• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제13권2호
• /
• pp.613-630
• /
• 2004

Conciliation is one of the most effective ADR(alternative dispute resolution) which takes the place of civil procedure. It is achieved with disputants' independent will. The disputants negotiate each other, and make peaceful settlement. If a compromise is effected between the two, it regards the compromise as a judgement of the Supreme Court. This effect on the conciliation is afford a basis for the private autonomies. But nowadays, the practical use of the private autonomies is not thoroughgoing enough in our country. It is a matter of no uncommon occurrence for the member of a conciliation commission to form a conclusion about the dispute and to persuade the disputants to accept the conclusion. Even the judges have a tendency to conduct a conciliation like civil procedure. Under these circumstances, it's harsh to the disputants that a compromise in the conciliation has an effect like the judgement of the Supreme Court. So you should reconsider carefully the role or service of a conciliation commission. The role of a conciliation commission must be to guarantee an atmosphere of freedom, and for disputants to negotiate without restraint. So the members of a conciliation commission should make an offer the disputants the information on the members and proceedings of the conciliation. It will make the disputants have a firm belief that the members are fair and conciliation will be progressed in a fair. Moreover they have to notify the disputants of the estimated norms which is concerned in the dispute, too. It will facilitate the negotiation and compromise, and will justify claim preclusion(res judicata) which is based on Korean Civil Conciliation Law(Article 29) says that conciliation has the full force and effect of a civil judgement of the Supreme Court.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제17권1호
• /
• pp.97-116
• /
• 2007

This article has the objective of studying French ADR System which is unique and peculiar in the world. Nowadays commercial conflict is resolved by litigation or ADR. ADR plays an important part in resolving commercial conflict in the US, England, Germany, Japan and France. Untill now, only French ADR System has not been studied at all in Korea. So we can safely say that it is necessary to research into French ADR System in order to improve Korea's ADR System. This study is composed of Introduction, Concept of French ADR System, Actual Circumstances of French ADR System and Conclusion. The Fundamental system of French ADR is the law of February 8, 1995 that is made up of 82 articles. Among these articles, Judical Conciliation and Mediation are the most important. It is universally admitted by most of legal scholars that judicial conciliation and mediation have the character of contract. Because mutual consent is necessary in order for judicial conciliation and mediation to be effective. French system of judicial conciliation and mediation is provided in French Civil Procedure Law. Judicial conciliation plays an important role in Labor Law and Family Law. In the early part of litigation, the attempt of consiliation can be made very frequently in France. Successful conciliation and mediation are induced into negociation between parties. Arbitration has its long history in Europe. In the medieval times, Western European merchant began to use Arbitration System. After the medieval times had passed, Arbitration System took root in France. But Arbitration System has not so developed in France. On the other hand, Arbitration System has developed to a considerable degree in the US in spite of its short history. It is due to the fact that the French dislike to have recourse to litigation as compared with the Americans. However Arbitration can resolve securities conflict through various institutions in France, which is very similar to the concerned US phenomenon.

• 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.

• 의료법학
• /
• 제7권2호
• /
• pp.271-310
• /
• 2006

In the situation of bringing out of social problem about the medical accident and medical dispute, from 1988 the enactment activity for a legislative bill on conciliation of dispute has promoted, a legislative bill on prevention and relief of medical accident was again proposed in December, 2005. This bill has been faced rough going in review process of National Assembly. Because the purpose of this legislative bill is the conciliation of interest of between medical service consumer and medical service supplier, an item of issues of law is no-fault compensation scheme. However, as no-fault compensation scheme runs counter to the principle liability with fault in our civil law, as expected, whether the inducement is valid or, if induced, the problem is not must be totally reviewed. First of all, the general of principle liability without fault and especially the medical system in foreign countries are reviewed, by reviewing an issue and the pros and cons of the inducement of no-fault compensation scheme, this article draws the conclusion. After all, considering that the necessity adapting Gefahrdungschftung in medical accident as much as other industrial fields exists, the many provisions of the principle liability without fault exists in civil law and special law of our law system, and no-fault compensation scheme let legislative purpose be, to what extent, achieved by conciliating patient and doctor, the inducement of principle liability without fault in medical field is reasonable in the aspect of politic and legal system.

• 한국건축시공학회지
• /
• 제11권3호
• /
• pp.208-220
• /
• 2011

공동주택 하자분쟁을 해결하고자 하는 노력의 일환으로 최근 하자분쟁조정제도가 도입되었다. 하지만, 당해 제도는 현재의 하자분쟁의 쟁점사항과 분쟁 당사자들의 입장을 제대로 반영하고 있지 못하다. 또한, 제도의 내용과 절차에서 많은 미비점이 존재한다. 본 연구에서는 하자분쟁의 여러 내용적인 측면 중에서 기술적 쟁점사항에 대해 정리하고 하자분쟁조정제도가 정착되기 위한 대안마련을 검토하였다. 그 결과 현행 하자분쟁의 판정논리체계요소에 대해 정리할 수 있었고, 이에 효과적으로 대응하기 위한 전략으로서 활성화 방안을 제시하였다. 그 기본 원칙은 조정자와 분쟁 당사자간의 신뢰관계를 구축해야 하는 것이며, 사회적 기대사항에 대한 부합, 제도적 차원의 활성화 방안이 뒷받침되어야 할 것으로 판단된다.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제17권2호
• /
• pp.125-139
• /
• 2007

최근 한국과 미국 법원에서는 조정제도를 자주 이용하고 있다. 조정제도를 이용함으로써 법원은 사건부담을 줄일 수 있을 뿐만 아니라 소송지연을 막고 비용을 절감할 수 있다. 그러나 조정제도의 장점을 극대화하기 위해서는 일반 조정제도의 기본원칙인 당사자 원칙을 최대한 반영하고 법원의 개입은 제한하여야 할 필요가 있다. 이점에 있어 미국과 한국의 법원내 조정제도에 비교해볼 때, 전자가 법원의 개입은 필요한 최소한에 그치고 조정인과 분쟁당사자간의 당사자자치를 최대한 보장하고 있음을 알 수 있다. 이 글은 한국과 미국의 법원내 조정제도를 비교 분석하여 효과적인 법원내 조정제도를 정착시키기 위하여 개선해야 한 점을 제시하고자한다. 한국과 미국의 법원내 조정제도의 근본적인 차이는 조정절차진행에서 법원의 역할과 관련되어 있다. 특히 미국법원은 분쟁 당사자들 스스로 분쟁해결을 할 수 있도록 돕는 역할에 주력하는 반면, 한국법원은 조정절차 전 과정에서 분쟁해결에 적극 개입한다. 보다 공정하고 효율적인 민사조정절차를 위해서는 관련법의 정비뿐만 아니라 조정인의 교육과 전문성을 강화하기 위한 제도적 장치를 마련할 필요가 있다.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제30권1호
• /
• pp.185-198
• /
• 2020

In the event of a medical conflict in South Korea, civil lawsuits can be very complicated, time-consuming, and costly. Under the Medical Conflict Conciliation Act, the mediation system has expanded its function to coordinate disputes between individuals and medical institutions in a more efficient manner prior to litigation. Currently, conflict mediation organizations and legal systems are established in each sector, and the Healthcare Dispute Settlement Commission will also play an important role in the public sector. In this study, the characteristics of the evaluation system of the Korea Institute of Medical Conflict Arbitration are examined; and, by looking at the case of medical examinations, it is proposed to show the mediation system and the manner and role of the examinations. Medical expertise is a very important area of the qualitative standards and expertise of participants because the participants must play a role in medical consultation and appraisal in connection with medical experts.

• 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

• 의료법학
• /
• 제11권1호
• /
• pp.11-52
• /
• 2010

Medical Dispute Arbitration Law had been debated on its legislation several times since Korean Medical Association's submission of the bill to the National Assembly in 1988, eventually in December, 2009, passed the National Assembly Standing Committee and was laid before the Legislation and Judiciary Committee, and thus its legislation is now near at hand. During the long process, it has provided a hot issue with our society. And yet, Medical Dispute Arbitration Law has differed considerably in legislative content depending on the main body of proceeding the enactment, which subsequently was given the mixed comments of 'Act on Malpractice-related Damage Relief' or 'Medical Indemnity Act', and this legislative bill also cannot be free from this debate. It is desirable that medical disputes between doctors and patients be resolved through conciliation between the parties concerned. But, because reaching a compromise is difficult owing to deep emotional conflicts between the parties, difficulties in investigating a cause and requiring a high amount of settlement money, etc., it is inevitable to seek a resolution by third party intervention. By the way, such an arbitration by third party is based on the compromise of the interested parties and thus has a limitation of not being able to satisfy both parties completely. Therefore, the legislative bill made for arbitration of medical disputes between the parties will have to prepare an institutional system for the parties to easily understand and accept. Also, problems occurred in the legislative bill will have to be corrected through an in-depth discussion in order for the legislative bill to work as an effective system.

• 한국수자원학회논문집
• /
• 제47권7호
• /
• pp.573-585
• /
• 2014

본 연구에서는 물환경 정책 및 계획의 추진과정에서 발생할 수 있는 갈등을 풀어나갈 수 있도록 다양한 이해당사자들의 참여, 투명한 정보공개, 객관적 의사결정과정, 개별 이해당사자들의 의견 반영 등 합의형성을 위한방법론 또는 도구로서 합의형성 지원시스템을 제안하였다. 개발된 합의형성 지원시스템은 물환경 문제에 대하여 영향력을 가진 특정 집단이 해결안을 제시하여 강요하거나 설득하는 구조 대신에 다양한 이해당사자의 참여를 바탕으로 한 공동적 문제해결 방식을 기반으로 하였다. 즉, 합의에 도달하기 위해서 협상 및 조정과 같은 상호작용을 통해 이해관계를 조정하여 이해당사자들 스스로 갈등을 해결할 수 있는 환경을 제공한다는 것이다. 개발된 합의형성 지원시스템의 적용성을 검증하기 위하여 한탄강댐 건설 사례에 대한 제한적인 롤플레잉 모의실험을 수행하였다. 본 연구는 합의형성 지원시스템의 적용을 통해 정부가 지역사회나 NGO 등과 공론의 장을 마련하여 적극적으로 합의형성을 이룰 수 있도록 노력한다면 협상의 효과를 한층 높일 수 있음을 확인할 수 있었다.