• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제28권2호
• /
• pp.91-110
• /
• 2018

Consumers repeatedly make small sum purchases through business-to-consumer contracts, usually without incident. Consumer areas have been increasing; therefore, consumer disputes have been occurring frequently as well. In international consumer transactions, it is not easy to solve consumer disputes by applying the laws of different countries. Resolving disputes by using the consumer arbitration system can be a measure to protect consumers. In the U.S., a class arbitration is being operated as a mixed dispute resolution system of class action and arbitration. Consumer Arbitration has long been a controversial issue in the U.S. It is therefore a lesson for us to examine related cases. A recent U.S. Supreme Court decision, DIRECTV v. Imburgia, was looked into and after a summary of the facts, issues, and opinions and opposing opinions that had a tight controversy, a close analysis was done. The analysis through this judgment is as follows: first, the contraction of consumer protection; second, the expansion of the Federal Arbitration Act scope; third, the class arbitration's restriction; and fourth, the submission of the arbitration fairness act.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제29권1호
• /
• pp.3-29
• /
• 2019

A franchise business is a business in which the owners, or "franchisors," sell the rights to their business logo, name, and model to third party retail outlets, owned by independent, third party operators, called "franchisees." There are a number of features in franchising or terms in franchise agreements that may lead to disputes between franchisors and franchisees. These disputes may arise because of underlying risks in the franchise relationship, franchise agreement, or conduct of the parties. In this case, ADR is an effective way to resolve disputes in a quicker and often less costly way than having to go to court. If an agreement cannot be reached through mediation, then arbitration becomes the next step to resolving the differences. Whereas mediation is non-binding and focused on facilitating the parties to find a resolution that is acceptable to both, arbitration is binding and may result in a decision that is not acceptable to one of the parties. These situations can be resolved through experienced arbitration as arbitration allows franchisees to settle matters promptly and outside of the public eye. In addition, franchise dispute arbitration is usually less costly than going to traditional court. Considering all of these, reaching an agreement will also have typical clauses that address the issue of dispute resolution. It is again a more efficient process than going through the legal process and courts and is often less costly. By going through arbitration, the parties agree to give up their rights to pursue the dispute in the courts. However, there is a problem that the arbitration prior to the agreement and under the terms would be contrary to the restriction of jurisdiction under the "ACT ON THE REGULATION OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS" in Korea.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제77권
• /
• pp.69-89
• /
• 2018

The United States of America is one of the most favoring countries in which mandatory pre-arbitration clauses in the form of adhesion contract have been widely recognized and supported by courts and the Federal Arbitration Act. However, after the financial crisis in 2008 and the National Arbitration Forum scandal in 2009, in enacting the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act ('Dodd-Frank Act'), Section 1028(a) of the Act requires the newly created Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) to provide Congress with a report on "the use of agreements providing for arbitration of any future dispute between covered persons and consumers". Section 1028(b) also grants the CFPB the authority to "prohibit or impose conditions or limitations on the use of an agreement between a covered person and a consumer for a consumer financial product or service providing for arbitration of any future dispute between the parties, if the Bureau finds that such a prohibition or imposition of conditions or limitations is in the public interest and for the protection of consumers." Pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Act, the CFPB issued a report entitled "2015 Arbitration Study: Report to Congress 2015 (Report)" in March 2015. This paper examines some major legal issues of the Report and makes a few recommendations for Korean financial institutions which entered into the U.S. financial market or has a plan to do so in the near future.

• 법제연구
• /
• 제55호
• /
• pp.193-237
• /
• 2018

최근 우리정부를 상대로 제기되고 있는 ISD 소송이 갑자기 증가하면서 소송의 진행상황에 따라 국내적으로 큰 혼란이 초래될 가능성이 크다. 이는 ISD 소송에서 외국인 투자자가 우리나라를 상대로 청구한 손해배상액이 수조원에 이른 경우가 대부분이기 때문이다. 심리가 이미 완료된 '론 스타사건'이나 최근 중재신청을 한 '엘리엇/메이슨 사건'의 소송결과가 나오면 소송의 승패에 따라 국제투자협정에 포함된 ISD 소송제도 자체의 폐기를 주장하는 여론도 분명히 생겨날 것이다. 전 세계적으로 체결되고 있는 대부분의 BIT, FTA에 일반적으로 포함되고 있는 ISD조항은 다수의 투자분쟁사례에서 보여주듯이 우리 정부의 공공정책을 제한하는 요소가 될 수 있다는 점은 분명하다. 하지만 이 제도가 반대로 우리나라의 해외투자자들을 현지국의 위법 부당한 조치로부터 보호할 수 있는 장치라는 점에서 ISD라는 소송제도 자체를 부정적인 시각으로만 볼 필요는 없는 것으로 판단된다. 우리나라는 이미 많은 국가들과 FTA와 BIT를 통해 ISD 소송제도를 허용하고 있고, 또한 새로운 국가들과도 FTA를 체결하기 위한 협상이 진행되는 상황이므로 향후 우리 정부의 공공정책에 대해 외국인 투자자가 ISD 소송절차에 회부할 가능성은 더 크게 증가할 것이다. 우리정부는 ISD 소송에 대비하기 위하여 중앙정부의 소관 부처에 정부 실무가와 민간 학자, 법조인 등 전문가 그룹으로 구성된 대응팀을 발족하여 ISD 소송에서 이슈가 되는 주요 법적 쟁점들을 검토하여 법리를 구축하고, 분쟁이 발생하면 동 대응팀을 가동하여 법리적으로 소송을 지원하고 소송의 증가에 대응할 수 있는 시스템을 갖출 필요가 있다. 특히 국제투자규범과 ISD 제도의 중요성을 인식하지 못하고 있는 지방자치단체 및 각종 공공기관들이 공공정책을 입안하고 시행하는 전 과정이 BIT, FTA 등 국제투자규범에 부합할 수 있도록 관련 정보를 공유하고, 교육함으로써 사전에 ISD 소송을 예방하기 위한 대책을 마련할 필요가 있다.