• Journal of Legislation Research
• /
• no.44
• /
• pp.343-386
• /
• 2013

"Financial ADR" system in South Korea can be represented by so-called "Financial Dispute Resolution System", in which Financial Supervisory Service (FSS) and Financial Dispute Resolution Committee are the principal actors in operation of the system, and this is discussed as an "Administrative Financial ADR System". The system has over 10-year history since it was introduced in around 1999. Nonetheless, it was not until when financial consumer protection began to be highlighted after the 2008 financial crisis that Financial ADR system actually started to draw attention in Korea. This was because interest has been rising in "Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)" as an institutional measure to protect financial consumers damaged via financial transactions. However, the current discussion on the domestic Financial ADR system shows an aspect that it is confined to who is to be a principal actor for the operation of Financial ADR institution with main regards to reorganization of supervisory system. This article aims to embody these facts in an institutional model by recognizing them as a problem and analyzing the features of the Financial ADR system, thereby clarifying problems of the system and presenting the direction of improvement. The Korean Financial ADR system can be judged as "administrative model integrated model consensual model quasi-judicial model non-prepositive Internal Dispute Resolution (IDR) model". However, at the same time, it is confronted with a task to overcome the two problems; the system is not equipped with institutional basis for securing its validity in spite of the adopted quasi-judicial effect model; and a burden of operating an integrated ADR system is considerable. From this perspective, the article suggests improvement plans for security of validity in the current system and for expansion of industry-control ADR system, in particular, a system of prepositive IDR model. Amongst them, it suggests further plans for securing the validity of the system as follows; promotion to expand the number of internal persons and to differentiate mediation procedures and effect; a plan to keep a financial institution from filing a lawsuit before an agreement recommendation or a mediation proposal is advised; and a plan to grant suspension of extinctive prescription as well as that of procedures of the lawsuit.