• 한국건축시공학회:학술대회논문집
• /
• 한국건축시공학회 2010년도 춘계 학술논문 발표대회 1부
• /
• pp.185-189
• /
• 2010

As recent construction project has specialization and high-level of the engineering, Although, It has always uncertainty of agreement and contract enforcement, factors of difficult to predict etc. in each phase. In this process, Various interest groups involved are continuously generated dispute of interest each others. So this paper analyzed the dispute cases in construction projects from the Supreme Court and Korean Commercial Arbitration Board in Korea, and then identified the dispute types and causes that occur during all of the construction project phases with their influence analysis. At the result, It will be contributed to the basic data for pre-dispute prevention in the construction projects.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제19권1호
• /
• pp.3-24
• /
• 2009

Arbitration is the system of resolving disputes not by the adjudication of a national court but by the award of an arbitrator or arbitrators. To settle disputes by arbitration, it should be concluded that the arbitration agreement which is implied that the parties agree to submit to the arbitral award about all or certain disputes which have arisen or which may arise between them in respect of defined legal relationships. It is a matter for debate that which types of dispute may be resolved by arbitration. This problem is concerning the arbitrability of the subject-matter of a dispute. National laws establish the domain of arbitration. Each state decides which matters may or may not be resolved by arbitration in accordance with its own political, social and economic policy. According to Korean Arbitration Act Art. 3 (1), any dispute in private laws would be the object of arbitral proceedings. Therefore, the parties may agree to arbitrate disputes relating to the rights that they freely dispose of. Besides, they may have the freedom to choose arbitration as the form of a dispute resolution. Because arbitration is a private proceeding with public consequences that some types of dispute are reserved for national courts, whose proceedings are generally in the public domain. It is this sense that they may not be the object of arbitration. After all, it could be the object of arbitral proceedings that disputes which are capable of a settlement by arbitration.

• 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
• /
• 제19권1호
• /
• pp.99-119
• /
• 2009

In modern capitalistic society, the harmed consumers like consumer complaints etc. are increasing day by day being caused by mass production and mass consumption etc. These consumer damages can come out as many types, but can be the most typical form. If there is a majority of the small sum damage, being saved by legal procedures is a fact that many consumers renounce it for long time, lots of expense and the complexity of the process etc. So, the government enforces consumer groups suit and collective dispute mediation system revising Framework Act on consumer. Specially, collective dispute mediation system, one of the ADR, saves the harmed consumers and accomodates efficiency in management of consumer dispute settlement commission by dealing with it collectively if the same or similar damage without a legal procedure happens to a great number of consumers. However, collective consumer dispute mediation system also has a number of problems. Therefore, this thesis is looking into the function and procedure of the collective consumer dispute mediation system on Framework Act on consumer as well as its problems and ways of improving it.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제20권1호
• /
• pp.41-65
• /
• 2010

It is a matter for debate that which types of dispute may be resolved by arbitration. This problem is concerning the arbitrability of the subject-matter of a dispute. National laws establish the domain of arbitration. Each state decides which matters may or may not be resolved by arbitration in accordance with its own political, social and economic policy. In response to complexity and diversity of a social phenomenon, the dispute also is various, therefore can not be settled efficiently by means of court adjudication to which applies a law strictly. To overcome such problems we are going to seek to make use of arbitration. According to Korean Arbitration Act Art. 3 (1), any dispute in private laws would be the object of arbitral proceedings. For the promotion of fair and free competition, it is increasingly wide-ranging antitrust legislation across the world. It is matter for debate what can an arbitral tribunal do when confronted with an allegation that the contract under which the arbitration is brought is itself an illegal restraint of trade or in some other way a breach of antitrust law. The underlying question is how to accommodate the conflicting congressional policies favoring resolution of private controversies by arbitration and encouraging private suits to protect the public interests served by the antitrust laws. It is necessary to inquire into the arbitrability of antitrust issues on case-by-case basis, because the types of them are quite diverse. If antitrust issues are the dispute in private laws and the contracting parties agreed to submit to arbitration disputes which have arisen or which may arise between them in the antitrust issues, the antitrust disputes are arbitrable. Not only international antitrust disputes but also domestic antitrust disputes are capable of being resolved by arbitration. When the public interests in the enforcement of antitrust legislation are asserted, it is possible to justify the annulment or the refusal of the recognition or the enforcement of an arbitral award that ignores public policy as a matter of it.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제29권2호
• /
• pp.201-223
• /
• 2019

There are diverse kinds of alternative dispute resolution systems in India. In the structure of society in Ancient India, the panchayat system was the creation of the villagers themselves and was composed of persons who were generally respected and to whose decisions the villagers were accustomed to give unreserved obedience. The ruler of the province allowed the villagers to govern themselves and the villagers assumed the responsibility for the settlement of disputes among themselves. However, the panchayat system has been heavily influenced by the structure of the village at hand, which depends on the caste system in India. This study categorizes the village dispute resolution structure into four main types depending on the extent of the caste group's dominance within the village. In addition, the Indian government created Lok Adalat which combines the indigenous dispute resolution with modern law system. Today, Lok Adalat is one of the widely used dispute resolution systems in India.

• 통상정보연구
• /
• 제5권1호
• /
• pp.159-177
• /
• 2003

As many kinds of transactions and informations move onto the Internet, methods to resolve dispute arising from this trend must also move onto the Internet. The Internet has heightened interest in Alternative Dispute Resolution(ADR). Some organizations are using the new technology in the field of dispute resolution, for example, by establishing web sites and offering communications through the Internet. Online ADR provides an attractive solution to an important part of the jurisdictional challenges presented by the Internet. This study reviews the types of online ADR as the dispute settlement way in electronic commerce. Especially this paper points out the task that Korea has to promote the online ADR for more effective and efficient dispute settlements.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제26권3호
• /
• pp.51-66
• /
• 2016

This paper considers how various types of patent disputes can be more efficiently resolved through arbitration, rather than litigation. For this analysis, it takes three types of patent disputes as a control sample - contractual disputes, infringement disputes and FRAND disputes - and assess how these disputes can be better resolved through arbitration in terms of several criteria, namely, the suitability of the decision-makers, the number of forums in which disputes have to separately decided and enforced, procedural flexibility and confidentiality. The paper takes into consideration that certain types of patent disputes, such as infringement disputes and FRAND disputes are unlikely to be subject to pre-existing arbitration agreements. In these types of disputes, parties may make the decision between arbitration and litigation based on strategic and tactical concerns, rather than legal ones. The paper concludes that, given this limitation, it is not possible to categorically state whether arbitration is more suitable than litigation for resolving patent disputes. The most sensible course to follow in adopting arbitration for patent disputes is for legal advisors to be familiar with the intricate benefits and pitfalls of arbitration in patent disputes, and to actively consider referring a dispute to arbitration over litigation after a dispute has arisen.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제25권3호
• /
• pp.155-184
• /
• 2015

This paper addresses the question of what kinds of dispute resolution choices can effectively handle complex intellectual property disputes, given the rising importance of IP, the increasing frequency and complexity of IP disputes, and the lack of research on dispute resolution strategies. For this analysis, the study adopted the analytic hierarchy process approach, which covers complex, multi-criteria decision problems, to quantify the expert's judgments on IP dispute resolution choice. Its results show that the effectiveness of resolution methods differs, depending on the type of IP dispute classified into seven issues, which are (i) requirement for validity of IP right, (ii) range and duration of IP right, (iii) transfer of IP right, (iv) licensing, (v) use of IP right, (vi) declaration of IP infringement, and (vii) estimation of damage. The disputes over IPR ownership and IP infringement remain challenging issues in due to strong requirement of the cross-border enforcement. Alternative dispute resolution (ADR), especially arbitration, is determined to be a more effective method to deal with international IP disputes, but various advanced types of ADR techniques should be further developed to deal with the increasing complexity of IP disputes.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제29권1호
• /
• pp.91-113
• /
• 2019

The fashion industry has been growing in Korea, but the law and the dispute resolution have been less than effective so far. Copyright and patent law have proven only minimally effective in fashion, ending up with designers and fashion companies relying on their trademarks to protect their design. Litigating trademark disputes in the fashion industry presents a host of problems and leads to resorting to the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). ADR methods, especially arbitration, however, are emerging as substitutes to litigation. Using these methods, the fashion industry should sincerely consider a self-regulating program in which its members-both fashion designers and corporations alike-can resolve disputes in a manner mutually beneficial to all parties in order to preserve the industry's growth, solidarity, and esteem. From 2016, KCAB's Fashion Industry Dispute Advisory Committee (FIDAC) for ADR has promoted a better solution for disputes in the fashion industry. Therefore, stakeholders in the fashion industry should commit to procuring innovation in fashion on a long-term basis by establishing a panel handling an alternate dispute resolution process. The ADR process can mitigate the uncertainty created by relevant legislation or any other disputes, which could result in shying away from any business in the fashion industry.