• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제20권3호
• /
• pp.47-69
• /
• 2010

From the review of Korean arbitration systems with the comparison of those of other countries, we can summarize some issues to be tackled as follows: First, Korean arbitration system started with the purpose of export promotion. This may be the main reason that various domestic disputes have not been resolved by arbitration. Second, the Korean Arbitration Law applies to private disputes. The Law's arbitration scope is wider than that of China and France, but narrower than that of the U.S.A. that encompasses a variety of disputes in the filed of consumer, labor, medical services, patents, etc. Third, active judges or public officials in Korea can not be arbitrator and there is no arbitration court. However, if chief judge allows the necessity, court's judges in the UK can be arbitrator with the mutual agreement of the parties and also arbitration system is operated in the court. Fourth, the Korean Commercial Arbitration Board(KCAB), the only representative institution for arbitration in Korea, is under the Ministry of Knowledge Economy(MKE). This makes it difficult for the KCAB to handle other disputes related to the Ministry of Health and Welfare, the Ministry of Strategy and Finance, the Ministry for Food, Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, the Ministry of Employment and Labor, etc. Fifth, as mentioned, the KCAB is the unique institution for arbitration by the Law in Korea, while other countries allow have a diversity of arbitration agencies such as maritime arbitration organization, consumer arbitration institution, arbitration court, etc. Therefore, we suggest some ideas to expand the arbitration's area of coverage in Korea as follows: First, there should be more active policies that promote various domestic disputes to be settled by the arbitration system. Second, it is quite needed to expand the scope of arbitration to cover many disputes in the fields of consumer, labor, medical service, advertising, fair trade, etc. Third, there should be discussions to allow court judges as arbitrator and to introduce the arbitration court. Fourth, the KCAB should strengthen its status and roles as general arbitration organization to overcome the limited scope of commercial disputes. For this, there should be the strong support and coordination among the MKE and other government agencies. Fifth, to reduce the burden of the court's complicated and expensive procedures, more efficient disputes resolution systems should be established on the basis of the parties' free will. Each central government agency should streamline the legal barriers to allow industrial organizations under its control to establish their own or joint arbitration system with the KCAB.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제13권2호
• /
• pp.519-546
• /
• 2004

On June 27, 2002 Canadian Internet Registration Authority (CIRA) launched dot-ca domain name dispute resolution service through BCICAC and Resolution Canada, Inc. The Domain name Dispute Resolution Policy (CDRP) of CIRA is basically modelled after Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy(UDRP), while the substance of CDRP is slightly modified to meet the need of Canadian domain name regime and its legal system. Firstly, this article examined CIRA's domain name dispute resolution policy in general. It is obvious that the domain name dispute resolution proceeding is non-binding arbitration to which arbitration law does not apply. However it still belongs to the arbitration and far from the usual mediation process. Domain name arbitrators render decision rather than assist disputing parties themselves reach to agreement. In this respect the domain name arbitration is similar to arbitration or litigation rather than mediation. Secondly it explored how the panels applied the substantive standards in domain name arbitration. There is some criticism that panelists interprets the test of "confusingly similar" in conflicting manner. As a result critics assert that courts' judicial review is necessary to reduce the conflicting interpretation on the test of substantive standards stipulated in paragraph 3 of CDRP. Finally, it analysed the court's position on domain name arbitral award. Canadian courts do not seem to establish a explicit standard for judicial review over it yet. However, in Black v. Molson case Ontario Superior Court applied the UDRP rules in examining the WIPO panel's decision, while US courts often apply domestic patent law and ACPA(Anticyber -squatting Consumer's Protection Act) to review domain name arbitration decision rather than UDRP rules. In conclusion this article suggests that courts should restrict their judicial review on domain name administrative panel's decision at best. This will lead to facilitating the use of ADR in domain name dispute resolution and reducing the burden of courts' dockets.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제22권2호
• /
• pp.79-101
• /
• 2012

In 2010, the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) initiated work on the settlement of disputes in international e-commerce through online dispute resolution (ODR). The basic goal is to use ODR to resolve disputes with low value but high volume in international e-commerce. The background is that consumers have no way to solve their legal problems in this area. An ODR system is intended to create a new way to enforce their rights. However, the legal situations of the countries in the e-commerce sector, particularly in consumer protection, are very diverse. Thus, no reasonable model for conflict resolution is available. Some countries consider this as public policy and want absolute protection of their consumers. Other countries want to encourage freer e-commerce trading. This diversity of consumer protection policy is an obstacle to ODR. However, sooner or later, reaching an agreement is feasible because each representative is making a reasonable effort to reach the goal.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제28권4호
• /
• pp.3-42
• /
• 2018

This paper aims to explore ways to develop the arbitration industry in Korea. The prospects for the promotion of the arbitration industry in Korea are never dim. International arbitration competitiveness is somewhat lower than its competitors at present, but the international economic base to support it is solid, and the domestic arbitration environment seems to be sufficient to support the development possibility of arbitration. Since geographical and economic factors have already been defined, Korea must at least improve the arbitration act with passion and vision for the best one. The arbitration act that is the most accessible to arbitration consumers is the best arbitration act. The important thing is to have an arbitration act that makes people want to use more than litigation or other dispute resolution procedures. There is no hope of remaining as a "second mover" in the field of arbitration law. One should have a will and ambition to become a "first mover" even if it is risky. Considering the situation of the current arbitration law, it is necessary to start an arbitration appeal system in order to become a consumer-friendly arbitration law, and it is necessary to examine ways of integrating the grant of execution clause and enforcement application procedures. The abolition of the condition of Article 35 of the Arbitration Act, which rules the validity of the arbitration award, will help promote international arbitration. Exclusion agreements of setting aside against arbitration awards must also be fully recognized. It is also important to publish a widely cited international arbitration journal. In order to respond to the fourth industrial revolution era, it is necessary to support the establishment of a dispute resolution system that utilizes IT technology. In order to actively engage the arbitrators in the market, it is necessary to abolish the regulations that exist in the Attorneys-at-Law Act. There is also a need to allocate more budget to educate arbitration consumers and to establish arbitration training centers to strengthen domestic arbitration education. It is also necessary to evaluate and verify the Arbitration Promotion Act so that it can achieve results. In the international arbitration market, competition is fierce and competitors are already taking the initiative, so in order not to miss the timing, Korea needs to activate international arbitration first. In order to activate international arbitration, the arbitration body needs to be managed with the same mobility and strategy as the agency in the marketplace. In Korea, unlike in Singapore and Hong Kong, it is necessary to recognize that the size of the domestic arbitration market is very likely to increase sharply due to the economic size of the country and the large market potential it can bring from litigation. In order to promote the arbitration industry, what is most important is to make arbitration activities in accordance with the principles of the market and to establish an institutional basis to enable competition. It is urgently required to change the perception of the relevant government departments and arbitration officials.

• 항공우주정책ㆍ법학회지
• /
• 제33권2호
• /
• pp.225-266
• /
• 2018

2017년 한국소비자원에 접수된 항공여객운송서비스 관련 피해구제 접수건수는 1,252건으로 2016년 1,262건 대비 0.8% 감소하여 2013년 이후 처음으로 감소세를 나타냈다. 그리고 2017년 한국소비자원에 접수된 항공여객운송서비스 분야의 피해구제 접수건 가운데 444건(35.4%)이 합의가 성립되었으며, 합의가 성립되지 않은 건 중에서 정보제공 상담 기타로 종결된 경우가 588건(47.0%)으로 가장 많았고, 소비자분쟁조정위원회에 조정 신청된 경우가 186건(14.9%)이었다. 항공서비스 소비자 피해구제와 분쟁해결을 위한 규정을 두고 있는 주요입법으로는 항공사업법, 소비자기본법 등이 있는데, 항공사업법에서 항공교통사업자의 피해구제절차와 처리계획의 수립 및 이행 그리고 피해구제 신청 접수 및 처리, 항공교통이용자 보호기준의 고시 등에 관하여 규정하고 있으며, 소비자기본법에서 소비자상담기구의 실치 운영, 한국소비자원의 피해구제, 소비자분쟁의 조정, 소비자분쟁해결기준의 제정 등에 관하여 규정하고 있다. 항공서비스 소비자 피해구제 절차로는 항공교통사업자의 피해구제 접수 처리, 소비자상담센터의 상담 및 피해구제 접수 처리, 한국소비자원의 합의권고, 소비자분쟁조정위원회의 분쟁조정제도 등이 있다. 현행 항공서비스 소비자 피해구제 및 분쟁조정 제도에는 항공사업법 상 항공교통사업자의 피해구제계획 수립 및 이행 의무의 면제, 항공부문 소비자분쟁해결기준 상 운송 불이행 및 지연의 경우 면책 등에 대하여 문제점이 있고, 그리고 소비자기본법상 소비자분쟁조정의 절차진행 및 조정성립에 대하여 한계점이 있다. 따라서 항공서비스 소비자에 대한 적절한 피해구제와 원활한 분쟁조정을 위하여 관련 제도의 개선방안을 제시하면 다음과 같다. 첫째 항공서비스 소비자 피해구제 관련 법규의 정비이다. 항공사업법 상 항공교통사업자의 피해구제계획 수립과 이행 의무의 면제규정이 수정되어야 할 것이다. 또한 항공서비스 소비자 보호와 피해구제에 관한 법 규정의 체계화와 전문성 제고를 위해 미국연방규칙 14 CFR 및 EU의 EC 261/2004 규칙과 유사한 별도 입법을 마련할 필요가 있을 것이다. 둘째 항공서비스 소비자 분쟁해결기준의 개선이다. 항공부문 소비자분쟁해결기준 상 항공사업자의 운송 불이행 및 운송지연의 경우 면책사유의 발생 원인이 불가항력이었는지를 규명하여 면책여부를 판별하여야 하고, 상법 항공운송편 및 1999년 몬트리올 협약에 규정된 면책사유와 같이 수정되어야 하며, 대체편이 제공된 운송 불이행의 경우와 운송지연에 대하여 배상기준을 통일하는 것이 필요할 것이다. 셋째 항공서비스 소비자 피해구제를 위한 정보제공의 강화이다. 항공관련 정부기관 및 유관기관들은 항공사 및 공항과 협력하여 항공서비스 소비자 피해구제를 위한 법규와 정책 등 다양한 정보를 항공교통이용자에게 보다 신속 명확하게 제공해야 할 것이다. 넷째 소비자분쟁조정의 효력 등에 관한 보완이다. 분쟁조정에 대한 수락 의사표시가 없을 경우 수락한 것으로 보는 것은 부당하므로 이의신청제도를 추가할 필요가 있을 것이다. 또한 소비자분쟁조정위원회 이외 다른 분쟁조정기구에 중복으로 분쟁해결을 신청한 경우 피해구제 대상에서 제외하고 있으나 당사자가 조정기관을 선택할 수 있도록 해야 할 것이다. 그리고 소비자분쟁이 조정을 통하여 효율적으로 해결될 수 있도록 조정성립률을 높일 수 있는 제도적 방안을 강구할 필요가 있을 것이다. 다섯째 항공서비스 소비자 중재제도의 도입이다. 소비자분쟁 조정제도의 한계점을 보완할 수 있는 방안으로 소비자 중재제도를 도입하되, 소비자기본법 상 중재 도입안과 중재법 상 소비자중재 도입안이 있는데, 후자의 방안이 적합할 것으로 생각된다. 결론적으로, 정책과제로서 항공서비스 소비자의 피해 예방 및 구제를 강화하는 법 제도를 마련하고, 항공서비스 선진화를 위한 소비자 중심의 정책을 수립 추진해야 할 것이다.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제17권2호
• /
• 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.