the main growth of arbitration, to enhance the understanding of the two countries on the arbitration law and arbitration system has a major significance. The arbitration system of the two countries is also in the process of the growth process of the two countries, the two countries also have a lot of common arbitration system issues. This paper is divided into eleven chapters. The first chapter is the introduction. The second chapter reviews the outline of Korea arbitration system. The third chapter is the comparison of the principle of the arbitration law and the basic system of the Arbitration Law of China and korea. This chapter reviews the principle of autonomy of the parties and the principle of autonomy of arbitration. On the principle of party autonomy, South Korea, "Arbitration Law" sufficient value arbitration contract, establish the principle of party autonomy as the fundamental criterion, Nianye sector to delineate the law are random whims and rules. In the arbitration independent principle, the arbitration laws of Korea set self-determination jurisdiction principle, the Arbitration Law of the people's Republic of China this is still a lack of regulation of proclaimed in writing. The fourth chapter is the comparative study of the system of arbitration agreement between China and korea. In this chapter, the differences between Chinese and Korean arbitration law are discussed from the two aspects of the situation and essential elements. Korea Arbitration Law on the written form of the arbitration agreement, the use of more liberal elements of arbitration and other matters of the request of the Arbitration Law of China is more flexible. The fifth chapter is the comparative study of China and Korea arbitration temporary measures system. South Korean Arbitration Law in the arbitration process before the start of the arbitration or arbitration procedure, the arbitration agreement of the parties to the court for temporary preservation measures. In comparison, the Chinese arbitration law, the temporary approach to fewer varieties, and the resolution of the temporary approach is designed to belong to the court. The sixth chapter is the comparative study of the arbitration system in China and korea. Korean arbitration law does not adopt stringent legal prerequisites for the qualification of the arbitrator, and the differences between the public law and the public law. In addition, the arbitration of people to avoid and information disclosure system, there is a more complete delineation. The seventh chapter is the comparison of China and South Korea arbitration procedure. Korea arbitration rules and regulations shall not violate the provisions of this law, the provisions of the forced nature, the parties can agree on the arbitration procedures. In the trial methods and other results, the Korean Arbitration Act is definitely more comfortable. The eighth chapter is the comparative study of the system of arbitration judgment in China and korea. Korea arbitration laws and regulations, the arbitration tribunal should be based on the parties agreed to the substantive disputes should be practical judicial rules to make judgments, and to permit the judgment of the principle of fair and kind of citrus. Public law does not permit friendly arbitration. In the decision to make, the South Korea does not implement the chief arbitrator system, and the public law differences. The ninth chapter is the comparative study of China and Korea on the system of withdrawal of the arbitration judgment. In this regard, the important difference of Arbitration Law in China and South Korea have Han law implementation of international arbitration and international arbitration with of, without the leave of the court against the judge's decision to stop the substantive examination, severe restrictions on the decision to withdraw the subject; international arbitration and the international arbitration two yuan, the leave of the court to examine the entity for the implementation of the Arbitration Law of the people's Republic of China, the implementation of the decision undo and refuses to dual supervision system. The tenth chapter is the recognition of the judgment and the performance of the system. South Korea to the decision to perform (special international decision more support, Chinese arbitration law exist refuses to rail system in a wide range of subject matter, perform useful rate and influence the judgment. The eleventh chapter is the conclusion. South Korea "Arbitration Law" an important advantage in (1) the parties may exercise the right to adequate freedom to choose substantive matters and French matters without violating the rules of force situation; (2) from the essential elements and form elements are able to do most of the eve recognized the existence of an arbitration agreement and confirm the efficiency of the arbitration agreement; (3) the arbitration tribunal may resolution jurisdiction itself; (4) to enhance the security interests of the parties, contains as much as possible to relax by temporary measures organs and time; (5) delineated in this law to court interference issues the court shall not interfere, and the judgment of the international arbitration and the arbitration verdict undo the same stringent restrictions on the French, matters. The overall bias is worthy of reference China arbitration law, expand the autonomy of the parties and the arbitration tribunal of the right to reduce the intensity of interference with the size of the court, the system mainly includes (1) the autonomy of sufficient respect and expansion of the parties, including the substantive matters and matters of French freedom of choice; (2) to delineate a more relaxed situation of arbitration agreement document, delete the request about the selected Arbitration Commission Arbitration Arbitration Agreement and essential condition; (3) reconstruction chief arbitrator designated by the arbitration committee system; (4) Award and the arbitration tribunal jurisdiction; (5) designated the arbitration tribunal has the right to use temporary measures before or after the beginning of the arbitration procedures; (6) the implementation of the same arbitration revocation system, the court of arbitration revocation entity performance review, get rid of International Arbitration The system of non performance of the system. 目录: |
