• Journal of the Korea Society of Computer and Information
• /
• v.20 no.4
• /
• pp.139-146
• /
• 2015

The Housing Lease Protection Act was enacted from March 5, 1981 as Law No. 3379 to guarantee the stability of residential life and legal status. After then, there were many problems, but through several times revision, it had improved insufficient part. However, in order to give guarantees actually the position strengthen for homeless poor people many issues still need to be solved and it has been raised. Along the way, with the introduction of the tenant renewal claims, in February 14, 2015, the National Assembly planned to discuss current issues by operating the Special Committee for housing welfare of ordinary people in the extra session. In the current, however, the conflict of the pros and cons is shown clearly. Meanwhile, because the contract renewal claim of tenant was not guaranteed, if the minimum duration of the lease will be lapsed, contract renewal is dependent on the intention of landlord. Thus, the residential stability of homeless poor could become unstable. Therefore, in this paper, to stabilize the residential living for tenants who are in poor status, analyze our term of existence regulation and through the compared to the national legislation about the term of existence, it will try to propose the specific legislative approach to the problem.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.15 no.3
• /
• pp.113-137
• /
• 2005

In the provisions of 'the Arbitration Law of China, there are special provisions for international arbitration. When a court refuses the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards or cancel the domestic awards relating to international arbitration, they have to adopt the provisions of 'Chinese Civil Procedure Law'. These provisions are the same as the provisions of Korean Civil Procedure Law concerning the reasons of renewal. In the Korean Arbitration Act, those provisions disappeared when it was revised on December 31, 1999. Among the characteristics of the Chinese arbitration system, a serious question is that it provides only institutional arbitration and there is no ad-hoc arbitration in the Chinese Arbitration Law. On the other hand, when the parties appoint three arbitrators according to their agreement, the parties appoint the third arbitrator by mutual agreement and when they fail to agree, the Arbitration Committee appoints the third arbitrator. In practice, as the parties hardly agree on the third arbitrator or sole arbitrator, the Committee usually appoints them. And appointing an arbitrator from out of their panel of arbitrators is permitted these days only under examination by the Arbitration Committee in accordance with the arbitration rules of the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission, Other arbitration committees except the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission are still prohibited from making appointments from out of their panel of arbitrators. Accordingly, arbitration in China cannot be predicted and poses a question about legal stability as party autonomy is restricted in the appointment of arbitrators and arbitral procedure. Such being the case it is strongly recommended to select Korea as the place of arbitration in transactions with China. However it is better to arbitrate than to file a law suit in China.