• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제25권4호
• /
• 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.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제13권2호
• /
• pp.459-488
• /
• 2004

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

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제20권3호
• /
• pp.71-91
• /
• 2010

ADR is alternative dispute resolution that includes mediation, adjudication, arbitration, conciliation and ombudsman schemes. ADR may be an alternative to going to court or to a tribunal. The main types of ADR are conciliation, arbitration or mediation and ADR is divided into national leading ADR and private lading ADR and national leading ADR includes court-annexed ADR and administrative ADR. Court-annexed ADR has become a well established feature of the judicial systems on a global basis. The bulk of court-annexed ADR in Glove is by way of mediation. Thus each nation takes part in ADR by court involvement and Enactment of ADR-related Laws. And the involvement of nations have both the regulative character and promotive character in ADR. In addition to the national leading ADR, the private leading ADR also must be activated as United Kingdom. Thus this paper deals with national leading ADR and private leading ADR and the purpose of this paper is to contribute to the activation of ADR by studying the promotion and limited the involvement of nation in ADR and private leading ADR in United Kingdom.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제11권1호
• /
• pp.145-179
• /
• 2001

The Federal Maritime Commission is issuing new regulations implementing the Administrative dispute Resolution Act. The new regulations expand the Commission's Alternative dispute resolution(“ADR”) services, addressing guidelines and procedures for arbitration and providing for mediation and other ADR services. This rule replaces current subpart U-(Conciliation Service), with a new subpart U-(Alternative Dispute Resolution), that contains a new Commission ADR policy and provisions for various means of ADR. The rule also revises certain other regulations to conform to the Commission's new ADR policy. So, this paper object was to study on the FMC's ADR in U.S. with the emphasis on the final rule analysis.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제21권1호
• /
• pp.87-107
• /
• 2011

There are two methods to resolve conflicts related to constructions which are through lawsuits and ADR (Alternative Dispute Resolution) just like any other conflicts. Along with the special characteristics pertaining to the conflicts related to constructions, the advantages that ADR is in possession of such as its cost, duration and professionalism, resolving conflicts through ADR has been considered to be more logical than any other options recently. In Korea's case at present, the resolution of conflicts regarding constructions through ADR is mostly dependent on administrative mediation or through arbitration. However, in the case of the administrative mediation, its usage rate is very low due to problems caused by problems in its running and effectiveness. In the case of arbitration, the services of the Korean Commercial Arbitration Board is comparatively used more but because of the fact that arbitration relies on a single trial system and the fact that its executive powers while having the same effectiveness as the final ruling does not get acknowledged leads to the phenomena of avoiding its usage. In addition, in relation to the selective arbitration clause, the problem of effectiveness of the arbitrative agreement is becoming a hindrance to the activation and promotion of the arbitration process. Furthermore, in the case where the ordering body is the government, the public servant involved in the case avoiding the arbitration process because of concerns of being penalized by the internal and external audit within the institution is becoming a problem as well. These problems are not only limited to conflicts regarding constructions and there needs to be actions taken to promote the activation of ADR by enacting a basic law. The more important issue at hand however is offering a resolution measure that would be the most appropriate for users and this could probably be done only through actions such as implementing the American partnering system or the dispute adjudication board system so that they can supervise the resolution of conflicts through mediation, arbitration, and assistance as well as offering consultations regarding conflicts related to constructions.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제13권2호
• /
• pp.157-179
• /
• 2004

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.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제23권1호
• /
• pp.107-131
• /
• 2013

Online-ADR (Alternative Dispute Resolution) has been receiving attention from the international community as a means of alternative dispute resolution for consumer disputes in both small and mass international e-commerce. The EU Parliament and the Council proposed the Online Dispute Resolution Regulation for Consumer Disputes (hereafter, "EU Consumer ODR Regulation") and the Directive on Alternative Dispute Resolution of Consumer Disputes (hereafter, "EU Consumer ADR Directive") as a legislative package, now scheduled to be adopted. Those efforts strengthen consumer protection by enhancing ODR in international e-commerce and improving of the functions of the e-commerce market. The EU Consumer ADR and ODR regulation package will operate in conjunction with the ODR platform as a single point across Europe, abandoning the ADR system of each member. Consumers and traders who need dispute resolution apply on the EU ODR platform linked website, and the applications are distributed to individual ADR institutions in accordance with the Rules and Procedure of ADR institutions in the respective country. Although there has been partial progress in Korea for ODR programs such as the establishment of the Online Administrative Trial and the procedures of individual ADR agencies operating through the website, existing norms do not fully support the system. At this point, we see many implications of the EU Consumer ADR and ODR regulation package on the direction chosen for domestic ADR and ODR policy and legislation. This study introduces the main features and content of the EU Consumer ADR Directive (draft) and ODR Regulation provisions, and describes the direction of domestic policy and legislation regarding Online-ADR.

• 법제연구
• /
• 제44호
• /
• pp.343-386
• /
• 2013

우리나라의 금융ADR제도는 금융감독당국인 금융감독원 및 그 안에 설치되는 금융분쟁조정위원회가 제도운영의 주체가 되는 이른바 "금융분쟁조정제도"로 대표된다고 할 수 있고, 이를 흔히 "행정형 금융ADR제도"라고 평가하고 있다. 이 제도는 금융위원회설치법(1997)에 의해 1999년경에 도입되어 10여년에 걸친 제도운영의 성과를 축적하여 현재에 이르고 있다. 그런데 정작 우리나라에서 금융ADR제도가 주목받기 시작한 것은 대체로 2008년의 이른바 금융위기 이후에 금융소비자보호가 강조되기 시작하면서이다. 금융거래를 통하여 피해를 입은 금융소비자를 보호하기 위한 제도적 방안의 하나로 "소송외적 분쟁해결제도(이른바 ADR)"에 대한 관심이 높아졌기 때문이다. 그나마 우리나라 금융ADR제도에 관한 논의는 주로 감독체제 개편과 관련하여 금융ADR기관의 운영주체를 누구로 할 것인가에 집중되었다는 점에 특이성이 있고, 우리 금융ADR제도의 특징을 객관적인 입장에서 면밀하게 분석한 위에 제도개선의 방향성을 제시하는 논의는 충분하게 이루어졌다고 할 수 없다. 본고는 이와 같은 점들을 문제의식으로 하여 우리나라의 금융ADR제도의 특징을 분석하여 하나의 제도모델로 구체화하고, 이를 통하여 제도의 문제점을 분명히 하고 그 개선방향을 제시하고자 하였다. 우리나라 금융ADR제도는 "행정형 통합형 합의형+집행력 부여형(준사법형) IDR비전치형(ADR기관내 합의권고형)"의 특징을 갖는 제도모델로 평가할 수 있다. 그러나 준사법형 효력모델을 채택하면서도 제도의 실효성확보를 위한 제도적 기반을 갖추지 못하고 있고, 통합형 ADR기관의 제도운영의 부담이 크다는 두 가지 문제점을 극복하여야 하는 과제를 동시에 안고 있다. 그러한 관점에서 본고는 현행 제도의 실효성 확보와 업계자율형 ADR제도(특히 IDR전치형 제도)의 확충을 위한 개선방안을 제시하였다. 특히 제도의 실효성확보 방안으로서 조정안에 편면적 구속력을 부여하지 않고도 조정성립율을 높일 수 있는 방안이 제도개선으로서는 최선책이라는 전제 하에 내부의 인원확충을 도모하고 조정절차 및 효력을 차등화하는 방안, 금융기관이 조정절차 중에 소송으로 도피하는 문제점을 해결하기 위하여 피신청인인 금융기관은 합의권고 또는 조정안을 제시받기 전에는 소를 제기하지 못하도록 규제하는 방안, 소송과의 연계제도로서 소송절차의 중지제도 외에 시효중단효를 부여하는 방안을 각각 제시하였다.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제32권4호
• /
• pp.143-164
• /
• 2022

It is not an exaggeration to say that our society is already one of disputes. Since circa 2010, the average number of lawsuits filed every year is upwards of six million cases, and resolving disputes through trials is already fully saturated. The functional roles of the court reflect that there are many lacking areas such as systems, tools, and procedures related to social integration. In addition, ADR, which is carried out in advanced capitalist nations to supplement the judicial functions, has also been implemented in our society for the past 60 years. However, for the reason why the usage rate of ADR did not increase for legal consumers, we cannot overlook government activities that did not make sufficient promotions related to the lack of awareness. In Korea, ADR is mainly composed of government-initiated types, and in particular, there is no ADR framework act that can play an integrated role. Furthermore, for the conciliation system of the court, over 80%of conciliation are conducted focusing on court of lawsuits, and legal basis and procedures between institutes are different for administrative ADR, and communication does not go smoothly, thus making it inefficient. Such examples cannot avoid being a background for criticism when considering the fundamental ideologies and beliefs of ADR. The Vinaya Pitaka of sangha related to ADR is a separate method for operating communities. This is the BDR (Buddhist Dispute Resolution) method that encompasses personal ethics, organizational ethics, harmony through various community gatherings, and adhikaranasamatha on the four issues that could occur in legal review procedures. This has become the sufficient background for succession and development for parisa sangha and gana sangha among individuals.

• 대한예방한의학회지
• /
• 제19권3호
• /
• pp.91-102
• /
• 2015

Objective : The purpose of this study is to find out the possibility of application to herbal medicine's report form for adverse drug reaction (ADR) by reviewing and analyzing Asian countries's ADR report forms. Method : We investigated, compared, and analyzed ADR report forms (ADR-RF) of Asian countries's ADR institutions (ACAI), such as, Korea institute of drug safety & risk management and Dongguk university Ilsan oriental hospital (DUIOH) in Korea, national center for ADR monintoring (NCAM) in China, pharmaceuticals and medical devices agency (PMDA) in Japan, Ministry of Health and Welfare (MOHW) in Taiwan, and drug office, department of health, the government of the Hong Kong special administrative region (GHKSAR) in Hong Kong. Results : ADR-RF for ACAI included common contents, such as, patients information (name(initial), gender, age, weight), adverse event (AE)'s report information (Recognition and report for AE occurrence, first or follow up report, Severe AE), the detailed information of AE (the title of AE, onset & closing date of AE symptoms, the progress & results detailed test of AE), the information of AE's medicine (the types of medicine, product name, ingredient name, suspected or combination drug, single dose & frequency, dosage form, administration route, dealing for AE-suspected medicine), and AE reporter's information (reporter's information, institution's information). Taiwan had ADR-RF and the department exclusively for herbal medicine (HM), but others (except DUIOH) had not only no ADR report form but also contents for HM. Conclusion : ADR-RF for HM have to include the common contents of ACAI at least, as well as HM information related to ADR, such as the title, composition and types of HM, history related to HM's ADR, and the contents of drug-induced liver injury and so on. In addition, the main department of government for HM's ADR will be needed.