• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.8 no.1
• /
• pp.293-322
• /
• 1998

General Administrative Procedures of the Preshipment Inspection 1. Initial notification Preshipment Inspection is initiated by Agency when it receives notice either from the importing country, or the seller, that an export needs to be imspected 1.1 Notice from the importing country 1.2 Notice from the seller 2. Preliminary price verification After receipt of initial notification, Agency undertakes, Where possible, a preliminary price verification, based upon the Inspection Order and other contractual documents received. 3. Customs classification When required by the Government of the importing country. Agency forms an opinion of the Customs Classification Code based upon the Customs Tariff Book and Rules of Classification of the country of importation. The Customs Classification Code determines the tariff rate on the basis of which the importer will be required to pay import duties. 4. Import eligibility 5. Arrangements for physical inspection 5.1 Inspection request from seller 5.2 Place of inspection 5.3 Date of inspection 5.4 Physical inspection procedures 6. Physical inspection results When the physical inspection is completed, the inspector submits his report to the Agency office and the result of inspection will be communicated to the seller and, where applicable, the place of inspection. The result will state: satisfactory or conditional of unsatisfactory. The seller is welcome to present his views in writting to Agency in the event there is any query regarding the issuance of a conditional of unsatisfactory inspection result. 6.1 Satisfactory 6.2 Conditional 6.3 Unsatisfactory 7. Shipment of the goods The seller is advised to check with Agency prior to shipment if the physical inspection result has not been received or there are any doubts concerning whether a Clean Report of Findings will be issued. 8. Final price verification and classification Based on the results of physical inspection and appropriate final documents, Agency finalises the price verification and the Agency opinion of Customs classification code. When the preliminary price verification has not resulted in any unresolved questions and the inspection result and other documents received are consistent with the preliminary documentation, Agency will not normally require any additional information. The main exception would be if the terms of sale require reference to prices at the date of shipment. 9. The Report of Findings 9.1 Types of Reports of Findings - Clean Reports of Findings(CRF) The Agency will issue a Clean Reports of Findings(CRF), or equivalent document, normally within two working days after receipt of the necessary correct final documents and a satisfactory result in all aspects of the inspection. - Discrepancy Report.

• Proceedings of the Korean Institute Of Construction Engineering and Management
• /
• autumn
• /
• pp.54-62
• /
• 2001

Although claims and disputes may be never avoided in construction industry, until 1998, there are no systematic claims in the public sector in Korea. But, because of IMF, Contractors have been recognized that cost management is essential factor and contractual right can be demanded against the Public Orderer. Many affirmative effect such as, appearance of new professional service, prevention of lower quality construction, restrain of unnecessary budget expenditure, arrangement of duplicated or triplicated liability and revision of unnecessary administrative control may be anticipated through alleging claims, but in site representative manager and construction company may have ambiguous fear, somebody tried to allege claims. Therefore, to activate systematic construction claims, 32 public construction project claims alleged by contractors from 1998 to 2001 were analyzed, inactivated reasons of claims were examined and contractor's action plan to allege claims was suggested in this paper.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.17 no.2
• /
• pp.167-187
• /
• 2007

As Korea has reached a free trade agreement with the United States of America, it is required to provide an appropriate procedure to ".kr" domain name disputes based on the principles established in the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy(UDRP). Currently, Internet address Dispute Resolution Committee(IDRC) established under Article 16 of the Act on Internet Address Resources provides the dispute resolution proceedings to resolve ".kr" domain name disputes. While the IDRC's proceeding is similar to the UDRP administrative proceeding in procedural aspects, the Domain Name Dispute Mediation Policy that is established by the IDRC and that applies to disputes involving ".kr" domain names is very different from the UDRP for generic Top Level Domain (gTLD) in substantial aspects. Under the Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement(KORUS FTA), it is expected that either the Domain Name Dispute Mediation Policy to be amended to adopt the UDRP or the IDRC to examine the Domain Name Dispute Mediation Policy in order to harmonize it with the principles established in the UDRP. It is a common practice of cybersquatters to warehouse a number of domain names without any active use of these domain names after their registration. The Domain Name Dispute Mediation Policy provides that the complainant may request to transfer or delete the registration of the disputed domain name if the registrant registered, holds or uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. This provision lifts the complainant's burden of proof to show the respondent's bad faith because the complainant is only required to prove one of the three bad faiths which are registration in bad faith, holding in bad faith, or use in bad faith. The aforementioned resolution procedure is different from the UDRP regime which requires the complainant, in compliance with paragraph 4(b) of the UDRP, to prove that the disputed domain name has been registered in bad faith and is being used in bad faith. Therefore, the complainant carries heavy burden of proof under the UDRP. The IDRC should deny the complaint if the respondent has legitimate rights or interests in the domain names. Under the UDRP, the complainant must show that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The UDRP sets out three illustrative circumstances, any one of which if proved by the respondent, shall be evidence of the respondent's rights to or legitimate interests in the domain name. As the Domain Name Dispute Mediation Policy provides only a general provision regarding the respondent's legitimate rights or interests, the respondent can be placed in a very week foundation to be protected under the Policy. It is therefore recommended for the IDRC to adopt the three UDRP circumstances to guide how the respondent can demonstrate his/her legitimate rights or interests in the disputed domain name. In accordance with the KORUS FTA, the Korean Government is required to provide online publication to a reliable and accurate database of contact information concerning domain name registrants. Cybersquatters often provide inaccurate contact information or willfully conceal their identity to avoid objection by trademark owners. It may cause unnecessary and unwarranted delay of the administrative proceedings. The respondent may loss the opportunity to assert his/her rights or legitimate interests in the domain name due to inability to submit the response effectively and timely. The respondent could breach a registration agreement with a registrar which requires the registrant to submit and update accurate contact information. The respondent who is reluctant to disclose his/her contact information on the Internet citing for privacy rights and protection. This is however debatable as the respondent may use the proxy registration service provided by the registrar to protect the respondent's privacy.