• 통상정보연구
• /
• 제8권2호
• /
• pp.101-117
• /
• 2006

"Online Alternative Dispute Resolution" can refer to the use of online methods of dispute resolution to resolve disputes arising either online or offline. The range of disputes covered by online ADR has been broad : from family law to internet domain name disputes : from small transaction to insurance disputes. Online and offline consumer disputes have been a major focus of online ADR sites. This article propsed that the mediator should explain the process and the mediator's role so as to forestall misunderstanding on that score. And mediators should consider including in either usual mediation agreements additional provisions applicable to communications by email. Online ADR sites should be designed 1) to provide a simple, easily understandable process, 2) to provide detailed information on process, cost and speed, 3) to enable users to move between online and offline processes, 4) to have authentication processes for parties and documents, 5) to have automatic translation system for language barriers. And Government should play an important role in assisting people to adapt technically and emotionally to new technology through information, training and ongoing support. The days of live online television-quality videoconferencing have not yet arrived. Until then, we must hone our skills with the written word.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제24권1호
• /
• pp.85-109
• /
• 2014

Mediation and Arbitration are two distinct ADR processes. Their dissimilarity lies in the principle that in mediation the parties themselves decide what the resolution to the problem is, whereas in arbitration the arbitrator makes that determination. Med-Arb, hybrid of the two methods, is a fairly new ADR process dating back to the 1970s. Med-Arb capitalizes on the advantages of both mediation and arbitration, while eliminating many of their disadvantages. Mediation has the advantage of allowing for resolutions rather than decisions. Arbitration has the advantage of guaranteeing that the matter will be resolved when the procedure is over. In Med-Arb, the participants agree to be parties to mediation, and if the mediation comes to an impasse, a final settlement will be reached through arbitration. This study first explicates the origin and the development of Med-Arb in the United States. This study shows that the emergence of Med-Arb is benefited from the fact that arbitration has lost its own advantages ie, speed, cost-saving, and maintenance of an ongoing relationship between the disputants. Second, this study analyzes four cases in which Med-Arb is applied to various kinds of disputes as a tool of dispute resolution: labor disputes, entertainment disputes, will disputes, and international commercial disputes, consecutively. All those case studies show the generality of Med-Arb as a dispute resolution channel. Third, this study compares the advantages and disadvantages of Med-Arb. Finally, this study discusses the implications of Med-Arb. In particular it provides the universality of this hybrid form of dispute resolution in the East and West. For example, we show that China has its own distinctive Med-Arb system, where it has developed from ancient Confucian philosophy. Japan also emphasizes the role of an arbitrator who settles the disputes in the course of arbitration. The domestic arbitration rules of the Korean Commercial Arbitration Board (KCAB) have a similar process in that arbitration contains an element of conciliation. With regard to the universal characteristics of Med-Arb, it is necessary to analyze the pros and cons of Med-Arb at a deeper level in the future. One caveat is that it is necessary to handle the issues of the neutrality of the mediator-arbitrator.

• 한국건설관리학회:학술대회논문집
• /
• 한국건설관리학회 2001년도 학술대회지
• /
• pp.40-45
• /
• 2001

중재를 이용한 최근의 국내 대형 건설공사의 건설분규 해결사례들을 볼 때, 복잡한 건설분규가 합리적으로 해결되는 절차가 국내에도 새롭게 적용되고 있으며 이는 앞으로도 더욱 확산될 전망이다. 이 논문에서는 이를 바탕으로 하여 건설분규 해결절차의 새로운 정립을 위하여 기존의 절차를 확대하여 새롭게 고려하여야 할 점들을 고찰하여 보기로 한다. 건설분규를 합리적으로 관리(Manage)하기 위해서는 분규해결을 위한 사후대처 뿐만이 아닌 사전에 할 수 있는 분규대처 방안도 함께 검토하여 보기로 한다. 또한 기존 국내의 분규해결 절차를 분석하고 미국에서 현재 활용되는 대체분규해결(ADR) 절차들과 비교하고자 한다. 분규해결 절차의 정립은 분규가 발생된 이후의 대체해결 방안에 관하여 연구하는 기존의 접근방식과는 달리 미리 건설분규의 요소들을 관리하고 진단할 수 있는 "분규가능성(Disputability)"을 통하여 분규의 예측 및 회피를 추구하는 폭넓은 접근방식에서 미국의 대체분규해결 절차들을 분석하고자 한다.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제28권2호
• /
• pp.249-275
• /
• 2018

Today's Internet environment is growing rapidly, and transactions based on it are also rapidly increasing. E-commerce allows merchants and consumers in different countries to easily trade goods across borders. However, the increase in international consumer transactions through the Internet is accompanied by an increase in disputes. International consumer transactions are characterized by a distinction among long distance, small sum, and different jurisdictions. International consumer transactions cannot be solved only by way of resolving disputes in past international transactions. The best way to resolve disputes between international carriers and consumers is through the Internet. In this regard, UNCITRAL has been preparing to enact legislation on ODR as a solution to international electronic trade disputes and, as a result, UNCITRAL adopted guidelines for operating the ODR procedure for building the ODR platform. The European Union has also increased its disputes in the European Union, which is active in the intra-regional market. Institutional improvements were made to solve this problem; therefore, the European Union (EU) has enacted the ODR Regulations for EU consumer disputes. Based on such, this study constructed the ODR platform, which is used as a way to resolve consumer disputes in the regional market.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제16권3호
• /
• pp.127-160
• /
• 2006

Civil lawsuits have been the main instruments to resolve any civil disputes until recent times but it has its limitations in resolving all disputes in the specialized and technical disputes only according to the civil trial process. Therefore, many countries have carried out a series of discussions and investigations into the system of Alternate Dispute Resolution(ADR). It should especially be noted that all related countries in the world have enacted a basic ADR law to accelerate the usage of the ADR system. The most representative cases are the American Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of 1998 and Japan's Alternative Dispute Resolution Promotion Law set up in December 2004. As such, there is a need for Korea to enact a basic law regarding ADR following the world trend of major nations. This paper looks closely not only into the enactment circumstances and contents of Japan's ADR law whose legal system is similar to that of Korea but also the aftermath discussions of the Japanese academic circles into consideration, in the hopes of providing reference data for the legislation of the Korean ADR system and further aiding in the development of the ADR law theory.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제11권1호
• /
• pp.75-93
• /
• 2001

The advantages of arbitration such as promptness, economy and flexibility apply to the disputes arising from corporate governance between shareholders and a corporation. The confidentiality of arbitration can be particularly highlighted in the disputes among the members inside corporation. But it appears that the shareholders believe litigation the best way to pursue liabilities of managers of corporation and improve the system of corporate governance. And it is claimed that the current litigation system lacks the implementation of shareholders rights due to structural deficiency and therefore need bring class actions into the system of Korean jurisprudence. The OECD, which afforded the rescue finances to Korea, also recommended shareholder class actions as a way to improve corporate governance. Class actions have merits but even advanced countries consider the changes of existing system or only stay class actions in the stage of discussion. Rather, legal experts urge arbitration to be used more frequently and the Courts also approved the dispute resolutions of the disputes as to corporate governance through arbitration. There is no report in Korea that arbitration was used to resolve the disputes between shareholders and the managers, or between shareholders and corporation, which is listed in the Stock Market. There only are the debates for bring class actions into the judicial system between NGOs and the organizations of corporate managers. But arbitration has greater advantages in resolving the disputes among the members of corporation that any other methods for dispute resolution. Arbitration can interpret flexibly the mandatory provisions of the Statutes of Security and the Code of Commerce to meet the needs of parties involved, which is not possible to the Courts. Arbitration can issue the award to meet the equity of the parties. And arbitration can avoid a resolution of All or Nothing by fully considering the specific situations of Korean corporations(such as family-dominated management) and can issue the award beneficial to all parties of shareholders, managers and corporation. Thus it should be sought to resolve the disputes as to corporate governance through arbitration.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제15권2호
• /
• pp.3-35
• /
• 2005

The meaning of Online ADR lies in the prompt and economical resolution of disputes by applying the information/communication element (Internet) to existing ADR. However, if the promptness and economical efficiency are overemphasized, the fairness and appropriateness of dispute resolution may be compromised and consequently Online ADR will be belittled and criticized as second-class trials. In addition, as communication is mostly made using texts in Online ADR it is difficult to investigate cases and to create atmosphere and induce dynamic feelings, which are possible in the process of dispute resolution through face-to-face contact. Despite such difficulties, Online ADR is expanding its area not only in online but also in offline due to its advantages such as promptness, low expenses and improved resolution methods, and is expected to develop rapidly as the electronic government decided to adopt it in the future. Accordingly, the following points must be focused on for the continuous First, in the legal and institutional aspects for the development of Online ADR, it is necessary to establish a framework law on ADR. A framework law on ADR comprehending existing mediation and arbitration should be established and it must include contents of Online ADR, which utilizes electronic communication means. However, it is too early to establish a separate law for Online ADR because Online ADR must develop based on the theoretical system of ADR. Second, although Online ADR is expanding rapidly, it may take time to be settled as a tool of dispute resolution. As discussed earlier, additionally, if the amount of money in dispute is large or the dispute is complicated, Online ADR may have a negative effect on the resolution of the dispute. Thus, it is necessary to apply Online ADR to trifle cases or domestic cases in the early stage, accumulating experiences and correcting errors. Moreover, in order to settle numerous disputes effectively, Online ADR cases should be analyzed systematically and cases should be classified by type so that similar disputes may be settled automatically. What is more, these requirements should reflected in developing Online ADR system. Third, the application of Online ADR is being expanded to consumer disputes, domain name disputes, commercial disputes, legal disputes, etc., millions of cases are settled through Online ADR, and 115 Online ADR sites are in operation throughout the world. Thus Online ADR requires not temporary but continuous attention, and mediators and arbitrators participating in Online ADR should be more intensively educated on negotiation and information technologies. In particular, government-led research projects should be promoted to establish Online ADR model and these projects should be supported by comprehensive researches on mediation, arbitration and Online ADR. Fourth, what is most important in the continuous development and expansion of Online ADR is to secure confidence in Online ADR and advertise Online ADR to users. For this, incentives and rewards should be given to specialists such as lawyers when they participate in Online ADR as mediators and arbitrators in order to improve their expertise. What is more, from the early stage, the government and public institutions should have initiative in promoting Online ADR so that parties involved in disputes recognize the substantial contribution of Online ADR to dispute resolution. Lastly, dispute resolution through Online ADR is performed by organizations such as Korea Institute for Electronic Commerce and Korea Consumer Protection Board and partially by Korean Commercial Arbitration Board. Online ADR is expected to expand its area to commercial disputes in offline in the future. In response to this, Korean Commercial Arbitration Board, which is an organization for commercial dispute resolution, needs to be restructured.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제14권2호
• /
• pp.3-46
• /
• 2004

To realize the spirit of the South-North Joint Declaration of June 15, 2000, the competent authorities of the South and the North of Korea have reached two Agreements to settle commercial disputes as well as to set up an arbitral organization called 'South-North Commercial Arbitration Commission'. The Commission is an institutional organization for settlement of commercial disputes arising from trade and investment between south and north Korea. Under the situation, it is becoming a problem of vital importance how to manage and control the Commission for prompt and effective settlement of south-north commercial disputes. While analyzing the above two Agreements for dispute-settlement mechanism, the author proposes desirable ideas and directions in connection with the Commission as follows: 1. First of all, the Commission should become a central common system for settlement of commercial disputes which meets the demand of capitalistic market economy. 2. The Authorities of south and north Korea should recognize that the availability of prompt, effective and economical means of disputes resolution such as arbitration and conciliation to be made by the Commission would promote the orderly growth and encouragement of south-north trade and investment. 3. The Korean Commercial Arbitration Board(KCAB) should be designated as the Arbitration Commission of South Korea because the KCAB is the only authorized institution in South Korea, statutorily empowered to settle any kind of commercial disputes at home and abroad.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제14권2호
• /
• pp.199-241
• /
• 2004

This paper discusses to what extent the party autonomy can be allowed in intellectual property dispute resolution agreements in determination of governing law, international jurisdiction, and ADR agreement for arbitration, etc. in considering of the territoriality principle of IP. The party autonomy in choice of governing law and jurisdiction can be fully enjoyed in IP contract disputes. However, the freedom of choice is limited to the disputes regarding IF infringement disputes. The party autonomy is denied in the issues of determination of validity of patent or other IP rights. The author seeks the possibility to allow as much freedom in making choice of applicable law or jurisdiction, or entering into arbitration agreement.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제8권1호
• /
• pp.123-148
• /
• 1998

Recently many controversies originate for varies reasons, ranging from normal market competition to honest disagreements about rights. Disputes also arise from the clash between institutions and individuals. A free society should provide many systems for resolving controversies. We think of the courts as being primary, but, of course, they are not. In Korea, and in most other parts of the world, disagreements are resolved informally, without the need for judicial intervention. Settlements are worked out privately, usually without lawyers and certainly without judges. Most of judges are finding it difficult to cope with the needs and demands of society. Many businessmen who no longer want to get involved in lawsuits, are looking for alternative methods for resolving their disputes. However, there are actually two systems, litigation and arbitration only, to resolve disputes with binding both parties concerned. Litigation emphasizes on the equity and the justice with allowing three time's judgment for the resonable resolution, and arbitration, which is not subject to appeal, stress on the economic settlement rather than justice. Arbitration process results in a final and binding decisions. Although arbitration is a voluntary procedures that is created by the parties themselves, arbitration differs from mediation and conciliation because of its binding power. Arbitration is today coming into fashion as our primary methods for settling disputes. No company wants to have its funds tied up for long periods. Many parties prefer that the decision be final, rather than facing the prospect of extended appellate litigation. Therefore, government must encourage parties to settle their disputes by arbitration instead of litigation.