• 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.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.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.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.15 no.2
• /
• pp.61-91
• /
• 2005

It is well recognized that the availability of prompt, effective and economical means of dispute resolution is an important element in the orderly growth and encouragement of international trade and investment. Increasingly, ADR(Alternative Dispute Resolution) including arbitration and mediation, instead of litigation in national courts, has become the preferred means of resolving private international commercial disputes. Under the situation, efforts for settlement of trade and investment disputes by ADR have been made between Korea and China through trade and investment agreements and arbitration agreement. Judging from the importance of economic exchange between Korea and Qingdao including Shandong Province, The Korean Commercial Arbitration Board(KCAB) and The Qingdao Arbitration Commission(QAC) should strengthen mutual cooperation to develop efficient methods of resolving commercial disputes arising between the two countries and to assist parties in solving those disputes through conclusion of arbitral agreement. Recently, efforts for conclusion of a Korea-China-Japan Free Trade Agreement(FTA) received strong support at Korea-Japan and Korea-China Summit Meeting held on June and July, 2003 respectively. If the conclusion of FTA among the three countries would be realized, it would promote regional trade and investment, contributing to economic growth in the Northeast Asian region. Under the circumstances, the key arbitral institutions including KCAB and QAC should consider to take the initiative in setting up tentatively called ${\ulcorner}$Joint Arbitration Center for Northeast Asia${\lrcorner}$ for which the CAMCA of NAFTA will be the good example.