• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제27권1호
• /
• 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.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제25권3호
• /
• pp.135-154
• /
• 2015

The European Union has adopted the ADR Directive and ODR Regulation in 2013 with the purpose to strengthen the e-commerce within the EU. Not covered by these legislations is the trade in the B2B sector. The author examines the question of whether online ADR under the currently applicable legal framework would be possible in Germany. At the center of his review is the possibility of an arbitration clause which refers exclusively to an online ADR scheme, may be included in the General Terms and Conditions of an online trader.

• 시큐리티연구
• /
• 제11호
• /
• pp.129-157
• /
• 2006

급속한 사회변화와 함께 사회적 위험요소가 고조되면서 이에 대한 안전문제가 크게 대두되고 있다. 이에 안전욕구의 증대에 따라 위험에 대비하는 치안서비스를 제공하는 민간경호경비에 대한 수요도 증가하고 이에 따른 경호경비업도 발달하고 있다 이에 본고에서는 경호경비계약에 대한 법률 구조를 파악하여 경호경비업자와 의뢰자 사이에 발생 가능한 분쟁을 예방하거나 해결하기 위하여 계약의 성립과 그에 따르는 문제점을 분석하고자 한다. 특히 경호경비관계에 따르는 분쟁을 최소화하기 위하여 경호경비 계약을 체결하여 그 합의내용을 명확히 문서화하는 것이 필요하다. 여기에서 본고에서는 각 당사자간에 자율적으로 체결하는 경호경비계약조건을 표준화하는 방안 중에서 분쟁해결조항의 표준모델을 제시 하고자 한다. 특히 당사자 간 사법상의 분쟁을 해결하는 효과적인 방법으로 합의에 의한 방법이 최선이겠으나, 불가피한 경우에 재판에 의한 소송에 의한 해결보다는 중재를 통한 해결 방안을 권고한다. 당사자가 중재로 분쟁을 해결하기 위해서는 경호경비 계약서에 중재조항을 삽입하여 체결해야 한다. 실제 경호경비업계에서 이데 대한 적용성 시험 및 평가를 거쳐서 이를 경호경비 표준계약서로 제정하여 업계 전반에 확대 적용을 추진하고자 한다.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제77권
• /
• pp.43-67
• /
• 2018

Arbitration is one of alternative dispute resolution systems which settle a dispute by arbitrators(private persons) based on a contract between contracting parties without a judicial litigation system involved. As a valid arbitration agreement is an essential requirement for commencement of arbitration, the first thing to be determined is whether there is a valid arbitration agreement or not when a dispute is submitted. A consumer arbitration agreement usually exists as an arbitration clause in an adhesive contract between consumers and a seller. When consumers buy a product from a seller, they are requested to agree on a general terms and conditions which are unilaterally drafted by a seller in advance. These terms and conditions are not negotiable because it is an adhesive contract and consumers are placed in "take-it-or-leave-it" position. Therefore, even though there is an arbitration agreement between consumers and a seller, it has to be carefully considered whether it has a legal effect or not. In this respect, a court will examine if an arbitration agreement has procedural unconscionability and substantive unconscionability. Therefore, as U.S is a well-advanced and arbitration-friendly country, this paper analyzes four U.S cases to find out (i) what a court considers, (ii) how a court examines and interprets procedural and substantive unconscionability and (iii) if there has been a change in regard to a court's decision. By doing so, it will provide some suggestions and guidelines for a consumer arbitration in Korea.