• 한국건축시공학회지
• /
• 제20권6호
• /
• pp.567-576
• /
• 2020

본 연구는 공동주택의 하자소송의 사례분석을 통해 하자소송단계에서 추가적으로 하자로 인정되는 하자 항목을 제안한다. 이 하자 항목은 하자소송에서 추가적인 비용의 증가, 일정 지연, 재감정 혹은 추가소송을 방지할 수 있을 것이다. 하자소송에서는 입주자 및 건설사에서 사전에 인지하지 못한 새로운 하자항목이 발생되며, 이를 새로운 하자인정항목으로 정의하였다. 이를 위해 본 연구에서는 국내의 15개의 하자소송의 사례분석을 실시하였다. 이를 통해 77개의 소송하자를 1차 선별하고 전문가 자문을 통해 최종적으로 23개의 소송하자를 도출하였다. 이후 하자의 요인을 분석하여 최종적으로 23개의 소송항목을 총 10개의 요인항목으로 정립하였으며, 사례연구를 통해 효용성을 분석하였다. 본 연구의 결과는 하자의 발생을 저감하고 분쟁을 최소화하는 데 기여할 수 있을 것이다.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제13권1호
• /
• pp.169-205
• /
• 2003

Arbitration means the procedure that a party inquires a third party arbitrator for a resolution on the dispute on certain matters of interest to follow through with the commitment of the arbitration, and a series of procedures performed by the arbitrator of the Korean Commercial Arbitration Board. Arbitration is implemented in accordance with the procedure determined by the Arbitration Act and Arbitration Regulations. In the event the parties reach to the reconciliation during the process of arbitration, the reconciliation is recorded in the form of arbitration award(decision), and in the event a reconciliation is not made, the arbitrator shall make the decision on the particular case. The arbitration award(decision) for reconciliation during the arbitration procedure (Article 31 of Arbitration Act, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') or the mediation under the Arbitration Regulation of the Korean Commercial Arbitration Board (Article 18 of the Arbitration Regulations) shall have the same effectiveness with the decision rendered by a court that, in the event a party does not perform the obligation, the enforcement document is rendered under the Rules on Enforcement Document on Mediation Statement of various dispute resolution committees of the Supreme Court to carry out the compulsory enforcement. However, in the event that the party to take on the obligation to perform under the arbitration award (decision) rendered by the arbitrator (Article 32 of the Act) does not perform without due cause, a separate enforcement decision in accordance with the procedure determined under the Civil Enforcement Act shall be obtained since the arbitration award(decision) cannot be the basis of enforcement under the Civil Enforcement Act. And, in order to enforce the judgment compulsorily in accordance with the regulations under the Civil Enforcement Act under the foreign arbitration judgment (Article 39 of the A.1), it shall fulfill the requirement determined under the Civil Litigation Act (article 217 of Civil Litigation Act) and shall obtain a separate enforcement decision in accordance with the procedure determined under the Civil Enforcement Act (Article 26 and Article 27 of Civil Enforcement Act) since the arbitration judgment of foreign country shall not be based on enforcement under the Civil Enforcement Act. It may be the issue of legislation not to recognize the arbitration award(decision) as a source of enforcement right, and provide the compulsive enforcement by recognizing it for enforcement right after obtaining the enforcement document with the decision of a court, however, not recognizing the arbitration award(decision) as the source of enforcement right is against Clause 3 of Article 31 of the Act, provisions of Article 35, Article 38 and Article 39 that recognized the validity of arbitration as equal to the final judgment of a court, and the definition that the enforcement decision of a court shall require the in compulsory enforcement under Clause 1 of Article 37 of the Act which clearly is a conflict of principle as well. Anyhow, in order to enforce the arbitration award(decision) mandatorily, the party shall bring the litigation of enforcement decision claim to the court, and the court shall deliberate with the same procedure with general civil cases under the Civil Litigation Act. During the deliberation, the party obligated under the arbitration award(decision) intended to not to undertake the obligation and delay it raises the claim and suspend the enforcement of cancelling the arbitration award(decision) on the applicable arbitration decision within 3 months from the date of receiving the authentic copy of the arbitration award(decision) or the date of receiving the authentic copy of correction, interpretation or additional decision under the Regulation of Article 34 of the Act (Clause 3 of Article 36 of the Act). This legislation to delay the sentencing of the enforcement and then to sentence the enforcement decision brings the difficulties to a party to litigation costs and time for compulsory enforcement where there is a requirement of an urgency. With the most of cases for arbitration being the special field to make the decision only with the specialized knowledge that the arbitrator shall be the specialists who have appropriate knowledge of the system and render the most reasonable and fair decision for the arbitration. However, going through the second review by a court would be most important, irreparable and serious factor to interfere with the activation of the arbitration system. The only way to activate the arbitration system that failed to secure the practicality due to such a factor, is to revise the Arbitration Act and Arbitration Regulations so that the arbitration decision shall have the right to enforce under the Rules on Enforcement Document on Mediation Statement of various dispute resolution committees of the Supreme Court.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제28권1호
• /
• pp.125-151
• /
• 2018

Rapid industrial growth based on massive fossil fuel energy consumption has caused serious damages on natural environment and every aspects of human life. As demands for clean and pleasant living circumstance increases, conflicts and disputes around environmental problems have also been widespread. Given the 'environmental rights' is a relatively new legal concept, however, resolving environmental disputes through the traditional legal principles and litigation procedures could be restrictive and, in some sense. inefficient as well as expensive. With efforts to develop new legal principles on environmental disputes, the environmental dispute adjustment system has been introduced as an alternative dispute resolution to the traditional legal dispute procedures. The Korean Environmental Dispute Resolution Commission introduced as the environmental dispute adjustment system has been well established for the past twenty-seven years, given the steadily increasing numbers of applications to the Commission over environmental disputes. However, as most cases are still small in money terms and mainly subject to adjudication, the effectiveness and practical contribution of the Commission in the resolution of environmental disputes have in fact been limited. For the enhancement of the status and roles of the Commission as the prior instrument of the alternative dispute resolution(ADR) in environmental disputes, several suggestions could be considered as follows: First, mediation needs to be more activated than adjudication in order to meet the primary purpose of ADR that resolves environmental disputes according to free will of concerned parties. Second, the scope of mediation could be expanded to the areas including potential environmental damages. Third, the roles and responsibilities of the Environmental Dispute Resolution Commissions at both central and local levels need to be evenly distributed. Fourth, the mechanism and procedures of environmental dispute resolution should be standardized. Fifth, the status of the Environmental Dispute Resolution Commission could be elevated in rank by shifting its current affiliation from the Ministry of Environment to the Office of Prime Minister. Sixth, the organizational structure and human resources of the Commission need to be reinforced. Seventh, the current situation that tends to give priority to litigation procedures when an environment dispute is simultaneously pending in litigation and mediation should be eased and properly adjusted. Eighth, the adoption of mandatory mediation in advance to litigation needs to be discussed. Ninth, the legal authority of the Commission's decisions should be further guaranteed. If above suggestions are thoroughly reviewed and properly adopted, the roles, authority and power of the Environmental Dispute Resolution Commission would be increased in the era when environmental conflicts get widespread, requiring an effective alternative environmental dispute resolution mechanism.

• 한국건설관리학회논문집
• /
• 제7권6호
• /
• pp.99-111
• /
• 2006

최근 건설산업의 급격한 환경변화로 국내 건설업계는 어려운 환경에 처해 있다. 건설사의 재무구조 악화로 인한 공사 중단이나 계약 해제 등으로 보증채권자에 의한 건설보증 분쟁도 꾸준히 증가하고 있는 추세이다. 보증채권자에 의한 분쟁 제기 시 소송이 아닌 ADR(Alternative Dispute Resolution), 특히 협상을 통한 분쟁 해결이 가장 바람직한 방안이나 활용할 만한 자료가 극히 제한적이어서 원만히 해결되지 못하고 결국 분쟁으로 이어지고 있는 것이 현실이다. 본 연구에서는 건설분쟁 중 건설보증 분쟁 발생 시 ADR을 통한 해결가능성을 모색하고자, 최근 5년간(2000년${\sim}$2004년) 건설보증과 관련한 대법원 판례를 분석하여 가설 설정과 검증을 통하여 소송의 유효성을 분석하였다. 본 연구결과 소송에 의한 분쟁 해결은 평균 1,067일(최장 1,965일)이 소요되는데 비하여 원고 승소율은 45% 미만으로 나타나 쌍방 모두 이에 따른 시간적, 경제적 손실이 적지 않은 것으로 나타났다. 본 연구를 통하여 제시된 여러 변수들의 승소율을 감안하여 보증계약 당사자가 어느 정도 수용 가능한 기준을 가지고 협상에 참여한다면 손실을 최소화하면서 각자의 만족도를 충족시켜 주게 될 것입니다. 그러나 본 연구에 대한 결과만으로 현재 진행 중이거나 향후 발생하게 될 모든 건설보증의 클레임이나 분쟁에 대한 대응방안을 마련하는 데에는 한계가 있다. 다만, 이상의 연구 결과를 활용하여 보다 적극적으로 건설보증 분쟁을 예방하고 관리방안을 마련하여 단계적이고 체계적으로 시행해 나가는 방안을 모색해야 한다.

• 한국조경학회지
• /
• 제48권6호
• /
• pp.58-58
• /
• 2020

• 의료법학
• /
• 제7권2호
• /
• pp.113-136
• /
• 2006

In recent years, as well as the other countries, medical dispute cases increase continuously in China. one of the reason that medical cases increase rapidly like this is after reformation and opening people's sense of independence, law and right come to be high, but a theoretical study about medical malpractice liability is insufficient and there is deficiency at legislation from 1986 civil law general rule is carried out in Chinese. but it is difficulty to deal with those more and more complicated medical dispute only according to the law above. so in 2001 The Chinese Supreme Court established the judicial construction about civil litigation evidence which regulated the shift of the burden of proof of medical malpractice and the relation of cause and effect from the plaintiffs to the defendants. in 2002 the State Council made out Incident of Malpractice Processing Rule. but many scholar pointed out the problem in it. on the other side, according to Chinese Contract Law parties could choose contractual or tort liability to prosecute. but because of the judicial construction above majority of people asked tort liability. of course there are some cases asking contractual liability. then this paper aim at analysis of the Chinese medical malpractice liability, especially of the problems about the subject of responsibility, burden of proof and scope of responsibility.

• 의료법학
• /
• 제9권1호
• /
• pp.57-127
• /
• 2008

In medical malpractice lawsuits, negligence is generally defined as conduct that is culpable because it falls short of what a reasonable person would do to protect another individual from a foreseeable risks of harm. Thus, the essence of negligence is a breach of obligations to be attentive, and the breach of obligations to be is negligence. However, whether negligence is or not depends on time, place, litigation forms and the judge since the meaning of negligence is wavering on the basis of abstract and normative judgment. In this thesis, what is medical negligence, a breach of obligations of attention for a doctor in medical malpractice lawsuits, would be it further enacted that doctors have the responsibility to protect the patients as a subordinate duty due to a principle of faith and sincerity besides the main duty for medical contract-performance since the suit is a litigation form to be based on responsibilities of experts, especially doctors, though having factors that are non-contractual as a trait for medical treatment. Further on the concept, when the plaintiff asserts and proves a specific fact from the recent moderation of the burden of proof about medical malpractices, whether the court should find a true bill in medical malpractice actually or not has been discussed.

• 한국도서관정보학회지
• /
• 제46권4호
• /
• pp.325-354
• /
• 2015

정보거버넌스는 정보 컴플라이언스 요건을 충족시키고, 정보 가치를 극대화하는 한편 정보 위험을 통제하기 위한 통합적 접근법이다. 기업정보관리에서는 정보가 가진 활용가치뿐 아니라 보유에 따른 위험을 함께 고려해야 한다. 특히 해외 시장에 진출한 기업들이 소송과 전자증거개시에 대비하려면 건실한 기록정보관리에 토대를 둔 정보거버넌스의 도입이 시급하다. 이 연구는 미국 법조계에 영향력을 가진 세도나 컨퍼런스의 정보거버넌스 원칙을 실천적 관점에서 분석하여 기업의 정보거버넌스 구축방안을 제시하기 위한 것이다. 이 원칙을 실무에 적용할 수 있는 통제 기준으로 재구성한 후 이러한 통제 기준을 정보거버넌스의 업무 영역별로 배치하고 이를 해석함으로써 정보거버넌스의 구축과 운영상의 시사점을 제시하였다.

• 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.

• 한국건축시공학회:학술대회논문집
• /
• 한국건축시공학회 2011년도 추계 학술논문 발표대회
• /
• pp.137-138
• /
• 2011

Mainly in construction liens to four contractors do not receive your order is caused by construction. This construction does not receive construction compunction to protect the contractor, I guess. On the other hand, the medium and small construction companies and contractors that could threaten the order four can be a problem. In this study, small construction companies to the lien of the lien claim on the issue of case studies have looked for the study. Small construction companies, in your case through the litigation between the lien of the lien litigation perspective, the cause of four orders after the analysis step by step construction was listed in chronological order. Identifying problem was the result of a lien. This study to previous studies regarding the lien on the issue through case studies of one kind of lien was derived for the problem. A follow-up studies and more case studies and interviews are considered necessary in the study.