• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.25 no.4
• /
• pp.51-75
• /
• 2015

Administrative ADR to solve new problems has the characteristics of a new project, hence ADR is established and operated with a lack of human and material resources in the process of introducing administrative ADR. Therefore, it is preferred to resolve conflicts by less costly counseling and mutual agreement before mediation. When we try to settle the disputes through administrative ADR at the stage before mediation, it causes problems for the neutrality and impartiality of the dispute settlement procedures. In this case administrative ADR systems should introduce devices that ensure the impartiality of the process. In some issues becoming social problems, relevant administrative agencies are inclined to establish ADR systems. If ADR systems become available, a person who may use ADR services may have some trouble grasping ADR institutions because he/she can hardly distinguish their business affairs. By subdividing administrative affairs, when the disputes have the issues that touch on various fields of the affairs, parties in the disputes have to take ADR procedures one by one in all ADR-related institutions. This may lead to too heavy a burden on the disputing parties, furthermore forcing them to give up the remedies of their rights. For more efficient ADR operations, it is necessary that the institutions which set up and operate ADR systems should actively exchange and cooperate with one another. They need to forge and strengthen the solidarity between administrations and courts. The administrative agencies which run ADR themselves have to build up the devices for preparing human resources and material facilities for administrative ADR.

• Journal of Legislation Research
• /
• no.44
• /
• pp.343-386
• /
• 2013

"Financial ADR" system in South Korea can be represented by so-called "Financial Dispute Resolution System", in which Financial Supervisory Service (FSS) and Financial Dispute Resolution Committee are the principal actors in operation of the system, and this is discussed as an "Administrative Financial ADR System". The system has over 10-year history since it was introduced in around 1999. Nonetheless, it was not until when financial consumer protection began to be highlighted after the 2008 financial crisis that Financial ADR system actually started to draw attention in Korea. This was because interest has been rising in "Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)" as an institutional measure to protect financial consumers damaged via financial transactions. However, the current discussion on the domestic Financial ADR system shows an aspect that it is confined to who is to be a principal actor for the operation of Financial ADR institution with main regards to reorganization of supervisory system. This article aims to embody these facts in an institutional model by recognizing them as a problem and analyzing the features of the Financial ADR system, thereby clarifying problems of the system and presenting the direction of improvement. The Korean Financial ADR system can be judged as "administrative model integrated model consensual model quasi-judicial model non-prepositive Internal Dispute Resolution (IDR) model". However, at the same time, it is confronted with a task to overcome the two problems; the system is not equipped with institutional basis for securing its validity in spite of the adopted quasi-judicial effect model; and a burden of operating an integrated ADR system is considerable. From this perspective, the article suggests improvement plans for security of validity in the current system and for expansion of industry-control ADR system, in particular, a system of prepositive IDR model. Amongst them, it suggests further plans for securing the validity of the system as follows; promotion to expand the number of internal persons and to differentiate mediation procedures and effect; a plan to keep a financial institution from filing a lawsuit before an agreement recommendation or a mediation proposal is advised; and a plan to grant suspension of extinctive prescription as well as that of procedures of the lawsuit.