우선 이번 세미나에 참석시켜 주신 한국중재학회와 북경중재위원회에 진심으로 감사를 드린다. 아래 외국중재판정의 승인 및 집행에 관한 일본 판례를 중심으로 일본에 존재하고 있는 문제와 상황을 소개한다. 현재 일본에 외국중재판정의 승인 및 판례집행에 기재된 관련 판례는 그리 많지 않다. 직접 외국중재판정의 승인 및 집행에 관계되는 것 외에 중재계약을 이유로 하는 방소항변등을 포함하여 지금까지 13건뿐이다. 그 중 1993년이래 15건의 판례가 중국경제무역중재위원회의 중재판정이 일본에서의 승인 및 집행에 관한 것이다. 이것은 중국법인과 일본법인간의 분쟁을 해결함에 있어서 중재가 아주 큰 역할을 하고 있다는 것을 알 수 있다. 이런 판례의 소개와 분석을 통하여 여러분들에게 일본의 법률상황을 소개한다. (중략)

일본에서 [신중재법안]은 2003년 6월 3일에 중의원에서 통과되고, 7월25일에 참의원에서 통과됨으로 하여 새 중재법이 성립되었다(법률 138호 공포 2003년 8월 1일). 중국에서는 1994년에 이미 중재법을 공포, 실행하였고 한국에서는 2000년부터 새 중재법을 공포, 실행하였다. 이번 회의에 참석한 3국은 근10년 사이에 모두 새로운 중재법이 있었고, 21세기 동북아의 중재법제도의 기반이 형성되었다. (중략)

중국국내중재제도의 형성과 발전은 20세기 80년대 초반으로부터 시작되었습니다. 1983년 국무원에서 <중화인민공화국 경제계약중재조례>를 반포한 뒤, 국가공상행정관리국에서는 <경제계약중재위원회판안규칙>을 제정하였으며, 이에 따라서 지방의 공상행정기관은 중재위원회을 설립하였고 경제계약분쟁을 해결하기 시작하였습니다. (중략)

The problems on application for custody in CIETAC Arbitration Rule are examined in this paper. First, The issue of jurisdiction for application for custody is arisen from the expansion of material jurisdiction of CIETAC. Until 1998, CIETAC had a jurisdiction only for the cases involving foreigners, but now, it has a jurisdiction not only for the cases involving foreigners but also for domestic cases. In the cases of arbitrating disputes involving foreigners, if the parties concerned apply for the preservation of property, CITEAC shall forward the application to and obtain a ruling from an intermediate people's court in the place where the object of the application resides, or where the property is located. But in the cases of arbitrating domestic disputes, if the parties concerned apply for the preservation of property, CITEAC shall forward the application to and obtain a ruling from an ground-level people's court in the place where the object of the application resides, or where the property is located. Therefore, "People's court" in article 23 of CIETAC Arbitration Rule includes both intermediate people's court and ground-level people's court in its meaning. Second, in the cases that the party concerned submits arbitration to CIETAC, it is not permitted for the party to ask the people's court for custody of property before submitting an arbitration. But there still can be the urgent cases that interests of the party concerned are at stake, and legitimate rights and interests of the party concerned may be damaged beyond remedy, if no application for custody of property is filed immediately. In that cases, even if the party may apply for custody of property with the people's court after submitting an arbitration, it might be too late to preserve property. Therefore, Chinese laws and rules have to be revised so that the party may ask the people's court for custody of property before submitting an arbitration. When revising laws and rules, according to the today's legislation trends, it must be considered that court and arbitration tribunal both have a right to decide the custody of property. When arbitration tribunal decides it, the procedural provisions executing it must be provided. It is also required that China permit to apply preservation of evidence as well as custody of property before submitting an arbitration. It is also strongly recommended that China permit custody of property or preservation of evidence even in the cases that an arbitration is submitted to the arbitration institute which is located in foreign country, not in China.

This paper discusses about the e-commerce and the various types of e-commerce disputes. Through empirical examination on the dispute consideration system and by comparative analysis it is derived out of the weakness of current system and finally some suggestions for improvement. First, it is recommended that the more sophisticated knowledge concerning e-commerce should be proliferated through the existing institutions. For example, disputes for B2C could be managed by the consideration system of consumer dispute consideration in Consumer Protection Board of Korea, while B2B by the arbitration system of the Korean Commercial Arbitration Board. Second, the role of Korea Institute for Electronic Commerce established for the purpose of consideration of e-commerce disputes is much emphasized. For successful achievement, it is necessarily required to reinforce the related laws, systems, institutions and human resources. Finally, it is also suggested that the Korean Commercial Arbitration Board and Consumer Protection Board of Korea fully cover consideration and arbitration, while Korea Institute for Electronic Commerce activates its proper role of consulting and ad hoc arbitration by using electronic information. This study results are how to minimize the disputes and the method of dispute settlement. Therefore, a role of arbitration proposed and emphasized. To protect the dispute in advance, it's suggested to revise rules timely following on technical changes, and emphasized that the dispute has to lead to arbitration settlement not for consuming unnecessary time and finance for enterprises and consumers.

Recognition and enforcement of the arbitral award play an important role in the settlement of the international commercial disputes. The New York Convention makes it a duty for the courts of signatories to recognize and enforce the foreign arbitral awards not taking the nationality of the party concerned into consideration. Recognition and enforcement of the arbitral award may be refused if the award has not yet become binding on the parties, or has been set aside or suspended by a competent authority of the country in which, or under the law of which, that award was made. The arbitral award has the same force as an irrevocable judgement including effect of excluding further litigation, its execution and formation. But the effect of set aside arbitral award made abroad in arbitral place was denied by France court for the interest of his people. There is no arbitral act but arbitral procedure is regulated by New Code of Civil Procedure in case of France. An appeal against the decision which grants recognition or enforcement is open if the recognition or execution is contrary to international pubic policy in virtue of Art. 1502. Arbitrator may consider compulsory provisions in arbitral place to assure to recognition and enforcement of the arbitral award.

Settlement of investment disputes is quite different from that of commercial disputes arising from ordinary commercial transactions in view of disputing parties, applicable laws and rules, etc.. Therefore, it is very important to consider the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States(Washington Convention) of 1965. The creation of the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes(ICSID), which was established under the Washington Convention, was the belief that an institution specially designed to facilitate the settlement of investment disputes between governments and foreign investors could help to promote increased flows of international investment. Pursuant to the Washington Convention, ICSID provides facilities for the conciliation and arbitration of disputes between member countries and investors who qualify as nationals of other member countries. Recourse to ICSID conciliation and arbitration is entirely voluntary. However, once the parties have consented to arbitration under the Washington Convention, neither can unilaterally withdraw its consent. Moreover, all Contracting States of the Washington Convention are required by the Convention to recognize and enforce ICSID arbitral awards. Provisions on ICSID arbitration are commonly found in investment contracts between governments of member countries and investors from other member countries. Advance consents by governments to submit investment disputes to ICSID arbitration can also be found in many bilateral investment treaties including the Korea-China Agreement on the Encouragement and Reciprocal Protection of Investments(1992), the Korea-Japan Agreement for the Liberalization, Promotion and Protection of Investment(2003) and the Korea-Chile FTA, the latter was signed as of February 15, 2003 and is still pending in the National Assembly for its ratification. Arbitration under the auspices of ICSID is similarly one of the main mechanism for the settlement of investment disputes under the bilateral treaties on investment. Therefore, it is a problem of vital importance that Korean parties interested in investment to foreign countries should understand and cope with the settlement mechanism of investment disputes under the Washington Convention and bilateral investment treaties.

Currently major countries, including the USA, have developed and contrived to activate ADR(Alternative Dispute Resolution) in order to both choose effective means for dispute resolution and establish the reformation of the judicial system; thus meeting people's revamped expectations due to the rapid increase of, and diversification in, civil disputes. This is why there has been some haste in many countries to organize systems for this, so called, 'the Fundamental ADR Act' which regulates the essential structure to accelerate the use of ADR and strengthen the links with trial procedures. For example, in 1999 Germany revised it Civil Procedure Act, to allow for a pre-conciliation process in cases involving only small sums of money. Whilst, with regard to the Civil Procedure Act in France, new regulations have been introduced with regard to actions before either a suit or return to conciliation. In the United Kingdom, as far back as 1988, additions to the legal structure allowed for expansion of regulations applying to ADR. By 1999 the new ADR regulations were part of the legal structure of the UK Civil Procedure Act. The USA passed the federal law for ADR in 1998. Since then the world has tried to enact this model in UNCITRAL on international conciliation. When we consider this recent trend by the world's major countries, it is desirable that the fundamental law on ADR should be enacted in Korea also. This paper traces the object, and the regulatory content required, for the fundamental ADR law to be enacted in Korea's future. Firstly, the purpose of the fundamental ADR law is limited only to the private sector, including administrative and excluding judicial sector and arbitration, because in Korea the Judicial Conciliation of the Civil Disputes Act, the Family Disputes Act and the Arbitration Act already exist. Secondly I will I examine the regulatory content of the basic ADR Act, dividing it into: 1)regulations on the basic ideology of ADR, 2)those on the transition to trial procedures of ADR, and 3)those on the transition to ADR from trial procedures. In addition I will research the regulatory limitations of ADR.

This Study is divided into 5 separate Parts and an Abstract. Part Ⅰ, Ⅱ consist mostly of a collection of problems, current status, motives and the future of ADR. In Pert Ⅲ was described ADR as policies of judicial settlements. We must accept that a diversity of legal culture will always continue to exist. Accordingly we must learn to accommodate those differences of 'culture' around us and to harmonize conflicting laws. This recognition of our reality should in no way be confused with pessimism. In fact if one accepts this perspective of the world ,the study of law seems enriched and becomes academically more challenging. Recently, in the United States, interest in alternative settlement mechanism has increased greatly, which leads me to wonder why such a phenomenon has taken place. In the first place, I'm amazed at the extent to which conciliation or mediation-or the new word, I guess, is alternative dispute resolution, which by now has its own acronym, "A.D.R,"-have gained attention here recently. When 35 years ago, there was virtually no interest in conciliation in this country at the time. What interest there was, was no in the law schools. But looking at the situation now, we have a spate of publications on the subject; we have organizations that are established for no other reason than to promote alternative dispute settlement. We have courses in the law schools. The American Association of Law Schools and the American Bar Association also have active programs. So we have to ask ourselves why. The difference between now and 35 years are striking. On the other hand, I think the interest of the public in ADR has probably been greatly enhanced by the politics of the so-called "poverty programs." I think that many of these assistance programs for the poor-and I do think the "poor" have become a rather expansive political movement beyond simply taking care of the most marginal people of society-have generated money to explore this kind of dispute resolution.

When there is a dispute in international commercial contracts, the arbitration system, which is an ADR system, is often utilized. The Arbitration system can only be put to use when there is an arbitration agreement between the parties concerned, but even in this case, the one party of the contract tries to avoid the braking of the arbitration. In this case, separability doctrine and Kompetenz-Kompetenz doctrine can be used for the smooth operation of the Arbitration system. This paper reviews these two doctrines, taking a close look at UNCITRAL, ICC, America's FAA and case examples, and France's system and its case examples. U.S. has adopted separability doctrine for the Prima paint case but not the Kompetenz-Kompetenz doctrine. English has adopted separability doctrine for the Heyman case but not the Kompetenz-Kompetenz doctrine. However in France, both doctrines are adopted. France, which accords international arbitration the most highly favorable status of the three nations, has developed the legal framework that best promotes the public policy goal of encouraging the use of arbitration agreements in international commerce. In Korea, the above doctrines are prescribed in Article 17 of the arbitration law, as prescribed by the UNCITRAL Model law. However it takes the form of German laws. The adoption of the French system would have been wiser considering the promotion of the arbitration system.

A study on the international Jurisdiction to Application in Electronic Transaction Disputes The implementation of electronic commerce raises some new legal and institutional problem so it is necessary for us to prepare alternatives. As the development of electronic commerce is difficult without smooth settlement of dispute the pursue of smooth settlement of dispute is very important menu. while the most common method relating to the settlement of dispute is litigation. them relating to the litigation, the subject of jurisdiction and the subject of governing laws should be resolved above all. Further more in addition, the old act prior act was regarded as insufficient in that it lacked rules on international jurisdiction to adjudicate, or international adjudicatory jurisdiction, where as the expectation of the public was that the private international law should function as the basic law of the legal relational encompassing rules on international jurisdiction given the increase of It international disputes. for the move the private international law has also attracted more attention from the korean. Therefore, International jurisdiction to application concerned about electronic commerce should be prepared and the environment to keep electronic commerce secure and stable be guaranteed. And we should make plans to protect companies and consumers and should make efforts to expand electronic commerce infrastructure.

Dispute plays a key role in maintaining the desirable performance of trade transaction. Although avoidance of disputes is always a priority, it is also important to prepare methods of dispute resolution which are efficient and economical. So, understanding of chinese dispute resolution system is a necessary requirement for successful business operation with chinese companies. This article analyzed and compared with the ways of trade disputes settlement system such as negotiation, mediation, arbitration and litigation in China in order to help the Korean traders who enter into business with the chinese companies to settle their disputes efficiently. This article suggests that two methods of negotiation and mediation are more likely to be effective than arbitration and litigation to resolve disputes with chinese companies because of problems of enforcement of arbitral award and the uncertainty of China's legal system.

The seller may take a warranty with respect to the goods. If they are not as warranted, they may be held liable for the breach of warranty. Even when they has not made a warranty, the law will in some instances hold them responsible as though they had made a warranty. An express warranty is a part the basis for the sale. That is, the buyer has purchased the goods on the reasonable assumption that they were as stated by the seller. When the buyer intends to use the goods for a particular or usual purpose, as contrasted with the ordinary use for which they are customarily sold, the seller makes an implied warranty that the goods will be fit for the purpose when the buyer relies on the seller's skill or judgment to select or furnish suitable goods, and when the seller at the time of contracting knows or has reason to know the buyer's particular purpose and his reliance on the seller's judgment. A merchant seller who makes a sale of goods in which he customarily deals makes an implied warranty of merchantability. The Uniform Commercial Code expressly abolishes the requirement a privies to a limited extent by permitting a suit for breach of warranty to be brought against the seller by members of the buyer's family, his household, and his guests, with respect to personal injury sustained by them. Apart from the express provision made by the Code, there is a conflict of authority as to whether privies of contract is required in other cases, with the trend being toward the abolition of that requirement. At common law the rule was that only the parties to a transaction had my rights relating to it. Accordingly, the buyer could sue his immediate seller for breach of warranties. The rule was stated in the terms that there could be no suit for breach of warranty unless there was a privies of contract. The code expressly abolishes the requirement of privies to a limited extent by permitting a suit for breach of warranty to be bought against the seller by members of the buyer. Apart from the express provision made by the Code, there is a conflict of authority as to whether privies of contract is required in other cases, with the trend being toward the abolition of that requirement.

According to increase of Franchise Agreements, troubles related to those agreements and trading acts occur frequently. As Franchise system had come from Western countries, franchise agreement troubles tend to international disputes. In fact, those parties entered into a franchise agreement prefer arbitration to lawsuit as a dispute resolution system because arbitration is easy to risk-management for cost and time. The essential conditions for Franchise agreements are as follows ; for Franchise to grant Intellectual Properties to Franchisee, to give an impression of the same company between Franchise and Franchisee, to control and support Franchisee, for Franchisee to be an independent merchant, and to pay Franchiser license fee. Because Franchise Agreement is also based on liberty of contract, Franchise and Franchisee could enter into any kind of agreement. However, Franchiser can make an unfair agreement abusing a position of advantage. This paper check those unfair terms and conditions in Franchise agreement. Once they enter into an agreement, they should fulfil their contract. In case of trouble on performing the contract, both of them have to discuss to solve that trouble faithfully. But, they enter into either lawsuit or arbitration in accordance with agreement when they can't reach a decision in general. Specially, which is the most popular dispute resolution hands in case of Intellectual Property License agreement. General international Franchise Agreements have arbitration terms, but there is other case such as separate Arbitration Agreement if the want, which is separate from Franchise License agreement, so even though Franchise License agreement is invalidated, Arbitration agreement continues to exist, This paper reviews Franchise system and the terms of arbitration in Franchise agreement.

In the inner turn key constructions the problems of uniform types are repeatedly occurred, and, especially, many problems happen up to the stage of pre-construction(from a bid to a contract) owing to the specialties of the turn key constructions. So the claim factors of the Korean turn key constructions were abstracted through the literature searches, the site document examinations, the case studies and the interviews with the experts. When the technicians meeting the interior turn key constructions for the first time and working here now are well acquainted with only these factors, many claims will be prevented. By analysing the degree of claims by claims factors through the questionnaires to the experts about the abstracted factors and surveying the amount of the claims through the case studies, what factors exerted how much of influence on the claims was tested and analyzed. Proposing the response devices to the factors affecting the claims much led the technicians in charge of internal turn key constructions to the prevention and the proper solution of the site claims.

Delay in the air transport occurs when passengers, baggage or cargo do not arrive at their destination at the time indicated in the contract of carriage. The causes of delay in the carriage of cargo are no reservation, lack of space, failure to load the cargo on board, loading the cargo on the wrong plane, failure to off-load the cargo at the right place, or to deliver the covering documents at the right place. The Montreal Convention of 1999 Article 19 provides that "The carrier is liable for damage occasioned by delay in the carriage by air of cargo. Nevertheless, the carrier shall not be liable for damage occasioned by delay if it proves that it and its servants and agents took all measures that could reasonably be required to avoid the damage or that it was impossible for it or them to take such measures." The Montreal Convention Article 22 provides liability limits of the carrier in case of delay for cargo. In the carriage of cargo, the liability of the carrier is limited to 17 SDR per kilogram unless a special declaration as to the value of the cargo has been made. The Montreal Convention Article 19 has shortcomings: it is silent on the duration of the liability for carriage. It does not give any indication concerning the circumstances to be taken into account in cases of delay, and about the length of delay. In conclusion, it is desirable to define the period of carriage with accuracy, and to insert the word 'unreasonable' in Article 19.

In the solutions of civil disputes, there are decision of a court and alternative dispute resolution. Arbitration is one of alternative dispute resolutions. The decision of a court is the compulsory settlement and the solution by citizenship between two opposing parties, but arbitration is the autonomous and voluntary settlement by a private person, that is arbitrator. Besides these points, arbitration has various features in comparison with a decision of a court. The procedure of arbitration is not open to the public and single trial system guarantees speedy solution of disputes In the procedure of arbitration, arbitrator who pass judgement is selected and appointed by the parties to an affair. And there are questions how the arbitrator to become independent from them. Because Arbitration is not agreed solution which based on the concession between opposing two parties but imposed solution which is alike decision of a court. This study illustrates the system of challenge on arbitrator to guarantee independence of arbitrators.

This study is to approach e-Trade issues and how to settle the dispute for e-Trade according to on-line Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) process. Most on-line systems operate on a limited access basis. The increasing use of the internet to do business brings to light at least important concerns to persons who engage in commerce on-line, or e-Trade. There is some concern about the limits of current internet technology to guarantee the security of e-Trade. The new technology has transformed society and is defining new years of doing business. This revolution in technology has even changed the nature of many of the goods and services that are the subjects of e-Trade. There is also concern about the limits of the legal framework to guarantee the enforcement of e-Trade. A significant issue is how the law should be adapted to reflect business practices regarding such cyberspace agreements as Web site click-on agreements, e-data interchange, and on-line sales. The principal benefits of on-line ADR should typically be faster and less expensive than traditional conciliation arbitration. The on-line ADR system has the several significances, decreasing inappropriate cost as time and burden of ADR, providing an approachable measure of relief and more efficient tool for the settle of dispute. Therefore, on-line ADR could be used as an adjunct resolution process in large class actions where each single claim is small, but varies somewhat, thus requiring some individual fact determination.

General interest in the out-of-court dispute resolution system are mounting in Korea, and the spread of ADR(alternative dispute resolution) is the worldwide trend. In addition, it was confirmed that the resolution of disputes by ADR such as the decision based on arbitration made by the Prime Ministerial Administrative Decision Committee is no longer in exclusive possession of the civil case. The activation of ADR could lead to the smooth agreement between parties by getting away from the once-for-all mode of decision such as the dismissal of the application or the cancellation of disposal and the like in relation to administrative cases for the years. In consequence, it is anticipated that the administrative litigation that applicants have filed by not responding to the administrative decision would greatly reduce in the future. But, it would be urgent to provide for the legal ground of the ADR system through the revision of related laws to take root in our society because ADR has no legal binding power relating to the administrative case due to the absence of its legal grounds. The fundamental reason for having hesitated to introduce ADR in relation to the administrative case for the years is the protective interest of the third party as well as the public interest that would follow in case the agreement on the dispute resolution between parties brings the dispute to a termination in the domain of the public law. The disputes related to the contract based on the public law and the like that take on a judicial character as the administrative act have been settled within the province of ADR by applying the current laws such as the Civil Arbitration Law, Mediation Law, but their application to the administrative act of the administrative agency that takes on a character of the public law has been hesitated. But as discussed earlier, there are laws and regulations that has the obscure distinction between public and private laws. But there is no significant advantage in relation to the distinction between public and private laws. To supplement and cure these defects it is necessary to include the institutional arrangement for protection of the rights and benefits of the third party, for example the provision of the imposition of the binding power on the result of ADR between parties, in enacting its related law. It can be said that the right reorganization of the out-of-court dispute resolution system in relation to the administrative case corresponds with the ideology of public administration for cooperaton in the Administrative Law. It is high time to discuss within what realm the out-of-court dispute resolution system, alternative dispute resolution system, can be accepted and what binding power is imposed on its result, not whether it is entirely introduced into the administrative case. It is thought that the current Civil Mediation Law or Arbitration Law provides the possibility of applying arbitration or mediation only to the civil case, thereby opening the possibility of arbitration in the field of the intellectual property right law. For instance, the act of the state is not required in establishing the rights related to the secret of business or copyrights. Nevertheless, the disputes arising from or in connection with the intellectual property rights law is seen as the administrative case, and they are excluded from the object of arbitration or mediation, which is thought to be improper. This is not an argument for unconditionally importing ADR into the resolution of administrative cases. Most of the Korean people are aware that the administrative litigation system is of paramount importance as the legal relief for administrative cases. Seeing that there is an independent administrative decision system based on the Administrative Decision Law other than administrative litigation in relation to administrative cases, the first and foremost task is the necessity for the shift in thinking of people, followed by consideration of the plan for relief of the rights through the improvement of the administrative decision system. Then, it is necessary to formulate the plan for the formal introduction and activation of ADR. In this process, energetic efforts should be devoted to introducing diverse forms of ADR procedures such as settlement conference, case evaluation, mini-trial, summary jury trial, early neutral evaluation adopted in the US as the method of dispute resolution other than compromise, conciliation, arbitration and mediation

The resolution of the 1993 Uruguay Round and the opening of Korea's construction market in '97 marked the beginning of the globalization of Korea's domestic construction market. Consequently, the process led to changes in contracting procedures, as well as disputes in construction management. With globalization came a rapid realization of reasonable values, which forced the hierarchical vertical relationship between the owners, constructors, and subcontractors into a more equal, horizontal relationship. Once the hierarchical relationship was altered, the late 1990's witnessed a dramatic increase in managerial disagreements, in addition to escalating legal disputes and expenditures. The horizontal relationship was a new concept and brought forth many complexities. Unfortunately, because all of this was new, management of construction disputes was elementary at best. Anticipation of disputes is the key to effective dispute management. This includes thorough reviews of contract documents, document management, construction records, and checklists. Also necessary is the education of owners and contractors with pertinent knowledge concerning dispute management. The following paper focuses on the importance of observing construction disputes in order to facilitate management thereof.

On June 27, 2002 Canadian Internet Registration Authority (CIRA) launched dot-ca domain name dispute resolution service through BCICAC and Resolution Canada, Inc. The Domain name Dispute Resolution Policy (CDRP) of CIRA is basically modelled after Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy(UDRP), while the substance of CDRP is slightly modified to meet the need of Canadian domain name regime and its legal system. Firstly, this article examined CIRA's domain name dispute resolution policy in general. It is obvious that the domain name dispute resolution proceeding is non-binding arbitration to which arbitration law does not apply. However it still belongs to the arbitration and far from the usual mediation process. Domain name arbitrators render decision rather than assist disputing parties themselves reach to agreement. In this respect the domain name arbitration is similar to arbitration or litigation rather than mediation. Secondly it explored how the panels applied the substantive standards in domain name arbitration. There is some criticism that panelists interprets the test of "confusingly similar" in conflicting manner. As a result critics assert that courts' judicial review is necessary to reduce the conflicting interpretation on the test of substantive standards stipulated in paragraph 3 of CDRP. Finally, it analysed the court's position on domain name arbitral award. Canadian courts do not seem to establish a explicit standard for judicial review over it yet. However, in Black v. Molson case Ontario Superior Court applied the UDRP rules in examining the WIPO panel's decision, while US courts often apply domestic patent law and ACPA(Anticyber -squatting Consumer's Protection Act) to review domain name arbitration decision rather than UDRP rules. In conclusion this article suggests that courts should restrict their judicial review on domain name administrative panel's decision at best. This will lead to facilitating the use of ADR in domain name dispute resolution and reducing the burden of courts' dockets.

Information technology(IT) is changing rapidly based on growth of internet and computer businesses. Therefore, computer programs and softwares are distributed to computer users promptly for their productivity increase and efficient work. So, in the distribution, the softwares will be copied or released through network or other methods which are not authorized by the program owners. In that case, copyright dispute is incurred and various issues are come out due to infringement of the software copyright. Thus, the purpose of this study is to research infringement cases of the software copyright and how to settle the dispute which is related with software programs. To achieve the purpose of this study, this research consisted of 5 chapters. At chapter 1 introduction, it mentioned necessity of this study, purpose and how to research this study, and at chapter 2 dispute factors indicated and summarized for technical resolution. At chapter 3, infringement cases of software copyright analyzed and studied upon intellectual property(IP) related laws. And methods of dispute settlement discussed and suggested to chapter 4 for copyright and intellectual property protection. Also, it emphasized importance of arbitration to resolve the issues timely and avoid time and economical consumption. Of course, arbitration law has to be matched with the trend of technology development for effective settlement. At chapter 5 conclusion, it summarized this research and suggested further research for empirical test of economic value of the software copyright upon the aspect of business, law, and engineering. In this study, the results are 1) IP related laws have to be enacted or revised to meet technical changes for the protection of software copyright on time. The enactment or the revision of law takes a long time, therefore, to deal the dispute effectively, 2) arbitration law has to be utilized efficiently in order to resolve issues and settle the dispute promptly. It is suggested the dispute settlement through arbitration to save time and economic matters for legislation, and to harmony with the technology trends. 3) Recognition of software copyright is to be improved by users and enterprises for development of software related industries and intellectual property protection. In conclusion, the protection of software copyright is important than any other things in the field of IT because of the development of industry and intellectual property related laws. The development is for areas of business, law and engineering, so research and practices are to be combined with the areas so that it could resolve the dispute settlement and IP protection effectively.

Die vorliegende Arbeit bezieht sich auf die Probleme, ob eine Vereinbarung, in der einer der Parteien oder den beiden ein Wahlrecht zwischen ordentlichem Gericht und Schiedsgericht eingeraumt ist, als eine wirksame Schiedsvereinbarung anzusehen ist, wem das Wahlrecht zuzustehen ist und wie das Wahlrecht auszuuben ist. Im Hinblick auf diese Problematik stehen nicht nur in der Literatur sondern auch in der Praxis die Meinungen einander kontrar gegenuber. Die Wirksamkeit einer wahlweisen Vereinbarung zwischen Schiedsund Staatsgericht ergibt sich vor allem aus dem Wesen der Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit, dem allgemeinen Personlichkeitsrecht i.V.m. Vertragsfreiheit und nicht zuletzt dem effektiven Rechtsschutz. Weil es fur das schiedsgerichtliche Verfahren wesentlich ist, dass es an die Stelle des sonst offenstehenden Verfahrens vor den Staatsgerichten tritt und nach dem Erlass des Schiedsspruchs die Beschreitung des ordentlichen Rechtswegs auszuschliessen ist, ist es erforderlich, den Parteien die Erledigung des Rechtsstreits auf verschiedene Weise zu gewahrleisten. Das tragt auch zum effektiven Rechtsschutz der Parteien bei. Ausserdem ist es nicht einzusehen, warum es rechtlich nicht moglich sein sollte, die Vertragsschliessenden sich gegenseitig das Wahlrecht zwischen Schiedsgericht und Staatsgericht einzuraumen. Die Vertragsfreiheit bzw. das allgemeine Personlichkeitsrecht gilt auch fur Schiedsvertrage. Wenn die Parteiautonomie im Privatrecht ihren Sinn behalten sollte, ist es notwendig, den Parteiwillen in dem wortlichen Ausdruck und in seinem Sinngehalt bestehen zu lassen. Damit steht fest, dass gegen die Einraumung eines Wahlrechts zwischen staatlichem Gericht und Schiedsgericht grundsatzlich keine Bedenken bestehen. Das Hauptproblem der wahlweisen Vereinbarung zwischen Schiedsund Staatsgericht liegt nicht in ihrer Wirksamkeit, vielmehr in den einzelnen Problemen hinsichtlich des Wahlrechts, namlich das Subjekt, die Art und Weise der Ausubung des Wahlrechts usw. Das Wahlrecht kann aufgrund der Parteivereinbarung nur einer Partei vorbehalten bleiben oder beiden eingeraumt werden. Anders als die Ansicht des hochsten Gerichtshofes ist von der Bindung der Partei an die Ausubung des Wahlrechts auszugehen, wenn die andere yon dem Wahlrecht Gebrauch macht. In bezug auf die Bindung bedarf es im Prinzip keiner erganzenden Vereinbarung, denn mit dem Verneinen dieser Bindung wurde zugleich das Wahlrecht selbst geleugnet. Ein Verbrauch des Wahlrechts ist anzunehmen, sobald die Klage vor dem staatlichen Gericht erhoben oder das Schiedsverfahren eingeleitet wurde. Steht das Wahlrecht nur einer Partei zu, ist es entsprechend §381 KBGB Frist zu setzen, nach deren fruchtlosem Ablauf das Wahlrecht ubergeht.

Conciliation is one of the most effective ADR(alternative dispute resolution) which takes the place of civil procedure. It is achieved with disputants' independent will. The disputants negotiate each other, and make peaceful settlement. If a compromise is effected between the two, it regards the compromise as a judgement of the Supreme Court. This effect on the conciliation is afford a basis for the private autonomies. But nowadays, the practical use of the private autonomies is not thoroughgoing enough in our country. It is a matter of no uncommon occurrence for the member of a conciliation commission to form a conclusion about the dispute and to persuade the disputants to accept the conclusion. Even the judges have a tendency to conduct a conciliation like civil procedure. Under these circumstances, it's harsh to the disputants that a compromise in the conciliation has an effect like the judgement of the Supreme Court. So you should reconsider carefully the role or service of a conciliation commission. The role of a conciliation commission must be to guarantee an atmosphere of freedom, and for disputants to negotiate without restraint. So the members of a conciliation commission should make an offer the disputants the information on the members and proceedings of the conciliation. It will make the disputants have a firm belief that the members are fair and conciliation will be progressed in a fair. Moreover they have to notify the disputants of the estimated norms which is concerned in the dispute, too. It will facilitate the negotiation and compromise, and will justify claim preclusion(res judicata) which is based on Korean Civil Conciliation Law(Article 29) says that conciliation has the full force and effect of a civil judgement of the Supreme Court.

This study clearly shows that the commercial dispute management is very important for the enterprise and the national economy and the international commercial arbitration as a ADR needs to be activated to settle the trade dispute for the more in the Republic of Korea. The trade dispute has increased for more than thirty years from 1960s and the problem of the occurrence of trade dispute has been very serious in the Republic of Korea. In general, the annual average increase rate of trade dispute has been higher gradually to present and has been high more than the annual average increase rate of export from the 1960s. Also the annual average increase rate of trade dispute in R.O.K. in general high than the Japan and the Taiwan. Accordingly, the trade dispute has been the factor of weakening of international competitiveness. On the other hand, the occurrence of commercial dispute is apt to affect the enterprise and the national economy. It can be called as micro and macro effect. Also, it's analysed that all these problems occurred because of business quality of businessman than the quality problem of goods. Several improvements directions recommended are as follows according to the analyses above. The first, it's required that the consciousness level of commercial dispute management of businessman should be higher to prevent occurrence of commercial dispute and settle the dispute efficiently. The second, the government concerned had better fix policy to raise the standard of commercial dispute management since the trade dispute affects the enterprise and the national economy. And ADR institutions such as the KCAB cooperate with each other for the activation of ADR such as conciliation. The third, is's desirable that the KCAB should promote international commercial arbitration and activate the cooperation of international arbitration activity with other countries. The fourth, it's desirable that the system of Certified Dispute Manager(CDM) should be established to raise the standard of commercial dispute management and the trade order.

계약법과 관련한 많은 주제 중에서 본 고에서는 미국과 한국에서의 부당이득법리를 중심으로 비교연구를 하였으며 한미간의 부당이득법리의 차이가 분쟁해결수단의 선택에 어떠한 영향을 미칠 수 있을 것인가를 살펴보았다. 미국의 부당이득법리와 한국의 부당이득법리를 세 가지 관점에서 비교 고찰하였다. 첫째, 부당이득의 법리적 특성에서 살펴본 바에 의하면 양국 모두 형평과 공정성에 의하여 해석되어 지고 있다는 점에서 상당한 공통점을 발견할 수 있었지만, 한국에서는 '법률상 원인 없이'라고 하는 명시된 규정에 의하는 반면 미국에서는 단순히 '불공정성'이라고만 하여 법률적 해석기준을 다소 모호하게 하고 있음을 발견하였다. 둘째, 부당이득 성립요건에서는 한미간 상당한 차이가 나타난 바, 미국에서는 '피고가 부당이득 사실에 대하여 인지하고 있어야 한다'라고 하는 반면 한국에서는 부당이득 사실에 대한 피고의 선의 악의를 구분하지 않음으로서 미국이 한국보다 원고의 입증책임을 엄격하게 적용하고 있음을 알 수 있었다. 셋째, 부당이득의 효과와 관련하여 양국 모두 원물의 반환 내지는 합리성과 시장가격에 근거한 상당금액의 보상을 법적 구제범위로 설정함으로서 차이가 없었다. 결론적으로 미국에서는 부당이득법리가 분쟁의 쟁점인 경우에 '불공정성'에 대한 법적 해석의 모호성과, 악의에 대한 입증 책임 등으로 인하여 법정에서의 해결보다는 우호적 해결 방식인 중재가 한국보다 상대적으로 많이 채택될 것으로 보여 진다