• International conference on construction engineering and project management
• /
• 2015.10a
• /
• pp.599-599
• /
• 2015

This research attempts to resolve the construction delay issues of indirect delays by developing the "Delay Responsibility Determination Model" (DRM) based on probabilistic risk analysis. DRM is envisioned to provide a way of quantitatively analyzing impacts of delayed activities while considering both direct and indirect influences. With the successful development of DRM, it would be possible to present relative probabilistic measures to all the related stakeholders in terms of their contributions to schedule delays. Upon the development completion of DRM, "Korean Construction Delay Claim/Dispute Resolution Protocols" will also be prepared to facilitate the effective use of DRM.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.24 no.4
• /
• pp.99-125
• /
• 2014

The purpose of this paper is to introduce the arbitral proceeding system in Indonesia. Arbitration in Indonesia is governed by Law No. 30 of 1999 on Arbitration and Alternative Dispute Resolution (Arbitration Law). Also, the Indonesian National Board of Arbitration (BANI) is the main arbitration body in Indonesia. BANI handles both domestic and international disputes. BANI has published its Rules of Arbitral Procedure (the BANI Rules). Within a period of not longer than 30 days after receiving the petition for arbitration, the respondent must submit its reply. Also, if the respondent wishes to assert against the claimant a counter-claim in connection with the dispute, the respondent may submit such counter-claim together with its statement of defense no later than the first hearing. This paper suggests that the following may be some of the disadvantages to using arbitration under the BANI Rules. The first is that final decision or approval regarding the designation of all arbitrators shall be in the hands of the Chairman of BANI. It is the chief problem facing the international stream of arbitration systems. The second is that arbitrators must have certain minimum qualifications. BANI Rules provide the same requirements for the qualifications of the arbitrators as the Arbitration Law. The third is that the BANI Rules require arbitrators in BANI-administered references to be chosen from BANI's list of arbitrators. BANI can also consider a recognized foreign arbitrator if the foreign arbitrator meets the qualification requirements and is prepared to comply with the BANI Rules. This includes the requirement that the appointing party must bear the travel, accommodation, and other special expenses related to the appointment of the foreign arbitrator.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.15 no.2
• /
• pp.91-122
• /
• 2014

For a variety of reasons, the number of medical disputes is continuously rising. Due to the intrinsic qualities of medical treatments, one would find it more apt to subject medical disputes to general conflict resolution procedures rather than to once-for-all decisions under legal suits. To address the increasing medical disputes with greater professionalism and efficiency, the Medical Disputes Mediation Act was enacted and a medical dispute mediation system put in place, while drawbacks have been blamed to both. The current mediation procedures require the respondent's agreement as a disclosure requirement. A reasonable improvement to this would be to amend the regulation of agreement supposition, or to enforce procedural participation only to public health facilities managed by the national or regional government. Furthermore, small claims cases of 20 million KRW or less in claim may be considered for conciliation-prepositive principle. The concentration on small claim medical disputes is a phenomenon that can be addressed by carrying out maximum authentication commissions or similar measures, one of the solutions by enhancing the public trust in the Korea Medical Dispute Mediation and Arbitration Agency. The proper management of medical authentication teams is one way to address the existing problems in the authentication system. For this, the number of team members shall be increased under more flexible authentication procedures. All indemnity resources for medical accidents of force majeure must be borne by the Government, for it is the body principally responsible for social compensation. Placing this cost on the establisher of the subject medical facility holds the possibility of violating fundamental rights. While the costs for subrogation payment system for damages may be borne by the healthcare facility establisher, a deposit-based system must be created for cases in which the facility shuts down, without holding the responsibility for accident cause. Such change to a deposit-based system will evade the controversies of unconstitutionality, etc.

• Journal of the Korea Society of Computer and Information
• /
• v.12 no.3
• /
• pp.137-146
• /
• 2007

Korea's seas have the potentials of dispute against China or Japan due to the overlap of the territorial waters and EEZ. In case of marine accidents, the nature of the sea tends to eliminate much of the track, making it another hardship in evidence adoption in case of an international dispute along with the false entries of fishing vessels' journals. Marine Digital Forensics Protects the functions of computers and IT appliance on vessels and extracts evidence of voyage and accidents to resolve international dispute. The digital evidence, if tampered with its integrity, my lead to the rejection to a critical claim or may even fail to make a case. As a solution, this thesis suggests Marine Digital Forensics as a way to extract evidence and prove a claim. This may be utilized as means of scientific investigation on sea as overseas exchange increases and the vessels digitalize, leading to a solution in international disputes that may occur in the future.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.13 no.1
• /
• 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.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.12 no.2
• /
• pp.263-302
• /
• 2003

Since new Korean arbitration law was modeledafter UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration Law, the judicial review on the arbitral award is at most limited to fundamental procedural justice. Thus, drafting valid arbitration clause is paramount important to enforce arbitral awards in the new legal environment. A losing party in arbitral process would often claim of the invalidity of arbitration agreement to challenge the arbitral award. Especially, the validity of arbitration clause in the construction contracts is often challenged in Korean courts. This is because the construction contracts usually include selective arbitration agreement in multi-tiered dispute resolution clause that is drafted ambiguous or uncertain. In this paper selective arbitration agreement means a clause in a contract that provides that party may choose arbitration or litigation to resolve disputes arising out of the concerned contract. On the hand multi-tiered dispute resolution clause means a clause in a contract that provides for distinct stages such as negotiation, mediation or arbitration. However, Korean courts are not in the same position on the validity of selective arbitration agreementin multi-tiered dispute resolution clause. Some courts in first instance recognized its validity on the ground that parties still intend to arbitrate in the contract despite the poor drafted arbitration clause. Other courts reject its validity on the ground that parties did not intend to resort to arbitration only with giving up their right to sue at courts to resolve their disputes by choosing selective arbitration agreement. Several cases are recently on pending at the Supreme Courts, which decision is expected to yield the court's position in uniform way. Having reviewed recent Korean courts' decisions on validity and applicability of arbitration agreement, this article suggests that courts are generally in favor of arbitration system It is also found that some courts' decisions narrowly interpreted the concerned stipulations in arbitration law despite they are in favorable position to the arbitration itself. However, most courts in major countries broadly interpret arbitration clause in favor of validity of selective arbitration agreement even if the arbitration clause is poorly drafted but parties are presume to intend to arbitrate. In conclusion it is desirable that selective arbitration agreement should be interpreted favorable to the validity of arbitration agreement. It is time for Korean courts to resolve this issue in the spirit of UNCITRAL model arbitration law which the new Korean arbitration law is based on.

• Proceedings of the Korean Institute Of Construction Engineering and Management
• /
• 2004.11a
• /
• pp.629-633
• /
• 2004

The number of claims and disputes among project participants has been steadily increasing last a few years and it creates numerous conflicts and problems in the domestic construction industry. One of the root causes of claims and disputes can be explained by the fact that project objectives of participants are offer different and not aligned. This research is considered as a pre-study of developing a strategy to mitigate conflicts such as claims and disputes in the domestic construction industry by utilizing Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) techniques. This research focused on improving standard contrast documents to establish a systematic dispute resolution process which emphasize the ADR method. To do so, several well-recognized contract documents developed by FIDIC, AIA, ECC were throughly investigated and analyzed using a benchmarking process. Result of the research propose needs of improving the domestic construction document's some clauses and the details will be further Investigated through surveys and expert's opinions.

• Korean Journal of Construction Engineering and Management
• /
• v.7 no.6
• /
• pp.99-111
• /
• 2006

Of the numerious dispute resolution methods, Alternative Dispute Resolution(ADR) is the most highly recommended approach for the guarantee bond-related dispute. In reality, however, claims were not resolved satisfactorily through ADR because of the lack of reference materials for negotiation, thus those were frequently had to be resolved through litigation. The above fact implies that, it is required to seek an efficient way to resolve the bond-related claims prior to they progress to litigation. This research paper intensively investigated judicial precedents of 232 cases with regard to construction bond-related disputes that observed during the analysis period(2000-2004). According to the summary statistics, it turned out that litigation were time consuming and potential economic loss was tremendous; on average, it takes 1067 days(the longest case was 1965 days) for dispute resolution. It suggests that litigations should be discouraged considering the magnitude of potential loss of stake holders. Research results revealed that there are some significant differences between categories in some variables affecting to the rate of winning; i) the number of lawsuit deputies of a plaintiff (in the 1st trial), ii) dispute locations (in the 1st and 3rd trials), iii) contract price (in the 1st trial), iv) contractors' operating capability (in the 1st and 2nd trials). For the rest of variables, significance level between categories was too low for preparing efficient improvement plan. Despite the important implications drawn from the analysis, this research has limitation due to the several reasons such as data structure, the depth of Information, etc. Therefore, more systematic research should be followed in the future.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.26
• /
• pp.225-253
• /
• 2005

Nowadays we does not hesitate to definite answer that the arbitration is the most developed dispute settlement out of court in the international commercial transaction. Online arbitration is desirable for the reasons of speed and cost effectiveness to settle the dispute about the international commercial transaction. Online arbitration is fast because it uses the communication technologies that allow information to be sent fast and efficiently. But in online arbitration too much speed and efficiency may lead to a violation of due process rights and consequently the online arbitration awards run a risk to be set aside or refused its enforcement under the international commercial arbitration mechanism. Speed and efficiency may conflict with the procedural guarantee characterizing each adversary dispute resolution process. As arbitration is exclusive of recourse to courts, a state must guarantee that arbitral proceeding should be satisfied with the claim rights requirement. The main question regarding the sources of regulation is particularly for the due process whether or not this is provided by the availability of grounds to set arbitral award aside. In other words, does it respect due process in the arbitration proceeding including information communication and technology under the online arbitration. In this paper it is discussed about how the main issue in arbitration should be implemented in online arbitration proceedings to cope with the due process requirements in national and international.

• Korean Journal of Construction Engineering and Management
• /
• v.6 no.4 s.26
• /
• pp.181-189
• /
• 2005

This study analyzed and summarized claims that took place during the past three years in the Korean construction-bonds market. Specifically, this study first examined the trend of construction-bonds claims. Second, the claims categorized according to the types of projects, suretyships, duration of settlement, amount of repayment and so on. Finally, based upon the analyzed results several suggestions, which will improve the efficiency of construction claim process, were provided.