• 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.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.18
• /
• pp.385-444
• /
• 2003

Current Military Airbase Law, in an effort to promote safety of military aircraft and security of military airbase, requires an administrative agency or its empowered branch to consult with the Secretary of Defense or the commander of the airbase before they issue a certain administrative approval or decision related to the installation. Although this consultation process purports itself in simplifying what can be an protracted administrative procedure, and in unifying objectives of the military and the administrative services, such procedural requirement is vulnerable inevitability of various legal problems whenever there is a conflict of interests among civil, military, government services. Nor is there sufficient studies done by academian in the area of bureaucratic issues of administrative resolution, and certainly not in the area of the military consultation procedure. This article, with such reality in mind attempts to constructively examine 1) when a consultation application is submitted, whether the discretionary power of the commander of the affected airbase is acknowledged at the outset; 2) if the content of the consultation is deemed unlawful, whether a civilian can institute an administrative lawsuit against it; 3) problems about the subject matters of the consultation requirement within the framework of military airbase law; 4) whether the issuing administrative agency must abide by and issue approval or decision in accordance with the opinion proposed by the said commander; 5) the legal problems of the remedial measure such as an order of removal, appellate review, notion to challenge authority, and etc. in cases such as administrative agency ignoring the commanders proposal or issuing final approval or decision that is inconsistent with what was consulted and agreed upon between both parties.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.18 no.2
• /
• pp.75-103
• /
• 2017

There are three types of benefits in the National Health Insurance Act of Korea. Those are the treatment benefit, statutory uninsured medical benefits and arbitrary uninsured medical benefits. Recently the Korea Supreme Court changed its past legal theory and permitted the arbitrary uninsured medical benefits under the strictly exceptional conditions. According to the Supreme Court's decision, the existence of procedural difficulty, the medical necessity and the patient's consent are necessarily required in order to allow the legal exceptions in arbitrary uninsured medical benefits. Among the three requirements, the doctor's explanation and the patient's fully informed consent are the most important essentials in this legal conflict. The requirement concerning the doctor's explanation and the patient's consent roles like a hole in the ice as a breathing hole in the arbitrary uninsured medical benefits. The most cases dismissed after Supreme Court Decision 2010DU27639, 27646 Decided June 18, 2012. were due to the defect of three requirements.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.20 no.1
• /
• pp.3-20
• /
• 2010

Traditionally, finality has been regarded as one of virtues of arbitration. However in many cases absence of appeal process in arbitration is also a factor deterring people from choosing arbitration. Even though unsatisfied party may resort to a court for annulment of an award, it is allowed only when there are procedural defects. When there are substantive defects in matters of fact or matters of law, it is not easy or almost impossible to bring the case on the table again. The introduction of arbitration appeal process has been discussed in international arbitration fora, and some countries have already been adopting appeal process. Realizing this trend, it is time for us to consider adopting similar appeal process. Arbitration being based on the party autonomy, there's no good reason to prohibit appeal when the parties agree to do so. Arbitration appeal should be allowed within arbitration system itself, rather than resorting to a court, so that many virtues of arbitration can be maintained in the appeal. In designing an arbitration appeal system, following measures should be considered: minimum amount in dispute to trigger the right of appeal should be set in order to reduce the volume of appeal; losing appellant should be responsible for the legal cost of his opponent in order to deter non-meritorious appeals; time limits on initial appeal application and subsequent briefs should be set in order to accelerate appeal process; and, appeal tribunals should be composed of more experienced arbitrators in order to provide more accurate award. If we are equipped with a well designed appeal process within arbitration system, Korea will be able to emerge as an attractive international arbitration forum.

• 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 Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.21 no.3
• /
• pp.21-54
• /
• 2011

International commercial arbitration has established itself as the primary dispute resolution mechanism for international business transactions. Certainly, there are commonly-accepted standards that have evolved to reflect an internationally-harmonized approach to issues relating to the taking of evidence. This is reflected in International Bar Association("IBA") Rules for Taking of Evidence in International Evidence("IBA Rules"). This IBA Rules were revised in 2010. Designed to assist parties in determining what procedures to use in their particular case, IBA Rules present some of the methods for conducting international arbitration proceedings. Parties and arbitral tribunals may adopt IBA Rules in whole or in part - at the time of drafting the arbitration clause in a contract or once an arbitration commences - or they may use them as guidelines. They supplement applicable national laws and institutional or ad hoc rules. The IBA Rules were an ambitious undertaking, designed to overcome fundamental cultural differences relating to the taking of evidence under different national court systems. While it is difficult to assess how frequently the IBA Rules are actually adopted by parties, it is fair to say that they have had a considerable influence on the practice of taking evidence in international arbitration. This article mainly describes the essential provisions of IBA Rules, as revised in 2010, including but not limited to production of document, witnesses of fact, party-appointed experts, and tribunal-appointed experts. It also provides a comparison of relevant procedural rules of civil law and common law systems to each of the above mentioned provisions. It is important for arbitration practitioners to understand the differences in the taking of evidence under civil law and common law systems, respectively. This article will be helpful for practitioners and academics not only to understand the revised IBA Rules themselves but also to prepare for, and adequately deal with, the frictions that may arise as a result of the differences in approach for taking evidences. Indeed, so prepared, the arbitration practitioner will be able to anticipate the expectations, perceptions and the conduct of the parties, their counsel and the tribunal members.

• Korean Journal of Agricultural Science
• /
• v.43 no.3
• /
• pp.468-480
• /
• 2016

As the existing FTAs' implementations are being accelerated, ex-post assessments, such as tariff schedules and agricultural trade analyses results, have been emerging as important national issues for the agricultural sector. Korea-Chile FTA is the first FTA in Korea, and more than ten years have passed since April 2004. It will be necessary to measure the impacts of the agreement on the domestic agricultural industry by analyzing concessions made on traded items of farm products on prices, agricultural trade, and so on. The purpose of this study is to prepare for the request for ex-post assessments on the agricultural sector by trade negotiation procedural law. Additionally, by providing policy direction for agricultural policy segments requiring amendments and supplements through an ex-post assessment, we can more objectively evaluate the conflicting arguments between the agricultural and non-agricultural sectors. Current evaluation methods about ex-post impact assessment of FTA are generally comparison analysis on the change of trade balance before and after FTA implementation. However, this simple comparison analysis cannot be said to pure FTA effects and objective, tightening economic impact assessment of the FTA because of all combined situations such as effects of exchange rates, international macroeconomic changes, climate change, and the occurrence of pests. This research attempts to use dynamic analysis as its ex-post assessment methodology and is expected to contribute to future policy evaluation.

• Convergence Security Journal
• /
• v.12 no.2
• /
• pp.43-51
• /
• 2012

CCTV would be the effective way in the prevention of abuse, as well as recorded image information evidence of the crime as a significant legal effect. But recorded image information As evidence by utilizing the Complaint/complaint handling, and administrative business processes that are currently operating offline procedural complexity and unnecessary time appear costly, privacy remains an issue to be solved, etc. Runoff. In this paper, incidence rate of offline business processing phase to solve the problems proposed to build unified portal for CCTV image information and the existing studies on the effectiveness of electronic civil service system, previous studies by analyzing e-government in accordance with laws and privacy laws, CCTV image information portal deployment model is applied to data integration occurs are trying to solve the problem effectively.

• Analyses & Alternatives
• /
• v.2 no.1
• /
• pp.31-69
• /
• 2018

This study examines the role of science in resolving trade disputes. After the Great East Japan Earthquake of 11 March 2011 that not only jeopardized the people of Japan, but also put the safety of an entire region at risk, the Republic of Korea (Korea) has imposed import bans as well as increased testing and certification requirements for radioactive material on Japanese food products. Japan has challenged these restrictions at the World Trade Organizations Dispute Settlement Body (DSB). This study aims to explain how international trade agreements and previous DSB rulings have dealt with different scientific viewpoints provided by confronting parties. In doing so, it will contrast the viewpoints espoused by Korean and Japanese representatives, and then analyzes the most similar case studies previously ruled on by the DSB, including the case of beef hormones and the case of genetically modified crops including biotech corn, both between the United States and the European Communities (EC). This study finds that science is largely subordinate to national interests in the case of state decision-making within the dispute settlement processes, and science has largely been relegated to a supportive role. Due to the ambiguity and lack of truly decisive decisions in the Appellate Body in science-based trade disputes, this study concludes that the Appellate Body avoids taking a firm scientific position in cases where science is still inconclusive in any capacity. Due to the panel's unwillingness to establish expert review boards as it has the power to do, instead favoring an individual-based system so that all viewpoints can be heard, it has also developed a system with its own unique weaknesses. Similar to any court of law in which each opposing party defends its own interests, each side brings whatever scientific evidence it can to defend its position, incentivizing them to disregard scientific conclusions unfavorable to their position. With so many questions that can arise, combined with the problems of evolving science, questions of risk, and social concerns in democratic society, it is no wonder that the panel views scientific information provided by the experts as secondary to the legal and procedural issues. Despite being ruled against the EC on legal issues in two previous cases, the EC essentially won both times because the panel did not address whether its science was correct or not. This failure to conclusively resolve a debate over whose science is more scientific enabled the EC to simply fix the procedural issues, while continuing to enforce trade restrictions based on their scientific evidence. Based on the analysis of the two cases of disputes, Korea may also find itself guilty of imposing an unwarranted moratorium on Japan's fish exports, only to subsequently pass new restrictions on labelling and certification requirements because Japan may have much scientific evidence at its disposal. However, Korea might be able to create enough uncertainty in the panel to force them to rule exclusively on the legal issues of the case. This will then equip Korea, like the EC in the past, with a way of working around the ruling, by changing whatever legal procedure they need to while maintaining some, if not most, of its restrictions when the panel fails to address its case on scientific grounds.

• Tuberculosis and Respiratory Diseases
• /
• v.58 no.3
• /
• pp.213-229
• /
• 2005

The first and the longest criminal indictment case of Korean medico-legal battle, so called BORAMAE Hospital Incident, was finally on its end by Korean Supreme Court's decision on June 24, 2004, after 7 years long legal dispute via Seoul District Court and Seoul Superior Appeal Court's decision. Boramae Hospital case was the first Korean legal case of Withdrawing Life-sustaining treatment of mechanical respirator on 58 years old Extradural Hematoma victim who was on Respirator under Coma after multi-organ failure postoperatively(APACHE II score: 34-39). Two physicians who have involved patient's care and had helped to make discharge the Near-death patient to home after repeated demand of patient's wife, due to economic reason, were sentenced as homicidal crime. This review article will discuss the following items with the review of US cases, Quinlan(1976), Nancy Cruzan(1990), Barber (1983), Helen Wanglie(1990), Baby K (1994) and Baby L cases, along with Official Statement of ATS and other Academic dignitaries of US and World.: [1] Details of Boramae Hospital incident, medical facts description and legal language of homicidal crime sentence. [2] The medical dispute about the legal misinterpretation of patient's clinical status, regarding the severity of the victim with multi-organs failure on Respirator under coma with least chance of recovery, less than 10% probability. [3] Case study of US, of similar situation. [4] Introduction of ATS official Statement on Withdrawing/ Withholding Life sustaining treatment. [5] Patient Autonomy as basic principle. [6] The procedural formality in Medical practise for keeping the legitimacy. [7] The definition of Medical Futility and its dispute. [8] Dying in Dignity and PAS(Physician Assisted Suicide)/and/or Euthanasia [9] The Korean version of "Dying in Dignity", based on the Supreme Court's decision of Boramae Hospital incident (2004.6.24.) [10] Summary and Author's Note for future prospects.