• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.29 no.3
• /
• pp.39-52
• /
• 2019

There are various factors to consider when parties to an international agreement draft a dispute resolution clause in their written contract. These factors can be classified into two categories. The first category is about the parties and the nature of the contract, such as the parties' places of business and whether the contract contains a simple transaction or has a complicated nature. The second category is about the applicable rules of the parties' places of business or performance such as the private international law, service of process rules, and enforcement of court judgment and arbitration award rules. When parties to an international contract agree to a litigation, they normally choose a forum court and a governing law. In selecting a forum court and a governing law, the parties must consider private international law, service of process rules, and enforcement of judgement rules of candidate forums. In case the parties agree to an arbitration, they have to choose between institutional arbitration and ad hoc arbitration. For ad hoc arbitration, parties still need to further agree on which arbitration rules to use, and in which place the arbitration shall take place. Mediation involves a similar kind of decision as with arbitration. Traditionally, national courts of the parties' places of business have been used as litigation forums in dispute resolution clauses but, recently, arbitration is being increasingly employed as an alternative dispute resolution method in international contracts. Moreover, there have been international efforts to utilize mediation as a dispute resolution method in international commercial issues. Rather than simply taking a dispute resolution clause provided in a sample written contract, parties to an international contract must carefully consider various relevant factors in order to insert a dispute resolution clause which will work well for a particular contract.

• Journal of the Korea Institute of Building Construction
• /
• v.21 no.4
• /
• pp.257-268
• /
• 2021

This study analyzed the major issues of 24 defect litigation precedents before and after 2013, based on 2013, when defect litigation in relation to the rapidly increasing defect disputes in apartment houses. The amount of defect removal per household is 2,572 thousand won per household, which is about 5% less than before 2013 from 2013, but the judgment amount per household has rather increased by about 19%, showing 1,916 thousand won per household after 2013. By type of construction, defects on cracks accounted for the largest proportion before and after 2013. Before 2013, equipment, tiles, and windows appeared in the order, and after 2013, landscaping, tiles, insulation and window work were in the order. In order to prevent such defect disputes, efforts to prevent defect disputes will be needed in the design stage, construction stage, and maintenance stage.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.12 no.1
• /
• pp.55-88
• /
• 2002

Arbitration Act does not have express provision about voluntary agreement for the arbitration which third party, that is, the expert confirms factual bases of party's relationship of rights and duties, determines contents of the contract, and supplements or modifies contracts, and then the parties obey the expert's decision, but it is more probable that the parties can agree to this kind of arbitration agreement as long as they freely make a contract within the scope of law. However, there is a split of authority on the scope of such arbitration agreement. Some scholars argue that the parties can only agree on the extent of the expert's confirmation about factual situations of party's relationship of rights and duties or contents of the contract. On the other hand, the other scholars argue that the parties can consent not only the expert's confirmation about factual situations of party's relationship of rights and duties or contents of contract, but also the expert's supplement or modification of contents of contract. Due to the expert's decision has effect on both parties and judges who give a judgment as a matter of law, this kind of arbitration agrement can contribute to prevent litigation. Also arbitration relieves court's burden, if such arbitration agreement was done on the important disputes. Considering that the arbitration agreement can function as a dispute resolution or a dispute prevention, it is desirable that legislators make the provision about this kind of arbitration and allow the application of arbitration Act in such arbitration agreement. Most scholars agree that the voluntary agreement for the arbitration as to third party's supplement or modification of contents of the contract can be included in the concept of a substantive law. However, it has not been concluded whether the voluntary agreement for the arbitration which follows the expert's confirmation about factual situations of party's relationship of rights and duties or contents of the contract has the nature of substantive law or procedural law. The dispute about the nature of such arbitration agreement have some shortcomings in the effect of second kind of voluntary arbitration and the applicability of procedural principles. Therefore, it will be more adequate that the focus is given to the original function of this kind of arbitration agreement and the applicability of procedural principles (the neutrality of arbitrator, the assurance of hearing of the parties) rather than the dispute regarding the nature of this kind of arbitration agreement. Considering that more attention is given to the substitutive dispute resolution these days, the function of arbitration as prevention to the litigation and resolution before the litigation should be emphasized. To do this, a legal dispute about such arbitration agreement has to be resolved. More important issues in this kind of arbitration agreement are to retain of the neutral expert and to positively inform the benefits of this institution to the public.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.10 no.2
• /
• pp.85-113
• /
• 2009

In this paper, the Judgment 2007DA76290 of the Korean Supreme Court was analysed in two points of the legal theory and litigation. The judgment arouses some issues of medical malpractice liability. They includes the concept of the complications and permanent lesion and the difference between them, some problems in a judge's applying the requirements for the physician's tort liability to the medical malpractice situations, the theory of obligation de moyens related with the burden of proof of the negligent conduct for a physician's liability for misperformance of contract, the influence of a patient's physical conditions on the physician's liability, the breach of duty to disclose in selecting the safer one of the treatment methods bringing about the complications or leaving the permanent lesion and so on. In the situations of the case referred to above, the plaintiff should have tried to establish that a reasonable physician in the specific situation of the case would have substituted the safer method of treatment for the method in the case. If the plaintiff had succeeded in establishing it, he or she could have recovered even the physical harm resulting from the permanent lesion brought about by the complications of the specific treatment in the case. The plaintiff failed to do so and recovered only the emotional distress which the patient suffered owing to the physician's breach of the duty to disclose. Therefore the legal malpractice of the counsel might be found in this case.

• Journal of Software Assessment and Valuation
• /
• v.15 no.1
• /
• pp.25-35
• /
• 2019

In Korea, the calculation of quantitative similarity is commonly used to gauge the substantial similarity of computer programs. Substantial similarity should be assessed by considering the quantity and quality of areas that show similarity, but in practice, qualitative aspects are reflected by multiplying the weighted value in the calculation of quantitative similarity. However, such a practical method cannot be deemed adequate, considering the fundamental characteristic of the judgment on substantial similarity, which holds that the quantitative and qualitative aspects of similar areas should be considered on an equal footing. Thus, this study pointed out the issue regarding the use of weighted value and sought appropriate ways to take into account qualitative aspects when assessing the substantial similarity of computer programs.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.33 no.1
• /
• pp.45-79
• /
• 2018

An increase of airplanes and military aircraft operation lead to significant demanding of residential claims by people who live in nearby airports and military bases due to noise, vibration and residential damages caused by aircraft operations. In recent years, a plaintiff has filed a lawsuit against the defendant, claiming the prohibition of using claimant's possessed land as a helicopter landing route, and the Daejeon High Court was in favour of the plaintiff. Although the Supreme Court later dismissed the Appeal Court decision, it is necessary to discuss the case of setting flight prohibited zone. In Japan, the airport noise lawsuits have been filed for a long time, mainly by environmental groups. Unlike the case that admitted residential damages caused by noise, the Yokohama District Court for the first time sentenced a judgment of the prohibition of the flight. This ruling was partially changed in the appellate court and some of the plaintiffs' claims were adopted. However, the Supreme Court of Japan finally rejected such decision from appeal and district courts. Atsugi Base is an army camp jointly used by the United States and Japan, and residents, live nearby, claim that they are suffering from mental damage such as physical abnormal, insomnia, and life disturbance because of the noise from airplane taking off and landing in the base. An administrative lawsuit was therefore preceded in the Yokohama District Court. The plaintiff requested the Japan Self-Defense Forces(hereinafter 'JSDF') and US military aircraft to be prohibited operating. The court firstly held the limitation of the flight operation from 10pm to 6am, except unavoidable circumstance. The case was appealed. The Supreme Court of Japan dismissed the original judgment on the flight claim of the JSDF aircraft, canceled the first judgment, and rejected the claims of the plaintiffs. The Supreme Court ruled that the exercise of the authority of the Minister of Defense is reasonable since the JSDF aircraft is operating public flight high zone. The court agreed that noise pollution is such an issue for the residents but there are countermeasures which can be taken by concerned parties. In Korea, the residents can sue against the United States or the Republic of Korea or the Ministry of National Defense for the prohibition of the aircraft operation. However, if they claim against US government regarding to the US military flight operation, the Korean court must issue a dismissal order as its jurisdiction exemption. According to the current case law, the Korean courts do not allow a claimant to appeal for the performance of obligation or an anonymous appeal against the Minister of National Defense for prohibiting flight of military aircraft. However, if the Administrative Appeals Act is amended and obligatory performance litigation is introduced, the claim to the Minister of National Defense can be permitted. In order to judge administrative case of the military aircraft operation, trade-off between interests of the residents and difficulties of the third parties should be measured in the court, if the Act is changed and such claims are granted. In this connection, the Minister of National Defense ought to prove and illuminate the profit from the military aircraft operation and it should be significantly greater than the benefits which neighboring residents will get from the prohibiting flight of military aircraft.

• Korean journal of communication and information
• /
• v.21
• /
• pp.147-175
• /
• 2003

This study is primarily concerned with the criteria for choosing a legitimate state plaintiff in cases involving a states request to media for a right of reply. Interpretation of the right of reply itself is different from country to country because of different constitutional views and systems in each state. Unlike the United States, the constitution of the Republic of Korea does not expressly prohibit the making of laws adversely affecting freedom of the press. Accordingly, in Korea freedom of the press may be restricted through legislation within certain limits and the right of reply is not incompatible with the spirit of the constitution. An analysis of relevant law makes it clear that the particular agency aggrieved should initiate the suit rather than the Justice Minister. The idea that the Justice Minister should assume the role of plaintiff in all state cases seems to stem from flawed interpretations of provisions in the Law Governing Registration of Periodicals and the Law Governing Litigation Involving the State. Even though each state agency has the right of reply, it should be cautioned not to abuse it as the states frequent involvement in litigation may bring on unnecessary misunderstanding and have a chilling effect on the media. The right of reply does not always imply that a certain media report in question is wrong and the media should be sanctioned for it. The right of reply is basically intended to help the general public make an informed judgment on issues presented in the media and insure fairness and balance.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.27 no.1
• /
• pp.59-84
• /
• 2017

The effects of an arbitration agreement depend on the legislative policy of the nation where arbitral awards are made and where awards are worked out in the private procedures. According to the main body of Article 35 of the Korean Arbitration Act, arbitral awards have the same effects on the parties as the final and conclusive judgment of the court. This is only possible if the awards are formed by satisfying all the legal requirements, have gone into effect, and have become final and conclusive. It is for the legal stability and the effectiveness of the settlement of disputes that the Act grants arbitral awards. While investigating the effects of an arbitral award, the character of the arbitration in which the party's autonomy applies should be considered, along with the substance of the disputes which parties intend to resolve by an arbitration agreement. The proviso of Article 35, which was added in the 2016 Act, says that the main body of the Article shall not apply if recognition or enforcement of arbitral awards is refused under Article 38. Two stances have been proposed in interpreting the proviso. One of them is that there are grounds for refusing the recognition and enforcement of the awards. The other one is that the ruling of the dismissal of a request for enforcement has been final and conclusive. According to the former, it is really unexplained as to its relations with the action for setting aside arbitral awards to court and the distinction between nullity and revocation, and so on. Therefore, its meaning must be comprehended on the basis of the latter so that the current Act system with revocation litigation could be kept. The procedures of setting aside, recognizing, and enforcing arbitral awards are independent of one another under the Act. It is apprehended that the duplicate regulations may lead to the concurrence or contradiction of a court's judgment and ruling. Thus, we need to take proper measures against the negative sides by interfacing and conciliating these proceedings.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.31 no.2
• /
• pp.3-22
• /
• 2021

Civil and commercial disputes can be resolved through alternative dispute settlement systems other than court proceedings. Among them, the arbitration procedure is a system that is clearly distinguished from the mediation procedure in which the dispute is terminated by agreement between the parties. The arbitration proceedings shall have the same effect as the result of the final judgment by the decision of a third-party arbitrator, and its essence is a judgment. The Korean Arbitration Association Studies was founded in December 1990 to recognize the importance of arbitration procedures and conduct specialized research on them, with professional research on 'arbitration procedures' continuing until today. Thus, the Korean Arbitration Association Studies is positioned as the only specialized research organization in the field of arbitration. In the case of the Korean Arbitration Association Studies, which is the only society in Korea related to arbitration and alternative dispute resolution, the members are mainly scholars majoring in trade and commerce and ones majoring in law. This situation reflects the distinctive character of the arbitration system because it is a matter of dispute procedures related to trade and commerce and many scholars who research trade and commerce need to prepare for possible disputes. In addition, the arbitration procedure is a dispute settlement procedure that substitutes for litigation because it has research value as a legal system. In particular, the 'Journal of Arbitration Studies' published by the Korean Arbitration Association plays a role in mediation, as well as mediation and presentation of research papers in the ADR field. This study analyzes the trends of mediation and ADR-related papers published in 'Journal of Arbitration Studies', an academic journal of the Korean Arbitration Association Studies, in four dimensions, celebrating the 30th anniversary of the Korean Arbitration Association Studies. First, this study examined which sub-themes are mainly studied among the various viewpoints of mediation through thematic analysis. Second, it looked at what methodology was used to study intervention at the methodological level. Third, it assessed what countries and regions had been mainly studied at the regional level. Fourth, in terms of content, what kind of research had been mainly conducted and what kind of research was relatively insufficient was investigated, analyzing the research results of the last 30 years and presenting a milestone for the research direction of 'Journal of Arbitration Studies' in the future.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.20 no.3
• /
• pp.3-24
• /
• 2010

In the approaching 21th century, the outstanding development in international trade and commerce has established arbitration as the preferred form of dispute resolution on international business transaction. Because the form of commercial dispute becomes more complicated and varied with the quantitative increase of them, the reasonable and rapid settlement of them must be the important problem simultaneously. In this article, the author discusses various issues on the recognition and enforcement of an foreign arbitral awards under Korean Arbitration Act, which is modeled after the Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration of the UNCITRAL of 1985. The Dec. 31, 1999 amendment to the Korean Arbitration Act admits the basis for enforcement of foreign arbitral awards rendered under United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards of 1958(commonly known as the New York Convention). Korea has acceded to the New York Convention since 1973. When acceding to the convention, Korea declared that it will apply the Convention to the recognition and enforcement of awards made only in the territory of anther Contracting State on the basis of reciprocity. Also, Korea declared that it will apply the Convention only to differences arising out of legal relationships, whether contractual or not, which are considered as commercial under the national law of Korea. The provision relating to the enforcement of arbitral awards falling under the New York Convention consists of Article III, IV, V. In particular, Article V of the New York Convention enumerates the grounds for refusal of recognition foreign arbitral awards. The grounds are separated into two categories : One that abides by procedures and the others are based on national legal sovereignty. In Korea, a holder of a foreign arbitral award is obliged to request from the court a judgment ordering enforcement of awards. Because Korea requires enforcement to be based on a judgement, the result is that arbitral of award holders are forced to institute domestic litigation.