• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.17 no.2
• /
• pp.189-219
• /
• 2007

Mediation is type of intervention in which the disputing parties accept the offer of the judge or a third party to recommend a solution for their controversy. Mediation differs from arbitration in being a voluntary resolution rather than a judicial procedure. Thus, the parties to the dispute are not bound to accept the mediator's recommendation. Resort to mediation has become increasingly frequent for civil disputes. Mediation has been successful in many cases of civil conflict. Mediation has become increasingly important for monetary disputes as well, particularly in damage cases. While most people consider mediation a far superior experience to court, everything I tell you a mediator should not do is something that at least one mediator I have dealt with has done to a client. In theory, a mediator should never share anything you tell him or her without your permission. In theory a mediator should not "spring" evaluations on anyone in a mediation without your permission (e.g. a mediator should never say "your case is worth \OOOO and I just told the other side that). In theory a mediator should not browbeat or threaten you. At the end, usually about 55% of the time with a good mediator in Kwangju Appellate Court in 2003, the parties reach an agreement that is in their best interests. If they decide to sign off on a signed agreement, the signed agreement is binding. I obviously feel mediation is a very good thing and the numbers and surveys bear me out. This article is written about how mediation is proceeded, what is the realities, what is the problem and what is the activating way. For this study, I research with legal sociological approach using Korean Judicial Year Boot judicial document and my experience as meditator in Kwangju District Court.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.17 no.2
• /
• pp.125-139
• /
• 2007

최근 한국과 미국 법원에서는 조정제도를 자주 이용하고 있다. 조정제도를 이용함으로써 법원은 사건부담을 줄일 수 있을 뿐만 아니라 소송지연을 막고 비용을 절감할 수 있다. 그러나 조정제도의 장점을 극대화하기 위해서는 일반 조정제도의 기본원칙인 당사자 원칙을 최대한 반영하고 법원의 개입은 제한하여야 할 필요가 있다. 이점에 있어 미국과 한국의 법원내 조정제도에 비교해볼 때, 전자가 법원의 개입은 필요한 최소한에 그치고 조정인과 분쟁당사자간의 당사자자치를 최대한 보장하고 있음을 알 수 있다. 이 글은 한국과 미국의 법원내 조정제도를 비교 분석하여 효과적인 법원내 조정제도를 정착시키기 위하여 개선해야 한 점을 제시하고자한다. 한국과 미국의 법원내 조정제도의 근본적인 차이는 조정절차진행에서 법원의 역할과 관련되어 있다. 특히 미국법원은 분쟁 당사자들 스스로 분쟁해결을 할 수 있도록 돕는 역할에 주력하는 반면, 한국법원은 조정절차 전 과정에서 분쟁해결에 적극 개입한다. 보다 공정하고 효율적인 민사조정절차를 위해서는 관련법의 정비뿐만 아니라 조정인의 교육과 전문성을 강화하기 위한 제도적 장치를 마련할 필요가 있다.

• Journal of Legislation Research
• /
• no.44
• /
• pp.435-464
• /
• 2013

의료민사소송은 그동안 의료행위가 지니고 있는 전문성, 밀실성, 폐쇄성 등의 여러 가지의 특수성으로 인하여 소송이 장기화되고 경제적 비용이 상당하게 소모되었다. 또한 법원의 판결이 이루어지더라도 당사자들이 이를 신뢰하지 못하는 등의 이유로 신속성과 공정성에 문제점이 지적되었다. 이 때문에 소송 대체적 분쟁해결제도로서 의료사고 피해구제 및 의료분쟁 조정 등에 관한 법률상의 의료분쟁조정 및 중재 절차가 탄생하게 되었다. 그러나 의료분쟁조정법 제27조 제8항에서 피신청인이 14일 동안 의사를 표명하지 않는 경우 거부의사로 간주되고, 이 경우 한국의료분쟁조정중재원장이 각하결정을 하여야 한다고 규율함으로써, 조정의 개시 조차 순탄치 않은 것이 현실이다. 본고에서는 우리나라 의료분쟁의 최근 현황을 확인해 본 후, 의료분쟁조정법상 조정의 신청에 관한 조문인 제27조에 대한 입법안을 비교 점검한 후 다른 ADR 관련 법률이나 민사소송법상의 조문과 비교하여 불합리한 점이 있는지를 검토하고, 동조의 개선방안을 제시하고자 한다. 또한 2013. 4. 8.부터 시행이 되고 있는 불가항력적 산과 사고에 대한 무과실보상제도와 관련하여 동조가 미치는 영향 등에 대해서도 논의하고자 한다.

• 월간낙농육우
• /
• v.17 no.2 s.178
• /
• pp.126-128
• /
• 1997

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.5 no.2
• /
• pp.391-412
• /
• 2004

• The Korean Journal of Archival Studies
• /
• no.43
• /
• pp.103-145
• /
• 2015

This study is intended to examine the present condition and management of Korean civil litigation between 1895 and 1905, during which the traditional korean legal system had undergone a significant reform until it was finally incorporated into the Japanese colonial counterpart. Civil litigation is important in historical archiving, in that we can understand archiving over time, the governing structure and our national identity. However at times we are not able to use them practically. The ultimate goal of preserving and maintaining the archives is to use them practically. The effective use of archives should be supported by their systematic management and access to a high standard. Therefore, the second main theme of this study is to propose to unveil civil litigation to the public for professional studies. Firstly, we should make a list of civil judgments from a management perspective. Secondly, we should inform people of the civil justice rulings through publicity activities such as contents creation, exhibition, documentary creation, education and so on. Thirdly, the historical archives of the civil litigations should be preserved apart form records. Fourthly, I should propose that we offer curriculum about interpreting and understanding history archives for strengthening of our expertise. Civil judgment of Guhanmal-Japanese is invaluable as it explains the history of our culture. Results of Conservation and utilization will be a valuable resource and invaluable to study.

• Journal of the Korea Society of Computer and Information
• /
• v.19 no.4
• /
• pp.139-147
• /
• 2014

Medical disputes the problem that occurs essentially among the rapidly increasing of the demand for health care and the attention of the public health. The subject of dispute is mostly criminal penalties and civil redress due to a physician's medical malpractice, resolved by agreement was prioritized. They trying to solve through the litigation and exercise the skills. But, the lack of clear standards and related legislation make difficult to solve the problem. for this, "The Act of Medical Malpractice Damage's Relief and Mediation for Medical Dispute Resolution" (Medical Disputes Adjustment Act) was enacted in April 7, 2011 and performed in Apr. 8, 2012. To solve the problem autonomously between the parties. It is the legislative intent such as mediation or arbitration to solve the conflict between the parties. But there are some problems that examined from the perspective of constitutional review with the criminal and civil problems. Therefore, this paper will find out the legal issues about Medical Dispute Adjustment Act and the constitutional and civil issues. And want to expect to be prepared the more stable and efficient solution of medical disputes.

• 월간 기계설비
• /
• no.10 s.195
• /
• pp.53-56
• /
• 2006

시공을 하다가 손해를 보았는데도 발주자 혹은 원도급업체에서 인정을 안해준다면 어떻게 해야 할까? "소송을 할까?", "다음 공사는 어떻게 해. 그냥 손해보고 말지 뭐", "아니야 그냥 넘어가기에는 너무 억울해" 설비건설업을 하다보면 누구나 한번쯤 이런 경험이 있었을 것이다. 이럴 경우 공정거래위원회에 문의 하거나 건설하도급 분쟁조정협의회에 문의하다가 정 안될 경우 소송에 돌입한다. 소송의 경우 대법원의 최종 판결이 나기까지 2~3년은 고스란히 걸림은 물론 소송비용도 만만치 않다. 이렇게 기간이 길지 않고 가격도 저렴하면서 해결 가능한 방법은 없을까? 물론 있다. 본지가 지난 7월부터 연재한 대한상사중재원과 건설하도급분쟁조정협의회, 공정거래위원회 등을 통해 해결 가능하다. 이번 호에는 그동안 게재되었던 건설분쟁시의 해결방안에 대한 총론으로 민사분쟁의 소송외적 해결제도 및 건설분쟁의 소송외적 해결제도, 건설공사 계약문서별 분쟁해결 조항에 대하여 게재한다.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.13 no.2
• /
• pp.613-630
• /
• 2004

Conciliation is one of the most effective ADR(alternative dispute resolution) which takes the place of civil procedure. It is achieved with disputants' independent will. The disputants negotiate each other, and make peaceful settlement. If a compromise is effected between the two, it regards the compromise as a judgement of the Supreme Court. This effect on the conciliation is afford a basis for the private autonomies. But nowadays, the practical use of the private autonomies is not thoroughgoing enough in our country. It is a matter of no uncommon occurrence for the member of a conciliation commission to form a conclusion about the dispute and to persuade the disputants to accept the conclusion. Even the judges have a tendency to conduct a conciliation like civil procedure. Under these circumstances, it's harsh to the disputants that a compromise in the conciliation has an effect like the judgement of the Supreme Court. So you should reconsider carefully the role or service of a conciliation commission. The role of a conciliation commission must be to guarantee an atmosphere of freedom, and for disputants to negotiate without restraint. So the members of a conciliation commission should make an offer the disputants the information on the members and proceedings of the conciliation. It will make the disputants have a firm belief that the members are fair and conciliation will be progressed in a fair. Moreover they have to notify the disputants of the estimated norms which is concerned in the dispute, too. It will facilitate the negotiation and compromise, and will justify claim preclusion(res judicata) which is based on Korean Civil Conciliation Law(Article 29) says that conciliation has the full force and effect of a civil judgement of the Supreme Court.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.18 no.2
• /
• pp.75-103
• /
• 2017

There are three types of benefits in the National Health Insurance Act of Korea. Those are the treatment benefit, statutory uninsured medical benefits and arbitrary uninsured medical benefits. Recently the Korea Supreme Court changed its past legal theory and permitted the arbitrary uninsured medical benefits under the strictly exceptional conditions. According to the Supreme Court's decision, the existence of procedural difficulty, the medical necessity and the patient's consent are necessarily required in order to allow the legal exceptions in arbitrary uninsured medical benefits. Among the three requirements, the doctor's explanation and the patient's fully informed consent are the most important essentials in this legal conflict. The requirement concerning the doctor's explanation and the patient's consent roles like a hole in the ice as a breathing hole in the arbitrary uninsured medical benefits. The most cases dismissed after Supreme Court Decision 2010DU27639, 27646 Decided June 18, 2012. were due to the defect of three requirements.