• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.27 no.1
• /
• pp.3-35
• /
• 2017

For recent years, several disputes between Korean consumers and multinational companies have arisen. Since the disputes were big and material that children's safety was at issue, a question started if Korean law properly has protected consumers' rights against multinational companies. While the Korean legal society tried to legislate punitive compensation with this concern, the U.S. Supreme Court reached an interesting case law regarding consumer contracts. A recent trend on consumer contracts in the United States shows that general terms have arbitration clause with class action waiver. As much as international arbitration has worked as the most effective resolution in international commercial disputes, the concept is still foreign and the experts are not approachable to lay individual consumers. However, class action in arbitration can hugely help for lay individual consumers to bring a case before arbitration tribunal. California courts consistently showed the analysis that the practical impact of prohibiting class action in arbitration clause is to ban lay individual consumers from fighting for their rights. However, the Supreme Court held that the arbitration clause shall be enforced as parties agree even if consumers practically cannot fight for their rights in the end. Even though consumer contracts are a typical example of lack of parity and of adhesive contract, the Supreme Court still applies liberalism that parties are equal in power and free to agree. This case law has a crucial implication since Korean consumers buy goods and services from the U.S. and other countries in everyday life. Accordingly, they are deemed to agree on the dispute resolution clauses, which might violate their constitutional right to bring their cases before the adjudication tribunal. This issue could be more important than adopting punitive compensation because consumers' rights are not necessarily governed by Korean law but by the governing law of the general terms and conditions chosen and written by the multinational companies. Thus this paper studies and analyzes the practical reality of international arbitration and influence of arbitration clause with class action waiver with the U.S. Supreme Court and California case laws.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.21 no.1
• /
• pp.73-86
• /
• 2011

Today's arbitrations see themselves as the most effective scheme for dispute resolution in a variety of transactional context. While some kind of ADR system was already introduced in Korea as of 2007 with revision of the Consumer Basic Law, consumers' needs in dispute resolution remain unmet. Recently one consumer arbitration case divides the U.S. Supreme Court. Of course, the result of the case is expected to affect tens of millions of arbitration agreements in the States which has the most developed scheme in consumer arbitrations. While Arbitration clauses in adhesion contracts are not automatically held to be substantively unconscionable, Class action waivers are one of the most controversial issues in consumer arbitration. In this study, with the theoretical background of consumer arbitrations general, and contractual defenses against adhesive contracts, reviewed are U.S. federal courts' attitudes toward certain consumer arbitration agreements including the class arbitration waiver. Moreover, several issues in AT&T case are examined for practical implications for consumer dispute resolution. All of these are expected to initiate further research to find some guidelines for the proper status and operation of consumer arbitration here in Korea.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.28 no.2
• /
• pp.91-110
• /
• 2018

Consumers repeatedly make small sum purchases through business-to-consumer contracts, usually without incident. Consumer areas have been increasing; therefore, consumer disputes have been occurring frequently as well. In international consumer transactions, it is not easy to solve consumer disputes by applying the laws of different countries. Resolving disputes by using the consumer arbitration system can be a measure to protect consumers. In the U.S., a class arbitration is being operated as a mixed dispute resolution system of class action and arbitration. Consumer Arbitration has long been a controversial issue in the U.S. It is therefore a lesson for us to examine related cases. A recent U.S. Supreme Court decision, DIRECTV v. Imburgia, was looked into and after a summary of the facts, issues, and opinions and opposing opinions that had a tight controversy, a close analysis was done. The analysis through this judgment is as follows: first, the contraction of consumer protection; second, the expansion of the Federal Arbitration Act scope; third, the class arbitration's restriction; and fourth, the submission of the arbitration fairness act.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.20 no.2
• /
• pp.151-171
• /
• 2010

This paper investigates the consumer arbitration practices In the U.S. The key issue in consumer arbitration is how to protect the individual consumers from the loss of their legal rights stemming from the arbitration agreement with the business. In the U.S., the major legal doctrines to protect individual consumer include the voluntary-knowing-intelligent doctrine, unconscionability doctrine, and void contract. Even though the US courts are favorable to the enforceability of arbitration agreement, they strictly apply the contract law theories in deciding the existence of arbitration agreement, providing a strong common law protection for the consumers in arbitration. However, the practices for protection of consumers in arbitration in Korea are not mature yet. If consumer arbitration is widely adopted into B to C contracts, a protective measure for individual consumer can be found in the Act of Clause Regulation providing that the business has duty to explain the relevant clause in the adhesive contracts.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.11 no.1
• /
• pp.75-93
• /
• 2001

The advantages of arbitration such as promptness, economy and flexibility apply to the disputes arising from corporate governance between shareholders and a corporation. The confidentiality of arbitration can be particularly highlighted in the disputes among the members inside corporation. But it appears that the shareholders believe litigation the best way to pursue liabilities of managers of corporation and improve the system of corporate governance. And it is claimed that the current litigation system lacks the implementation of shareholders rights due to structural deficiency and therefore need bring class actions into the system of Korean jurisprudence. The OECD, which afforded the rescue finances to Korea, also recommended shareholder class actions as a way to improve corporate governance. Class actions have merits but even advanced countries consider the changes of existing system or only stay class actions in the stage of discussion. Rather, legal experts urge arbitration to be used more frequently and the Courts also approved the dispute resolutions of the disputes as to corporate governance through arbitration. There is no report in Korea that arbitration was used to resolve the disputes between shareholders and the managers, or between shareholders and corporation, which is listed in the Stock Market. There only are the debates for bring class actions into the judicial system between NGOs and the organizations of corporate managers. But arbitration has greater advantages in resolving the disputes among the members of corporation that any other methods for dispute resolution. Arbitration can interpret flexibly the mandatory provisions of the Statutes of Security and the Code of Commerce to meet the needs of parties involved, which is not possible to the Courts. Arbitration can issue the award to meet the equity of the parties. And arbitration can avoid a resolution of All or Nothing by fully considering the specific situations of Korean corporations(such as family-dominated management) and can issue the award beneficial to all parties of shareholders, managers and corporation. Thus it should be sought to resolve the disputes as to corporate governance through arbitration.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.23 no.2
• /
• pp.1-35
• /
• 2013

In the 21th century, its important role in international commercial disputes has established arbitration as the preferred form of dispute resolution. Because commercial disputes have become more complicated and varied with their quantitative increase, it is important that they be settled in a reasonable and rapid manner. Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) is now regarded as one of the most effective dispute resolution methods for the settling of commercial disputes and merits notice. Arbitration is a form of dispute resolution in which two parties agree to have their dispute resolved by one or more arbitrators and thereby avoid what could be costly and time-consuming court battles. Often contracts mandate that disputes be settled through arbitration. These arbitration clauses also frequently prohibit plaintiffs from banding together to bring an action on behalf of a larger class. An arbitration agreement is an agreement by parties to summit to arbitration all or certain disputes which have arisen or which may arise between them with respect to their defined legal relationship, whether contractual or not. According to the Supreme Court, general elective arbitration clauses may be considered valid in light of all the relevant facts. Arbitration has been the subject of a great deal of research and the scope of effect in arbitration agreements is a promising avenue for future research.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.77
• /
• pp.69-89
• /
• 2018

The United States of America is one of the most favoring countries in which mandatory pre-arbitration clauses in the form of adhesion contract have been widely recognized and supported by courts and the Federal Arbitration Act. However, after the financial crisis in 2008 and the National Arbitration Forum scandal in 2009, in enacting the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act ('Dodd-Frank Act'), Section 1028(a) of the Act requires the newly created Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) to provide Congress with a report on "the use of agreements providing for arbitration of any future dispute between covered persons and consumers". Section 1028(b) also grants the CFPB the authority to "prohibit or impose conditions or limitations on the use of an agreement between a covered person and a consumer for a consumer financial product or service providing for arbitration of any future dispute between the parties, if the Bureau finds that such a prohibition or imposition of conditions or limitations is in the public interest and for the protection of consumers." Pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Act, the CFPB issued a report entitled "2015 Arbitration Study: Report to Congress 2015 (Report)" in March 2015. This paper examines some major legal issues of the Report and makes a few recommendations for Korean financial institutions which entered into the U.S. financial market or has a plan to do so in the near future.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.27 no.4
• /
• pp.199-222
• /
• 2017

Currently, many punitive damages (or statutory damages) and class action laws are discussed in relation to the consumer damage relief system. It is in the background of the argument that the introduction of such a victim relief system will solve many small and large consumer damages. There are many cases in which the punitive damages compensation or the class action system are introduced in relation to the food safety damage naturally. Although the introduction of such a system can clearly help the consumer to relieve large-scale damage, it can not solve all the problems at once because the company can reject the system despite the introduction of such a system. In particular, class action lawsuits should have the same type of damage, but most of the damage caused by food safety is accompanied by physical harm, resulting in various complications such as the physical characteristics of the victim, the health environment. The class action system may not provide a solution in that the content and type of the damage may be different. In this regard, this study aims to investigate the introduction of the food safety damage relief system through the introduction of an administrative dispute settlement system by an administrative agency that occupies an absolute position in the existing consumer protection from this point of view. In reality, the Food and Drug Administration, which is the largest among government agencies related to food, operates a passive attitude consumer protection system such as function like guidance, supervision and surveillance. And it is necessary to make a complementary proposal. In the current law, there is only a small part of the consumer protection work that is positively legal, and even after the damage is scientifically identified, it is not possible to present the solution to the damage suffered by the consumer through legislation. This is a fact that has been raised. In this paper, we propose a reasonable and rapid disaster relief procedure through a separate mechanism within the administrative agency, which is the administration agency, that the dispute settlement procedure due to food safety damage is insufficient by solving the case through the court through counseling, dispute adjustment and civil proceedings. In order to solve the problem of food insecurity and the food industry, various ways of rational solution of the problem were considered. The possibility of (1) Establishment of a food safety dispute resolution committee; (2) Establishment of a food safety disaster relief committee; and (3) Establishment of a food safety disaster relief committee was discussed. In addition, a plan for the creation of a food damage compensation fund was also proposed.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.18 no.3
• /
• pp.139-163
• /
• 2008

The Collective Dispute Mediation was introduced to Korea with complement the Verbandsklage which was said to be poor at monetary compensation for consumers' damages. and The Collective Dispute Mediation also seems very likely to the class action, but one can resolve the dispute before filing a law suit under the Collective Dispute Mediation. The validity of the Collective Dispute Mediation is the same as the "settlement in court". After reaching the Collective Dispute Mediation, one may have a right to ask the compulsory execution. Under the Collective Dispute Mediation the damaged party must take part directly in the dispute, because the Collective Dispute Mediation is also included in the dispute resolution. Therefore a problem that how can the damaged consumer, who do not directly take part in the dispute process, get the remedy alternatively may arise. However, this problem is solved by Compensation Plan Letter which is described in the "Framework Act on Consumer". By the Compensation Plan Letter, the person who do not directly take part in the dispute process can be remedied ex post facto(Article 68). This thesis is study on The Function and Task of Collective Dispute Mediation in the Framework Act on Consumer in our state.