• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.28 no.2
• /
• pp.67-89
• /
• 2018

An arbitration has great strength in the sense that it is a more rapid dispute resolution than a trial, and is means of dispute settlement for an achievement of the purpose which is the improvement of the rights and interests of consumers. Because the remedy of consumers' damage currently has not worked well, discussions about consumer arbitration as a universal Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) is needed. The core of the ADR is not only the professionality and neutrality of an arbitrator and a mediator, but also the non-impairment of the arbitration proceeding's fairness. In addition, it also has both economic feasibility and efficiency. Furthermore, providing an institutional strategy is necessary to ensure fairness in an arbitration award.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.33 no.2
• /
• pp.225-266
• /
• 2018

In 2017, 1,252 cases of damages relief related to air passenger transport service were received by the Korea Consumer Agency, a 0.8% drop from 1,262 cases in 2016, the first decline since 2013. In 2017, 444 cases (35.4%) out of received cases of damages relief in the field of air passenger service received by the Korea Consumer Agency were agreed on, and out of cases that were not agreed on, the most number of 588 cases (47.0%) were concluded due to information provision and counseling, and 186 cases (14.9%) were applied to the mediation of the Consumer Dispute Mediation Committee. Major legislations that contain regulations for the damages relief and disputes resolution of air service consumers include the Aviation Business Act and the Consumer Fundamental Act, etc. The Aviation Business Act provides the establishment and implementation of damage relief procedure and handling plan, and the receiving and handling of request of damage relief by air transport businessman, and the notice of protection standard for air traffic users. The Consumer Fundamental Act provides the establishment and management of the consumer counseling organization, the damage relief by the Korea Consumer Agency, the consumer dispute mediation, and the enactment of the criteria for resolving consumer disputes. The procedures for damages relief of air service consumers include the receiving and handling of damages relief by air transport businessman, the counseling, and receiving and handling of damages relief by the Consumer Counseling Center, the advice of mutual agreement by the Korea Consumer Agency, and the dispute mediation system by the Consumer Dispute Mediation Committee. The current system of damage relief and dispute mediation for air service consumer have the problem in the exemption from obligation of establishment and implementation of damage relief plan by air transport businessman under the Aviation Business Act, the problem in the exemption from liability in case of nonfulfillment and delay of transport by aviation businessman under the criteria for resolving consumer disputes in the aviation sector, and the uppermost limit in procedure progress and completion of consumer dispute mediation under the Consumer Fundamental Act. Therefore, the improvement measurements of the relevant system for proper damage relief and smooth dispute mediation for air service consumer are to be suggested as follows: First is the maintenance of the relevant laws for damage relief of air service consumer. The exemption regulation from obligation of establishment and implementation of damage relief plan by air transport businessman under the Aviation Business Act shall be revised. To enhance the structualization and expertise of the relevant regulation for protection and damage relief of air service consumer, it will be necessary to prepare the separate legislation similar to the US Federal Regulation 14 CFR and EU Regulation EC Regulation 261/2004. Second is the improvement of criteria for resolving air service consumer disputes. For this, it will be necessary to investigate whether the cause of occurrence of exemption reason was force majeure, and distinguish the exemption from liability in case of nonfulfillment and delay of transport by aviation businessman under the criteria for resolving consumer disputes in the aviation sector, and revise the same as exemption reasons regulated under the air transport chapter of the Commercial Act and Montreal Convention 1999, and unify the compensation criteria for the nonfulfillment of transport that the substitute flight was provided and the delay of transport. Third is the reinforcement of information provision for damage relief of air service consumer. Aviation-related government agencies and concerned agencies should cooperate with airlines and airports to provide rapidly and clearly diverse information to the air traffic users, including laws and policies for damages relief of air service consumers. Fourth is the supplement to the effectiveness, etc. of consumer dispute mediation. If there is no sign of acceptance for dispute mediation, it is not fair to regard it as acceptance, therefore it will be necessary to add objection system. And if a dispute resolution is requested to another dispute settlement agency in addition to the Consumer Dispute Mediation Committee, it is excluded from the damage relief package, but it should be allowed for the party to choose a mediation agency. It will be necessary to devise the institutional measures to increase the completion rate of mediation so that the consumer dispute can be resolved efficiently through the mediation. Fifth is the introduction of the air service consumer arbitration system. A measure to supplement the limitations of the consumer dispute mediation system is to introduce the consumer arbitration system, but there are two measurements which are the introduction of the consumer arbitration under the Consumer Fundamental Act and the introduction of the consumer arbitration under the Arbitration Act. The latter measurement is considered to be appropriate. In conclusion, as a policy task, the government should prepare laws and system to enhance the prevention and relief of damages and protection of the rights and interests of air service consumers, and establish and implement the consumer-centric policy for the advancement of air service.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.17 no.2
• /
• pp.167-187
• /
• 2007

As Korea has reached a free trade agreement with the United States of America, it is required to provide an appropriate procedure to ".kr" domain name disputes based on the principles established in the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy(UDRP). Currently, Internet address Dispute Resolution Committee(IDRC) established under Article 16 of the Act on Internet Address Resources provides the dispute resolution proceedings to resolve ".kr" domain name disputes. While the IDRC's proceeding is similar to the UDRP administrative proceeding in procedural aspects, the Domain Name Dispute Mediation Policy that is established by the IDRC and that applies to disputes involving ".kr" domain names is very different from the UDRP for generic Top Level Domain (gTLD) in substantial aspects. Under the Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement(KORUS FTA), it is expected that either the Domain Name Dispute Mediation Policy to be amended to adopt the UDRP or the IDRC to examine the Domain Name Dispute Mediation Policy in order to harmonize it with the principles established in the UDRP. It is a common practice of cybersquatters to warehouse a number of domain names without any active use of these domain names after their registration. The Domain Name Dispute Mediation Policy provides that the complainant may request to transfer or delete the registration of the disputed domain name if the registrant registered, holds or uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. This provision lifts the complainant's burden of proof to show the respondent's bad faith because the complainant is only required to prove one of the three bad faiths which are registration in bad faith, holding in bad faith, or use in bad faith. The aforementioned resolution procedure is different from the UDRP regime which requires the complainant, in compliance with paragraph 4(b) of the UDRP, to prove that the disputed domain name has been registered in bad faith and is being used in bad faith. Therefore, the complainant carries heavy burden of proof under the UDRP. The IDRC should deny the complaint if the respondent has legitimate rights or interests in the domain names. Under the UDRP, the complainant must show that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The UDRP sets out three illustrative circumstances, any one of which if proved by the respondent, shall be evidence of the respondent's rights to or legitimate interests in the domain name. As the Domain Name Dispute Mediation Policy provides only a general provision regarding the respondent's legitimate rights or interests, the respondent can be placed in a very week foundation to be protected under the Policy. It is therefore recommended for the IDRC to adopt the three UDRP circumstances to guide how the respondent can demonstrate his/her legitimate rights or interests in the disputed domain name. In accordance with the KORUS FTA, the Korean Government is required to provide online publication to a reliable and accurate database of contact information concerning domain name registrants. Cybersquatters often provide inaccurate contact information or willfully conceal their identity to avoid objection by trademark owners. It may cause unnecessary and unwarranted delay of the administrative proceedings. The respondent may loss the opportunity to assert his/her rights or legitimate interests in the domain name due to inability to submit the response effectively and timely. The respondent could breach a registration agreement with a registrar which requires the registrant to submit and update accurate contact information. The respondent who is reluctant to disclose his/her contact information on the Internet citing for privacy rights and protection. This is however debatable as the respondent may use the proxy registration service provided by the registrar to protect the respondent's privacy.