• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.28 no.4
• /
• pp.89-110
• /
• 2018

The purposes of this study are as follows: First, this study reviews the Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) regulations of the EU to resolve disputes which can arise in international e-commerce in the future. Second, this study tries to seek out alternative solutions to dispute resolutions based on these regulations. Third, this study increases the efficiency of the transactions by proposing effective and satisfactory dispute resolution methods for international e-commerce. First, this study reviews the concept of cross-border e-commerce, generally explores ODR, and creates comparisons with Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). Subsequently, this study looks into domestic ODR system and analyzes the regulations of EU ODR. This study suggests the implications of the European ODR regulations in the conclusion. The EU ODR platform is considered greatly significant in that it has increased the possibility of settlements in small disputes by enhancing consumers' accessibility to ADR procedures. Therefore, this thesis proposes a method for Korean companies to resolve disputes that may arise in e-commerce with EU by using the ODR platform. As a result, it is expected to increase the competitiveness of Korean companies in the EU market. Both legislative trends related to the ODR of the EU and establishment of the EU ODR platform have significant implications for Korean businesses in Europe. This study is expected to be useful for our businesses in the EU in reviewing the applicability of the EU ODR regulations and the dispute settlement procedures through the EU ODR platform. In addition, this study is expected to prove useful in relation to consumer protection by enhancing consumers' accessibility to dispute settlement institutions in domestic electronic commerce.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.20 no.3
• /
• pp.121-145
• /
• 2010

In the past, ADR has not been used as frequently in Japan as it has in other parts of the industrialized world. However, though litigation is still the most utilized vehicle of dispute resolution by Japanese financial institutions, this will be changing. The New Financial ADR system, which was created by a June 2009 amendment to the Financial Instruments and Exchange Act, is meant to deal with every stage of financial-related disputes and, as such, strives to resolve disputes before they become significant and acts to ameliorate any post-ADR issues that may remain, thereby completing the FIEA's purpose to protect investors. Since the foundation of the New Financial ADR system applies to all related industries, new provisions were set out in 16 business related acts, such as the Banking Act, the Insurance Business Act, and FIEA itself. October 2010 will mark the formal introduction of a new system of financial ADR in Japan. New Financial ADR in Japan will be modeled on the Financial Ombudsman Service in the United Kingdom, but will not feature one comprehensive dispute resolution system in which one dispute resolution institution covers all disputes in the financial field. The New Financial ADR system is merely one step towards a foundation of comprehensive financial ADR such as FOS. It must be noted, however, that this all important first step was over seven years in the making, involving a great deal of discussion, debate, and compromise amongst many parts of Japanese government, business, and society. The New Financial ADR system grants participating parties the ability to stop the clock on any statute of limitations which may correspond to any future possible court cases related to the dispute,13 and further grants the ability to suspend related court proceedings while the parties are utilizing the New Financial ADR system. In addition, where financial institutions have not accepted dispute resolution proceedings or have not accepted a special conciliation proposal, the Ministry of Finance may issue an order compelling compliance if it is found that certain actions are necessary to ensure the appropriate operations of a financial institution's business. In Japan, as best practices have not yet been created.

• International Commerce and Information Review
• /
• v.5 no.1
• /
• pp.159-177
• /
• 2003

As many kinds of transactions and informations move onto the Internet, methods to resolve dispute arising from this trend must also move onto the Internet. The Internet has heightened interest in Alternative Dispute Resolution(ADR). Some organizations are using the new technology in the field of dispute resolution, for example, by establishing web sites and offering communications through the Internet. Online ADR provides an attractive solution to an important part of the jurisdictional challenges presented by the Internet. This study reviews the types of online ADR as the dispute settlement way in electronic commerce. Especially this paper points out the task that Korea has to promote the online ADR for more effective and efficient dispute settlements.

• Proceedings of the Korea Water Resources Association Conference
• /
• 2005.05b
• /
• pp.1491-1495
• /
• 2005

물 분쟁은 더 이상 다른 나라의 이야기가 아니다. 우리나라 역시 산업구조의 변화와 인구의 증가로 물의 수요가 증가함에 따라 많은 물 분쟁이 발생하고 있다. 물 분쟁은 많은 원인과 다양한 차원의 분쟁주체들이 관계하고 있어 복잡한 네트워크구조로 나타나는 특징이 있다. 이러한 다양한 종류의 물 분쟁을 해결하기 위해서는 그 대책 또한 법률적, 기술적, 사회적으로 다양하게 접근 하여야 할 것이다. 그러나 과거 우리나라의 경우 분쟁이 발생하였을 때 그 분쟁의 최후 결정은 주로 사법기관에 의하여 처리되곤 하였다. 이러한 사법적 분쟁해결은 많은 시간과 비용을 필요로 하며 분쟁당사자 모두 만족할 수 없는 결과를 야기 할 수 있는 큰 단점을 안고 있다. 본 연구에서는 이러한 단점을 보완하고 물 분쟁을 해결하기 위한 방안으로 대안적분쟁해결방안(ADR: Alternative Dispute Resolution)을 소개하고, 적용가능성에 대하여 검토하였다. 물 분쟁의 해결을 위해 ADR을 활용한다면 시간과 비용의 절약, 원만한 분쟁해결, 사후에도 당사자들의 좋은 관계 유지 등의 이점을 기대 해볼 수 있다.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.30 no.4
• /
• pp.71-94
• /
• 2020

When a dispute or conflict occurs, standard methods for resolving them include resolution by trial or resolutions outside of courts. An alternative dispute resolution method called ADR that aims at remedying disputes instead of filing lawsuits is used commonly throughout the world, including the US and China. ADR, which is a remedy method outside of courts, includes negotiation, arbitration, or mediation between the concerned parties, and the arbitration system has several advantages. The Lemon Law is a consumer protection law of the United States that was enacted in 1975. This law prescribes that when specified quality standards are not met repeatedly due to defects in vehicles or electronic products, the manufacturer must provide exchanges or refunds to consumers. Korea also enacted a newly revised automobile management act, the Korea "Lemon Law," on January 1, 2019, which allows consumers to receive exchanges or refunds from the manufacturer if the same malfunction repeatedly occurs after purchasing a new automobile. There have recently been many cases of large fires occurring while driving import vehicles, causing huge public rage; therefore, interest is being focused on the revised automobile management act. Part 5-2 of the automobile management act was newly added to implement automobile exchange or refund arbitration systems. It is desirable to utilize the arbitration system to smoothly resolve automobile-related disputes that have recently increased significantly, and it is thus being used frequently for practical purposes.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.13 no.1
• /
• pp.71-89
• /
• 2012

Just in case a patient's state couldn't get better or get even worse after medical practices, it is difficult for the patient's side to accept the result and it tends to think that its damage is caused by his doctor's malpractice. Medical practices of a doctor require highly advanced attention duty as a medical expert, because they are targeted at a human body of the best benefit and protection of the law. However, it is hard to prove the malpractice on the patient's side in medical dispute. Therefore, to solve a medical dispute quickly and fairly before the medical suit Korea Consumer Agency (KCA) has done a medical dispute adjustment business since 1999. For the past 5 years (2006~2010), the medical team of KCA had managed 4,171 cases as an injury relief, but it had dealt with them focusing on an injury relief business only after the occurrence of a medical accident. Afterwards, it is necessary to expand the range of its services in purpose of preventing the injury of consumers. If we can solve the problems -the clear statements about the cease of extinctive prescription in the fundamentals of comsumer act, the presence of parties directly concerned at comsumer dispute adjustment committee, and the effect of an agreement, etc. -, which have been founded in medical injury relief service of KCA and the management and procedures of the comsumer dispute adjustment committee of KCA and if we can also give KCA more workers and the proper budget of the government, we can expect KCA to become a more useful agency.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.16 no.2
• /
• pp.183-211
• /
• 2006

DDA and FTA make global business environments more competitive. These environments require Korean firms to face an unlimited competition and to resolve their dispute by ADR(Alternative Dispute Resolution). Thus, Korean Companies should be more concerned with ADR system and should utilize ADR to settle their dispute effectively and efficiently. However, ADR and KCAB isn't well recognized in Korea. So, the major purposes of this study are to expand the recognition of ADR and KCAB through SWOT Analysis of KCAB in Korea. Based on the results of my study, I suggest KCAB the following guidelines. First, KCAB work closely with the concerned research association as KSSA to make a guideline books of efficient dispute resolution. Second, KCAB improves their service quality and tries to utilizes various opportunity factors well. Meanwhile, Korean government assists KCAB with funds as well as improvement of dispute resolution system as the establishment of ADR Law. Consequently, to expand ADR in Korea, revolution of KCAB Staffs' consciousness and Korean government's assistance are very needed.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.30 no.1
• /
• pp.87-111
• /
• 2020

Smart contracts are implemented by blockchain technology, which stores the terms of the contracts of both parties on the blockchain. In the event of an international dispute over smart contracts and blockchains, no special solution has been proposed, such as the enactment of the International Unification Act. The blockchain platform which operates smart contracts is decentralized and operates through distributed nodes around the world without central servers, making it difficult to establish jurisdiction and governing laws. As an alternative to traditional dispute-solving methods, a new mediation model-smart arbitration-is being attempted. The arbitration process is likely to be a preferred means of resolving disputes over smart contracts in practice. There are many problems, such as the fairness of the arbitration center on the selection and judgment of arbitrators, the question of securing reliability, the question of the validity of the arbitration agreement, and how much the court can be involved in the case. Preparations at the national level, such as fostering blockchains and smart contract experts, and overhauling the legal system, are needed.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.23 no.2
• /
• pp.37-54
• /
• 2013

This article focuses on integrating institutional mediation systems, especially the analysis of the leading ADR operation. Mediation is a process in which an impartial third party, a mediator, facilitates the resolution of a dispute by promoting voluntary agreements by the parties to the dispute. A mediator facilitates communications, promotes understanding, focuses the parties on their interests, and seeks agreement. These standards give meaning to this definition of mediation. Standard mediation clauses are construed as broadly as possible, and mediation is compelled unless it may be said with positive assurance that the mediation process is not susceptible to an interpretation that covers the asserted dispute. Performing the conflicts check early in the process helps in eliminating any awkwardness or delays caused by making disclosures after mediation commences. Mediator impartiality is central to the mediation process. A mediator should mediate only those matters in which she or he can remain impartial and evenhanded. If at any time the mediator is unable to conduct the process in an impartial manner, the mediator is obligated to withdraw.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.29 no.1
• /
• 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.