• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.19 no.3
• /
• pp.3-24
• /
• 2009

This article discusses the validity of selective/unilateral arbitration agreement that provides arbitration as one of several dispute resolution methods. The Supreme Court has held selective/unilateral arbitration agreement that is conditional invalidity since the judgement of 2003Da318 decided on Aug. 22, 2003: In the following judgements of 2004Da42166 decided on Nov. 11, 2004 and 2005Da12452 decided on May 27, 2005, the Court stated that the selective/unilateral arbitration agreement that stipulates to resolve a dispute through arbitration or mediation would be valid as an effective arbitration agreement only if a party elects and proceeds an arbitration proceeding and another party responses to the arbitration proceeding without any objection. The definition of arbitration agreement, the formation of selective/unilateral arbitration agreement, the summary of relative judgements and academic theories will be reviewed in order to examine the appropriateness of the series of judgements of the Supreme Court. Based on such reviews, this article will investigate the adequacy of the Supreme Court judgements from the perspectives of i) the principle of party autonomy, ii) the structure of dispute resolution methods, iii) legal provisions of Arbitration Act, iv) legal stability, and v) the policy to revitalize the use of arbitration. At conclusion, this article will suggest the change of precedents of the Supreme Court's judgements with regard to the selective arbitral agreement.

• Korean Security Journal
• /
• no.11
• /
• pp.129-157
• /
• 2006

With rapid social change, by culminating the social hazards and the safety problems about it are on the increase too. According to the needs for the safety the demand of the private guard & security provided the safety and security service against danger is also increasing. As the need for the safety is increasing, so recently the private guard & security industry is extended. Therefore the purpose of this study is to grasp and carry out researches into the legal structure on the Security contract, is to analyze the formation of contract and find out the ensuing problem in order to prevent or settle the dispute which is apt to occur between the specific client and the security companies. In order to minimize the dispute going with security relationship in particular, it is necessary that one should write down the agreed contents as the document explicitly to make a security contract with the parties. Hereupon in the plan which standardizes the security contract with each parties autonomously, it is suggested that this study should present the model of Dispute Resolution Clause Especially it is the best means that it is amicable consultation or negotiation as the effective way of settlement methods of private dispute arising from the concerned parties. In inevitable case it recommends the method which solves the dispute by means of an arbitration than litigation at administration of justice(in terms of jurisdiction). If the parties wish to settle the disputes by arbitration, they must come to an arbitration agreement in the form of a arbitration clause in the security contract. After the test and evaluation through application utilizing it in actual security field, the security standard contract regulates about it and this terms should widely apply a individual case to whole industry.

• Korean Journal of Construction Engineering and Management
• /
• v.7 no.6
• /
• pp.99-111
• /
• 2006

Of the numerious dispute resolution methods, Alternative Dispute Resolution(ADR) is the most highly recommended approach for the guarantee bond-related dispute. In reality, however, claims were not resolved satisfactorily through ADR because of the lack of reference materials for negotiation, thus those were frequently had to be resolved through litigation. The above fact implies that, it is required to seek an efficient way to resolve the bond-related claims prior to they progress to litigation. This research paper intensively investigated judicial precedents of 232 cases with regard to construction bond-related disputes that observed during the analysis period(2000-2004). According to the summary statistics, it turned out that litigation were time consuming and potential economic loss was tremendous; on average, it takes 1067 days(the longest case was 1965 days) for dispute resolution. It suggests that litigations should be discouraged considering the magnitude of potential loss of stake holders. Research results revealed that there are some significant differences between categories in some variables affecting to the rate of winning; i) the number of lawsuit deputies of a plaintiff (in the 1st trial), ii) dispute locations (in the 1st and 3rd trials), iii) contract price (in the 1st trial), iv) contractors' operating capability (in the 1st and 2nd trials). For the rest of variables, significance level between categories was too low for preparing efficient improvement plan. Despite the important implications drawn from the analysis, this research has limitation due to the several reasons such as data structure, the depth of Information, etc. Therefore, more systematic research should be followed in the future.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.14 no.1
• /
• pp.273-314
• /
• 2004

There is a belief in the construction industry that the traditional court system may not be an ideal forum to effectively and efficiently resolve construction disputes due to the protracted proceedings and the three tier appeal system resulting in a long delay in the final and conclusive settlement of the dispute, relatively high costs involved, the lack of requisite knowledge and experience in the relevant industry, etc. Hence, they assert that certain alternative dispute resolution ('ADR') methods, such as mediation, conciliation, arbitration or a new system for dispute settlement in the form of any combination thereof should be developed and employed for construction disputes so as to resolve them more promptly and efficiently to the satisfaction of all the disputants concerned. This paper discusses certain merits of such assertions and the need for additional considerations for effective resolution of the construction disputes in light of the complexity of the case, importance of expert witnesses, parties' relationship and non-level playing field of the construction industry and so on. At the same time, however, given the inherent nature of disputes rendering the parties involved in an adversarial position, it would rather be difficult, if not practically impossible, to satisfy all the parties concerned in the dispute. Accordingly, in this study, it is also purported to address the demerits of such assertions by studying the situation from a more balanced perspective, in particular, in relation to the operation of such ADRs. In fact, most of such ADRs as stipulated by special acts, such as the Construction Industry Basic Act of Korea, in the form of mediation or conciliation, have failed to get support from the industry, and as a result, such ADRs are seldom used in practice. Tn contrast, the court system has been greatly improved by implementing a new concentrated review system and establishing several tribunals designed to specialize in the review and resolution of specific types of disputes, including the construction disputes. These improvements of the court system have been warmly received by the industry. Arbitration is another forum for settlement of construction disputes, which has grown and is expected to grow as the most effective ADR with the support from the construction industry. In this regard, the Korean Commercial Arbitration Board ('KCAB') has established a set of internal rules end procedures in operation to efficiently handle construction disputes. Considering the foregoing, this paper addresses the most important elements of the arbitration, i.e., arbitration agreement and arbitral award, primarily focusing on the domestic arbitrations before the KCAB. However, since this parer is prepared for presentation at the construction disputes seminar for the public audience, it is not intended for academic purposes, nor does it delve into any specific acadcmic issues. Likewise, although this paper addresses certain controversial issues by way of introduction, it mainly purports to facilitate the understanding of the general public, including the prospective arbitrators on the KCAB roster without the relevant legal education and background, concerning the importance of the integrity of the arbitration agreement and the arbitral award. In sum, what is purported in this study is simply to note that there are still many outstanding issues with mediation, conciliation and arbitration, as a matter of system, institutional operation or otherwise, for further study and consideration so as to enhance them as effective means for settlement of construction disputes, in replacement of or in conjunction with the court proceeding. For this purpose, it is essential for all the relevant parties, including lawyers, engineers, owners, contractors and social activists aiming to protect consumers' and subcontractors' interests, to conduct joint efforts to study the complicated nature of construction works and to develop effective means for examination and handling of the disputes of a technical nature, including the accumulation of the relevant industrial data. Based on the foregoing, the parties may be in a better position to select the appropriate dispute resolution mechanism, a court proceeding or in its stead, an effective ADR, considering the relevant factors of the subject construction works or the contract structure, such as the bargaining position of the parties, their financial status, confidentiality requirements, technical or commercial complexity of the case at hand, urgency for settlements, etc.

• Journal of the Korean association of regional geographers
• /
• v.7 no.4
• /
• pp.105-119
• /
• 2001

Currently serious conflicts arose for the use of coastal area in Korea. However, there is no mediation program or mediators' activities for conflict resolution which are shown in the developed countries. Even though, the MOMAF(Ministry of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries) was established in 1997 and the Division of Coastal Zone Management under the Ministry took over the authority to establish ICM program and formulated the CZMA(Coastal Zone Management Act) in 1998 after understanding the seriousness of coastal degradation due to the importance of coastal zone management and the understanding of dispute resolution, it still lacks consistency among legislative power on the continuous policy for wise coastal use and management which results coastal conflicts. The objective of this study is to lay the evaluation criteria for the formalized objective evaluation among disputants of coastal conflicts for the better understanding and characterizing of coastal conflicts in Korea. In order to do so, this study has adopted the PCA(Principal Component Analysis) for the subtraction of the components of evaluation mechanism to describe the present conditions of conflicts in the selected study area(Sihwa lake), to analyze the problems, and then to explore alternative approaches for resolving the conflicts. As research methodologies, we have depended upon literature review and field survey methods. As field survey methods, we employed structured questionnaires for the various samples from the experts of research institutes, professors, representatives of NGOs and citizens. Survey results suggested that 5 representative elements comprising 35 detailed elements could be identified. Based on these results, this study was able to identify and classify the evaluation mechanism and help to resolve coastal conflicts in Korea.

• KSCE Journal of Civil and Environmental Engineering Research
• /
• v.26 no.1D
• /
• pp.115-123
• /
• 2006

Recently, construction claims have been increased for protecting the rights of construction participants and effectively adjusting the changes under the contract. Thus, the importance of claim management has been emphasized in the construction industry. In domestic construction industry, some claim issues involved in construction activities are often being developed into disputes and even litigations because of the absence of methods or systems for the dispute resolution, and the lack of judicial precedents which can be provided as the references for resolving a particular dispute. In general, the judicial precedents related to the disputes and litigations occurred among construction participants would be extremely valuable in evaluating and analyzing current claims issues. However, such useful information has not been effectively accumulated and utilized in resolving the similar or sometimes identical types of disputes, thus requiring a large amount of additional costs, time and efforts. The primary objective of this study is to propose a web-based decision support system for construction claim management, which enables contractual participants to easily access and use the information of the judicial precedents related to the current construction claims. The decision support system is composed of 'prevention' and 'settlement' modules for avoiding and systematically resolving the construction claims.