• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제11권1호
• /
• pp.217-245
• /
• 2001

Like traditional commerce, disputes are bound to arise in the course of conducting an e-commerce transaction. At present of June 30, 2001, 259 cases of dispute on e-commerce have been applied for the mediation of Electronic Transaction Dispute Mediation Committee, types of them are 170 cases of delayed delivery of commodity, 21 cases of contract cancellation and refund, 16 cases of personal information protection, 16 cases of false and exaggerated advertisement, 14 cases of commodity defect. The settlement systems of e-commerce dispute are litigation and Alternative Dispute Resolution(ADR). ADR encompasses mediation, arbitration, and similar private tools for resolving disputes. ADR offers many perceived advantages. Speed of resolution and low cost are often cited as the primary benefits. Therfore e-commerce disputes may be settled more effectively by litigation. The settlement systems of e-commerce dispute by ADR are the mediation of Electronic Transaction Dispute Mediation Committee, the mediation of Consumer Dispute Mediation Commercial Arbitration Board, and the arbitration of Korean Commerical Arbitration Board. E-commerce sets up the probability that its merchants and customers will not exist in the same legal jurisdictions. The confusing application of laws and wide geographical dispersion of these parties will necessitate a faster and cheaper dispute resolution methodology. Therefore, online ADR may be effective for e-commerce dispute resolution. The examples of online ADR opetation are the cyber mediation of Electronic Transaction Dispute Resolution Committee, the cyber mediation of Korean Commercial Arbitration Board, the cyber mediation of Click N Settle, the online ADR of BBB online, and the cyber arbitration of virtual Magistrate.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제24권2호
• /
• pp.53-80
• /
• 2014

This article focuses on the Active Plan for Alternative Dispute Resolution(ADR) in financial Dispute. The financial consumers of Korea had suffered greatly from the IMF in 1997 and the global financial crisis in 2008, which also increased financial conflicts significantly. In particular, active financial transaction, due to the development of computer and financial techniques causes frequent consumer financial conflicts. It is beneficial to settle them for judicial economy through an alternative conflict arbitration system instead of lawsuit at the court. Many advanced countries settle financial conflicts through various ADR in their numerous financial conflicts. In the settlement of financial conflict, the ADR system, covering mediation and arbitration, is useful and appropriate. Each governmental institution has various conflict settlement organizations, and it is necessary to operate them effectively. In order to settle financial conflicts properly, it is necessary to study law on financial consumer protection, and it is also necessary to understand practical custom and practical knowledge and to systematize them. Further, it is important to manage financial conflict-related data, to accumulate professional experiences, and to prepare a financial conflict settlement system in order to introduce financial education earlier to the whole nation.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제13권2호
• /
• pp.69-102
• /
• 2004

This paper discusses about the e-commerce and the various types of e-commerce disputes. Through empirical examination on the dispute consideration system and by comparative analysis it is derived out of the weakness of current system and finally some suggestions for improvement. First, it is recommended that the more sophisticated knowledge concerning e-commerce should be proliferated through the existing institutions. For example, disputes for B2C could be managed by the consideration system of consumer dispute consideration in Consumer Protection Board of Korea, while B2B by the arbitration system of the Korean Commercial Arbitration Board. Second, the role of Korea Institute for Electronic Commerce established for the purpose of consideration of e-commerce disputes is much emphasized. For successful achievement, it is necessarily required to reinforce the related laws, systems, institutions and human resources. Finally, it is also suggested that the Korean Commercial Arbitration Board and Consumer Protection Board of Korea fully cover consideration and arbitration, while Korea Institute for Electronic Commerce activates its proper role of consulting and ad hoc arbitration by using electronic information. This study results are how to minimize the disputes and the method of dispute settlement. Therefore, a role of arbitration proposed and emphasized. To protect the dispute in advance, it's suggested to revise rules timely following on technical changes, and emphasized that the dispute has to lead to arbitration settlement not for consuming unnecessary time and finance for enterprises and consumers.

• 디지털융복합연구
• /
• 제15권12호
• /
• pp.203-212
• /
• 2017

본 연구는 중소기업을 위한 소비자분쟁처리시스템의 지속사용의도에 영향을 미치는 요인에 대해 분석하였다. 소비자분쟁처리시스템은 중소기업들이 소비자와의 분쟁에서, 인터넷을 통해 정확하고 신속하게 피해처리 방법 및 법률서비스를 지원받을 수 있도록 하는 서비스이다. 소비자분쟁처리시스템을 사용하는 중소기업 사용자들 대상으로 소비자분쟁처리 시스템의 정보품질, 시스템품질, 환경요인이 지각된 사용용이성, 지각된 유용성에 어떠한 영향을 미치는지에 대해 알아보고 최종적으로 지속사용의도에 영향을 미치는지 알아보았다. 소비자분쟁시스템의 정확성, 편리성, 비용은 지각된 사용 용이성에 긍정적인 영향을 미쳤고, 정확성, 편리성 또한 지각된 유용성에 긍정적인 영향을 미쳤다. 또한 소비자분쟁처리시스템의 지각된 사용용이성, 지각된 사용 유용성은 지속사용의도에 최종적으로 긍정적인 영향관계가 있음을 검증하였다. 마지막으로 IT기업과 비IT기업 간의 소비자분쟁처리시스템 지속사용의도에 관하여 차이분석을 하였고 두 집단간의 차이가 있는 것으로 나타났다. 본 연구 결과를 토대로 소비자분쟁처리시스템에 대한 각각의 품질을 우선순위에 맞게 보완 및 유지한다면 기존의 시스템보다 더욱 향상된 시스템으로 유지, 발전이 있을 것으로 기대된다.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제12권1호
• /
• 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.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제15권2호
• /
• pp.163-196
• /
• 2005

In modern society, there is given rise to a lots of environmental controversies. This disputes bring about the social problems. The reason that this kinds of dispute is frequently brought in our society is that our society is democratized and a nation asserts his rights strongly. And also the reason is that there is not enough the legal system which is able to settle such a dispute amicably. Thus this thesis deals with the arbitration systems as the way to solve the dispute of environmental problems. This paper is composed as follows. 1. Introduction 2. The cause of trouble still exists in our society related to environmental controversy 3. A general settlement procedure of environmental disputes 4. Administrative grievance mediation 5. Environmental disputes and arbitration systems 6. Conclusion

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제68권
• /
• pp.89-121
• /
• 2015

Investor-State Dispute Settlement(ISDS) grants a foreign investor the right to access an international arbitrator, if he believes actions taken by a host government are in breach of commitments made in an investment agreement or an investment treaty. The arbitration procedure of ICSID is made specifically to resolve investment disputes, so most of investment disputes have been settled in accordance with the procedure. Owing to limitation of dispute settlements through the ICSID arbitration procedure, several investment dispute conciliation schemes have been emerged as alternatives. In the case of a conciliation, the conciliation procedure will be in progress based on arbitrary agreement between parties, and if both parties agree on a conciliation program, then the arbitrary execution rate is relatively higher than that of arbitration procedures. In addition, it is evaluated that the time duration of conducting a conciliation procedure is in general rather short in 8 to 24months, and its incumbent cost is also rather inexpensive. Most of all, through amicable settlement of a dispute between a foreign investor and a host state, the foreign investor may continue his investment activities without a hitch, while the host state may invite more investment without any risk of losing its external credibility. In conclusion, it is desirable to lead any investment dispute between a foreign investor and a host state settle in accordance with the dispute settlement procedure as specified in the relevant investment agreement. In addition, to make the foreign investor continue his investment activities, it will be necessary to provide a separate investment dispute conciliation system aside from such arbitration procedures to cope any unexpected incident flexibly.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제16권1호
• /
• pp.153-185
• /
• 2006

This article deals with the Improvement of Compulsory Arbitration System on Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act in Korea. If a labor dispute occcur, the settlement of labor dispute must be reached for the parties' own accord. The autonomy of the parties concerned is the fundamental principle in the settlement of labor dispute. If the Rights Which are guaranteed by art. 33 Constitutional Law belong to civil liberties, we should consider Trade Union Act as the restriction of basic rights. Arbitration is a procedure which permits the most positive intervention by the arbitrator. It is carried out by an arbitration committe which is composed of three arbitrators appointed by the chairman of the Labor Relations Commission. Compulsory arbitration system of the labor for parties should be improved. In case of necessary public enterprises, more strict requirements on assembly for labor disputes should be prepared and the government should support institutions to prevent labor-management disputes by educating experts on labor-management relations and improving the quality of arbitration.

• 국제지역연구
• /
• 제13권2호
• /
• pp.618-642
• /
• 2009

현재 WTO에 가입한 국가는 국가 간 무역분쟁을 다룸에 있어서 WTO협정의 DSU 등에서 규정하고 있는 분쟁해결제도의 틀을 준수해야 한다. 더욱이 동 협정에서는 지역 자유무역협정을 체결하더라도 WTO의 분쟁해결제도를 원용할 수 있도록 규정하고 있다. 우리나라와 미국은 WTO의 핵심 회원국으로서 주요한 역할을 수행하고 있다. 그럼에도 불구하고 한미 자유무역협정에는 별도의 분쟁해결제도를 도입하고 있다. 물론 일부 WTO의 분쟁해결제도를 벤치마킹한 부분이 존재하기도 하지만 분쟁해결을 위한 공동위원회 설치, 분야별 분쟁해결제도 별도 도입 등 상당부분 WTO 분쟁해결제도와는 차별화된 시도를 하고 있다. 본 연구에서는 한미 FTA와 WTO 양자의 무역분쟁해결제도를 상호 비교 고찰함으로써 실효성 측면 등 제 관점에서의 문제점을 도출하고 이를 근거로 그 대안 및 정책적 함의를 제시하고자 하였다. 이는 현재 추진하고 있거나 향후 추진할 FTA 협상에의 반영 및 국가 통상정책수립, 운용의 관점에서도 시사하는 바가 클 것으로 판단되며 특히 우리나라 일각에서는 한미 FTA 분쟁해결규정에 일부 문제가 있다는 지적이 제기되고 있는 바 이러한 관점에서 더욱 논의 및 연구 검토의 필요성이 존재한다.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제20권2호
• /
• pp.27-47
• /
• 2010

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, arbitration, instead of litigation in national courts, has become the preferred means of resolving private international commercial disputes. Under the situation, it will be important thing for arbitral institutions to reach an agreement to promote the dispute settlement of the commercial disputes, for which efforts have been made between the Korean Commercial Arbitral Board(KCAB) and principal arbitration institutions of the foreign countries. Since 1973, the KCAB has entered into many arbitration agreements with well-known foreign institutions of arbitration. If the place of arbitration is not so designated by the parties, it, as a general rule, shall be the country of the respondent(s) under the Korea-Japanese Arbitration Agreement. On the other hand, the U.S.-Korean Commercial Arbitration Agreement maintains 'Joint Arbitration Committee which finally decide the place of arbitration. In 1996, the Korea-Austria Agreement of Cooperation was concluded for the prompt and equitable settlement on an amicable basis of commercial disputes. Under this Agreement, arbitral institutions between Korea and Austria agreed to act as an appointing authority in accordance with the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules. It is also very important for Korea and China including North Korea to cooperate each other for the settlement of the commercial disputes within the Pan Yellow Sea Economic Bloc(PYSEB). The PYSEB is quickly becoming a distinctive and crucial region in the world sharing geographical proximity, many common historical experiences, and similar cultural norms and values although they have disparities in stages of development, trade and economic policies, and financial and legal frameworks. Finally, it should be considered to establish a central common system for settlement promotion of the commercial disputes within the PYSEB through the arbitration agreement. Such a dispute resolution system was already introduced and established within the area of the NAFTA, and it is called the Commercial Arbitration and Mediation Center for the Americas(CAMCA).