• Journal of the Korea Institute of Building Construction
• /
• v.20 no.6
• /
• pp.567-576
• /
• 2020

This study proposes additional items to be recognized as defects in a defect lawsuit through a case analysis of lawsuit cases in apartment housing. Identifying these defects prevents an unexpected increase in litigation costs, delays in the date of litigation, and emotion repercussions or additional lawsuits. In this study, the defects that were not discovered by the existing occupants and construction companies, but were newly discovered in litigation, were defined as defects in lawsuits. Fifteen cases of lawsuits were analyzed and a total of 77 defects were derived. Each item was then reviewed for location, work type, number of occurrences, and cost. The results were yielded 23 defect items, which were validated by appraisers who directly appraised the cases. In addition, the derived defect factors were analyzed. Finally, the 23 defect items were categorized into 10 main factors which include attributes such as causes of occurrence and characteristics. This can provide an overall area of defects to be considered in addition to existing defect items in the life cycle of the housing. The results of this study can contribute to reducing the actual occurrence of defects and minimizing the disputes in the case of defect lawsuits.

• 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.28 no.1
• /
• 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.

• 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.

• Journal of the Korean Institute of Landscape Architecture
• /
• v.48 no.6
• /
• pp.58-58
• /
• 2020

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.7 no.2
• /
• 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.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.9 no.1
• /
• 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.

• Journal of Korean Library and Information Science Society
• /
• v.46 no.4
• /
• pp.325-354
• /
• 2015

Corporate information has great value, but also poses great risk. Information governance is an organization's coordinated, inter-disciplinary approach to satisfying information compliance requirements and managing information risks while optimizing information value. This study aims to suggest the directions of implementing information governance in business firms based on analyses of Sedona Conference Principles of Information Governance. After analysing and reformulating the principles into control standards, and they are investigated and interpreted in terms of practicing information governance.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.11 no.1
• /
• 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.

• Proceedings of the Korean Institute of Building Construction Conference
• /
• 2011.11a
• /
• 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.