• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.14 no.1
• /
• pp.117-144
• /
• 2013

After several bills for the reasonable medical dispute resolution had been proposed for over twenty years, "Act on Remedy for Damage from Medical Accident and Medical Dispute Mediation" was eventually enacted on April 7, 2011 and came into effect from April 8, 2012. This study evaluates the achievements and results of the past year, suggesting the future improvements or tasks. The main issue of Act on Medical Dispute Mediation is Korea Medical Dispute Mediation and Arbitration Agency. Therefore, the success of the Act depends on the outcomes of Korea Medical Dispute Mediation and Arbitration Agency. Although the Act has been enforced for only one year, this paper examines the outcomes of the Agency with limited materials for its development. Korea Medical Dispute Mediation and Arbitration Agency was established for rapid, fair, and effective medical dispute resolution. Thus, the evaluation of the performances of the Agency is based on the 1) rapidness, 2) fairness, and 3) effectiveness of the dispute resolution. To sum up, the system earned positive evaluations as for the rapidness and fairness, but some problems were indicated with regard to the effectiveness. As the system of medical dispute mediation and arbitration in Korea has no parallel in the world, other countries show many interests in it. The rapid and fair medical dispute resolution is of benefit in both patients and medical institutes and decreases social costs. As the Act had a difficult passage through Parliament, it should be maintained and improved continuously.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.32 no.3
• /
• pp.93-109
• /
• 2022

Cosmetics are products that consumers use every day to maintain or improve the health of their skin and hair. Therefore, the expansion of the cosmetics market leads to the expansion of disputes over cosmetic damage. Along with constant social changes, new conflicts continue to arise. In order to resolve these disputes, various consumer dispute resolution organizations and methods are required. Therefore, Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), an alternative method that can provide a reasonable judgment on problems that occur during the manufacture and distribution of cosmetics with expert knowledge of the industry, is required. Korea resolves disputes between consumers and manufacturers caused by cosmetics through the ADR of the Korea Cosmetics Association and the Korea Consumer Agency. It handles disputes related to accidents caused by cosmetics, offers consultation on consumer complaints on cosmetics and provides information on accidents and safety related to cosmetics. It is not possible to completely eradicate disputes from cosmetic damages. Therefore, it is necessary to expand and efficiently operate the cosmetic ADR system for consumers. In this study, the current status of cosmetic damage disputes and damage relief and the role of the domestic ADR system were reviewed. Consumers should be easily relieved from damage caused by cosmetics. By accumulating important precedents with an efficient cosmetic damage dispute resolution system, disputes over cosmetic damage should be smoothly resolved.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.22 no.2
• /
• pp.31-52
• /
• 2012

Although political uncertainty exists between China and Taiwan, the two countries have been expanding their economic exchange since the 1980s. That economic exchange is not limited to trade, and its investment segment is constantly expanding. The investment was one-sided by Taiwan in the past, but since a change in policy by the Taiwan government in 2009, Chinese capital is able to flow into Taiwan for direct investment. These kinds of policy changes related to investment between the two countries require follow-up actions such as profit protection for investors, elimination of investment limitations, simplification of investment procedures, and establishment of an investment dispute resolution system. The main topic of this study is the resolution mechanism for investment disputes between China and Taiwan. At present, an individual investment dispute between two countries is settled according to each country's own regulations for dispute resolution. However, these two countries have not prepared dispute resolution regulations related to cases of investment disputes between Chinese or Taiwanese investors and the Chinese or Taiwanese government, or between the Chinese government and the Taiwanese government. Moreover, they do not have any agreements related to investment disputes. Therefore, in this paper, I enumerate the regulations related to investment dispute resolution between China and Taiwan, and then I point out the problems and suggest solutions for improvement. Also, through this study, I would like to contribute to establishing and implementing an investment dispute resolution mechanism between South Korea and North Korea.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.31 no.3
• /
• pp.69-89
• /
• 2021

General lawsuits can be chosen as a method of resolving patent disputes. However, a significant amount of time and money is wasted on litigation until the dispute is resolved. The Intellectual Property Framework Act in Korea requires the government to simplify litigation procedures and improve litigation systems to resolve intellectual property disputes quickly and fairly. As a result, accurate and timely resolution of patent disputes is given importance by the Korean government. Interest in arbitration as an alternative method of dispute resolution is growing. Although dispute resolution through arbitration is effective, the issue of resolving patent disputes through arbitration can lead to the arbitrability of patent disputes. It is therefore necessary to examine arbitrability of patent contracts and validity disputes. Korea has made efforts to reflect the model arbitration law of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law for quick judicial resolution of patent disputes. Korea has also strengthened related systems for alternative resolutions. However, improving the arbitration system will necessitate a thorough examination of the systems and practices of the United States which is the country in the forefront of intellectual property. This paper examines the arbitrability of Korea's patent dispute and makes recommendations for more efficient dispute resolution system changes.

• Journal of Korea Game Society
• /
• v.13 no.3
• /
• pp.121-130
• /
• 2013

This paper aims to grasp the status of dispute and relevant issues, focusing on cases resolved by the Contents Dispute Resolution Committee. In consequence, this paper reviewed and addressed many issues like the mobile game of pre-school children, game disputes between telecommunication service providers and other domestic companies, responsibility of game-developing companies, necessity of efforts (led by the service providers) for establishing the system to prevent damage, and increase of awareness on damage redeemed by companies. Additionally, this study enables us to understand that the system of dispute resolution pays a pivotal role to help disputers resolve issues in a reasonable way and that self-imposed confidence is absolutely required in the mobile open market.

• Proceedings of the Korean Institute Of Construction Engineering and Management
• /
• 2004.11a
• /
• pp.437-441
• /
• 2004

This study aims to propose a set of improvement devices for construction dispute resolution clause of public improvement project in Korea. To do so, the study addresses the system and procedure of construction dispute resolution in domestic and overseas, and reviews precedent cases, specifically focused of a selective arbitration case. In public sector's initiated contracts, the absence of c)aim procedure clause is unable to response to the claims in timely manner, and the ambiguity of clause o( selective arbitration make it difficult to resolve a dispute by arbitration. Thus, in this study alternative dispute resolutions are explored as a way to resolve various construction disputes of public-initiated project in developed countries.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.8 no.1
• /
• pp.55-85
• /
• 1998

Each of China, Taiwan, Japan and Korea is in international trade one of the major countries in Asia and has been influenced by the Chinese character culture and the Civil law system. All these countries have their own commercial dispute resolution system for international trade dispute and commercial arbitration mechanism in their countries. They are making their own effort to internationalize and improve their commercial arbitration system. Among these countries China enacted a new arbitration law already. At that time Chinese arbitration law was referred to the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration for internationalization of Chinese commercial arbitration system. China also internationalized the panel of arbitrators by increasing the foreign arbitrators of the panel of arbitrators of CIETAC. These measures adopted by China will be the model of dispute resolution and the commercial arbitration system in other major countries in Asia.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.20 no.3
• /
• pp.93-120
• /
• 2010

In 1978, Chinese reform and opening caused a big changes in Chinese labor relationship. Through reforming and opening, China gave up part of state ownership system and group ownership system, permitted private ownership system, and also opened the way for capitalists to ride again. Since China was established, the labor relationship ceased for 30 years has been appeared. However because the top priority aim of China's reform was economic growth, the protection of the rights and interests of labor was pushed back on the policy priority list. China takes foreign capitals based on cheap labor force quickly and China come up the worldwide plants. Since reformed, China keeps an economic growth rate of 9.7% annually for 30years. This economic growth is based on labor's sacrifice. However, Chinese fast economic growth causes side effects such as increasement of the gap between the wealthy and the poor, increasement of unbalanced development between regions, and the increasement of conflict between labor and management. Especially, according to changes in labors' level of consciousness, the labors recognized that their rights and interests are exploited by employers. Therefore, the labor dispute is continuously increasing. Chinese government changes their policy from the policy focusing on enterprise development to the policy protecting labor's rights and interests. In order to protect labor's rights and interests, China conducts labor contract law and labor dispute conciliation arbitration law in 2008. This kind of changes in Chinese labor environment affect a lot to Korean companies which already entered into China or are willing to enter. According to studying on present situation and resolution system in Chinese labor dispute, this paper suggests the proper countermeasure related to labor dispute of Korean companies which entered in China. First, the success rate of labor dispute conciliation by enterprise labor dispute conciliation committee is around 20% during recent several years and the success rate by year is in decline. Therefore, when labor dispute is occurred, our companies which entered into China better use other labor dispute methods such as negotiation and arbitration than conciliation in order to settle a conflict. Second, from the Korean enterprises entered in China point of view, there exists a problem not to sue except special cases which provided in the law even though they are dissatisfied with arbitrate judgment. Thus, when labor dispute occurred, Korean enterprises try to do best to settle the dispute through negotiation. However, in case of that the dispute cannot be settled by negotiation, they have to attend in the arbitration as if it is a last chance. Third, Korean enterprises keep in mind that dispute handling procedures between labor union and users or between labor group and users are different, and then deal with separately. Thus, dispute between labor and users have to follow arbitrate procedures as a necessary procedure, but in case of dispute related to group contract, namely dispute against labor union, labor dispute can be settled by arbitrate or suit, so after figuring out the situation exactly, it is necessary to select more advantageous way in order to settle the dispute. Moreover, in case of the dispute between labor union, they have to keep in mind that conciliation procedures cannot be used.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.12 no.1
• /
• pp.171-205
• /
• 2002

ADR (Alternative Dispute Resolution) is a system to settle disputes without having to pursue a judgment through the courts; it provides an alternative to conventional judicial proceedings. As such, ADR is available to resolve a wide range of disputes, ranging from minor disagreements between neighbors to contracts involving millions of dollars. One can say there has been “efficient resolution of a dispute” only when it has been settled rapidly and finally to the satisfaction of all parties concerned, inexpensively and in a transparent manner. In this respect, ADR may well be regarded as the most efficient method to resolve disputes. In order to establish and disseminate ADR as a practical dispute-settlement procedure, first, governmental financial support is necessary, rather than having to depend upon fees collected from the disputing parties. At the same time, various inducement policies also are required. The most important factor is to make people aware of the fact that ADR is a low-cost, speedy system and more practical compared with other procedures. Second, cooperation from legal circles, lawyers in particular, is absolutely necessary. If disputes become serious, the general public normally seeks out lawyers for advice. Third, disputing parties have to be convinced of the benefits of ADR, secure in the knowledge that ADR will provide them not only with economic benefit but also a satisfactory result. Diverse ADR procedures should be developed and implemented to facilitate participation in a comfortable atmosphere with a mutually friendly relationship. The most important factor in achieving the wider use of ADR, which is attracting more attention of late, is the expectation that it will bring a satisfactory resolution to the related parties in dispute. The trend of seeking a new dispute-settlement method also reflects the changing sense of values in society today. Therefore, one specific method is not suitable for all kinds of disputes. A proper system should offer different approaches according to the pattern and type of dispute and the parties concerned. In selecting a dispute-resolution system, several factors have to be considered - the relationship between the parties, their financial situations, the necessity of maintaining confidentiality, urgency for settlement, etc. In the light of all these, it is desirable for the disputing parties to select the most appropriate of the available systems, not blindly turning to the courts, if and when a dispute arises.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.29 no.3
• /
• pp.75-97
• /
• 2019

The growing importance of biological resources as sovereign rights to healthcare, energy, and food has sparked international discussions on Genetic Resources (GRs) and Traditional Knowledge (TK). As the bio-industry continues to grow, research and development utilizing patented biological resources are advocated. Currently, World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) is actively discussing GRs and TK, and an effective response to national interest has been sought. Of late, there have been growing disputes over issues like ownership, control, and access and benefit-sharing between indigenous peoples and users of GRs and TK resources. Resolution of disputes concerning GRs and TK are thus becoming critical not only to stakeholders such as the indigenous peoples and corporations, but also to third-party users. Due to the weakness of the current IP and court system however, such disputes are not addressed adequately. This paper will address the use of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), which is an out-of-court dispute resolution system, on conflicting issues regarding GRs and TK. It will consider the WIPO as a forum for ADR and ADR for GRs and TK disputes and it will seek both parties in the dispute to benefit from the use of the ADR process.