• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.17 no.1
• /
• pp.169-208
• /
• 2016

"Act on Remedies for Injuries from Medical Malpractive and Mediation of Medical Disputes)" has been enacted to solve medical dispute. In addition, mediation and arbitration procedures have started since April 8th, 2012 from the Establishment of Korea Medical Dispute Mediation and Arbitration Agency. The average initiation rate of mediation for the past three years turned out to be 43%. Hereupon, Establishment of Korea Medical Dispute Mediation and Arbitration Agency has created a solution for automatic initiation if relevant to particular conditions to improve initiation rate of mediation procedures and passed it through the Assembly plenary session in May, 2016 and promulgated on the 30th of the same month. However, even if mediation procedure initiation rate is increased, there is no guarantee for mediation establishment rate to be improved according to current law. If Establishment of Korea Medical Dispute Mediation and Arbitration Agency intends to increase aforementioned value, automatic initiation is not the only solution. Instead, it seems to be a major assignment to identify fundamental reasons for why major health care facilities have not participated in it and to restore reliability on them. In addition, among crimes specified on the Article 268 of Criminal Act in the Article $51^*$ of "Act on Remedies for Injuries from Medical Malpractive and Mediation of Medical Disputes)", revision must be made so that the clause of clue and death by occupational or gross negligence is applied. Furthremore, it is suggested to supplement previously insufficient policies with the operation so that mediation procedures created by Establishment of Korea Medical Dispute Mediation and Arbitration Agency are stably settled in the perspective of medical institutions including the establishment of new conditions for medical institutions founders or health and medical service personnel to claim the proxy payment for damage.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.14 no.1
• /
• pp.43-83
• /
• 2013

Medical treatment has great potential for conflict. Even the best-trained doctors can commit medical malpractice that result in continuing physical or mental disabilities or even death. Medical conflicts have been increasing over years. The medical conflicts between patient and medical professionals that result from medical professionals' mistakes are often fueled by a violation on the pretext of the injuries form medical malpractice and can lead to litigation. The litigation usually cost a lot of money and time. The extension of the litigation period as well as expensive cost and lack of medical knowledge placing a great burden on patients. Alternative Dispute Resolution(ADR) is more efficient than litigation. In 1988, the medical dispute mediation system has been introduces as the Act on Remedy for Damage from Medical Accident and Medical Dispute Mediation by Korean Medical Association came into effect after 23 years of enactment efforts. Medical Dispute Mediation Act(hereinafter referred to as the "MDMA") has finally entered into force from 8 April 2012. The purpose of the MDMA is to promptly and fairly redress injuries caused by medical malpractice and create a stable environment for medical services of public health or medical professionals by providing for matters regarding the mediation and arbitration of medical disputes(MDMA ${\S}1$). In an effort to secure the fair, speedy and inexpensive resolution of every malpractice case, the Korea Medical Dispute Mediation and Arbitration Agency(hereinafter referred to as the "K-MEDI") was established. Following the MDMA, the K-MEDI shall endeavor to ensure the medical dispute mediation or arbitration proceedings are conducted in a prompt, fair, and efficient manner, and patients and medical professionals shall attend proceedings in good faith with mutual trust and understanding when they participate in medical dispute mediation or arbitration proceedings.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.17 no.1
• /
• pp.77-95
• /
• 2007

This article focuses on the history and evolution of the US court's attitude towards unilateral arbitration and dispute resolution clauses, but also considers the practical approach of national courts to theses clauses. It goes on to consider some potential pitfalls in the operation of unilateral clauses, which should be borne in mind when developing a strategy for bringing or defending a claim which falls within the scope of a unilateral clause. There can be few objections to the general validity of unilateral arbitration clauses. The principle of party autonomy is the driving force behind international arbitration and, provided it is tolerably clear that the parties intended the arbitration clause to operate unilaterally, courts should be reluctant to interfere with the parties' agreement. There are also no persuasive public policy reasons why such clauses should not be upheld in commercial agreements. In addition to the issue of whether such unilateral clauses are permissible under certain law, it is important to be aware of how they should properly operate in practice, that is, useful guidance on the subject of the proper operation and effect of such clauses where they are intended to be used to enable a party to decide whether, and in what circumstances, a claim should be referred to court or to arbitration.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.17 no.3
• /
• pp.101-119
• /
• 2007

Arbitration is contractual by nature. One cannot be required to submit to arbitration any dispute which he has not agreed to so submit. As commercial transactions become increasingly complex, involving multiple parties and numerous contracts for a single transaction, however, limiting the parties who are subject to arbitration to only those who have signed a contract containing an arbitration clause would frustrate the purpose of such arbitration clause and might lead to injustice among the relevant parties. Therefore, U.S. courts have recognized a number of theories under which non-signatories may be bound to the arbitration agreement of others: (1) incorporation by reference; (2) assumption; (3) agency; (4) veil-piercing/alter ego; and (5) estoppel. Incorporation by reference and veil-piercing theories have already been recognized by Korean courts. Agency theory and estoppel theory are not recognizable under Korean law. However, the same or similar result may be achieved by applying the third party beneficiary theory or assumption by third party theory. Although a couple of Supreme Court cases appear to be at odds with the assumption theory, on the basis of the recent amendments to the Arbitration Act, such court precedents can be and should be reversed.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.33 no.1
• /
• pp.51-76
• /
• 2023

It is important who is bound by an arbitration agreement and what is the subject of the agreement in resolving disputes through arbitration. However, there are no provisions on them in the Korean Arbitration Act. Where an arbitration agreement is valid, the persons who are bound by the agreement cannot bring the claims which are the subject of the agreement to a court. Therefore, in determining the subjective scope of the effect of an arbitration agreement, we should make allowances for the essential qualities of arbitration to ensure the efficient resolution of disputes on the basis of the parties' agreement, and take caution not to infringe on the rights to be tried in court. Where the rights or legal relationships constituting the dispute that is the subject of the arbitration agreement have been assigned, the effect of the arbitration agreement between the predecessor and the other party should be extend to the successor, when it is agreed to transfer the status under the arbitration agreement to the successor between the three. However, in the absence of such an agreement, it is necessary to weigh the interests between the predecessor, the other party and the successor to determine whether the arbitration agreement has any effect on the successor. Arbitration is a method of resolving disputes based on the agreement of the parties. If it matters whether third parties who are not parties to the arbitration agreement is bound by the arbitration agreement or may invoke it, it should be resolved according to the intentions of the parties. Where the parties to an arbitration agreement have agreed to allow a third party to invoke the arbitration agreement, the effect of the arbitration agreement will extend to the third party. However, even if the parties to the arbitration agreement have not expressly agreed on this, when it is recognized that the parties have sought to resolve the dispute through arbitration even in relation to a third party by exploring the reasonable intentions of the parties, the effect of the arbitration agreement will extend to the third party.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.15 no.3
• /
• pp.113-137
• /
• 2005

In the provisions of 'the Arbitration Law of China, there are special provisions for international arbitration. When a court refuses the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards or cancel the domestic awards relating to international arbitration, they have to adopt the provisions of 'Chinese Civil Procedure Law'. These provisions are the same as the provisions of Korean Civil Procedure Law concerning the reasons of renewal. In the Korean Arbitration Act, those provisions disappeared when it was revised on December 31, 1999. Among the characteristics of the Chinese arbitration system, a serious question is that it provides only institutional arbitration and there is no ad-hoc arbitration in the Chinese Arbitration Law. On the other hand, when the parties appoint three arbitrators according to their agreement, the parties appoint the third arbitrator by mutual agreement and when they fail to agree, the Arbitration Committee appoints the third arbitrator. In practice, as the parties hardly agree on the third arbitrator or sole arbitrator, the Committee usually appoints them. And appointing an arbitrator from out of their panel of arbitrators is permitted these days only under examination by the Arbitration Committee in accordance with the arbitration rules of the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission, Other arbitration committees except the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission are still prohibited from making appointments from out of their panel of arbitrators. Accordingly, arbitration in China cannot be predicted and poses a question about legal stability as party autonomy is restricted in the appointment of arbitrators and arbitral procedure. Such being the case it is strongly recommended to select Korea as the place of arbitration in transactions with China. However it is better to arbitrate than to file a law suit in China.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.20 no.3
• /
• pp.3-24
• /
• 2010

In the approaching 21th century, the outstanding development in international trade and commerce has established arbitration as the preferred form of dispute resolution on international business transaction. Because the form of commercial dispute becomes more complicated and varied with the quantitative increase of them, the reasonable and rapid settlement of them must be the important problem simultaneously. In this article, the author discusses various issues on the recognition and enforcement of an foreign arbitral awards under Korean Arbitration Act, which is modeled after the Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration of the UNCITRAL of 1985. The Dec. 31, 1999 amendment to the Korean Arbitration Act admits the basis for enforcement of foreign arbitral awards rendered under United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards of 1958(commonly known as the New York Convention). Korea has acceded to the New York Convention since 1973. When acceding to the convention, Korea declared that it will apply the Convention to the recognition and enforcement of awards made only in the territory of anther Contracting State on the basis of reciprocity. Also, Korea declared that it will apply the Convention only to differences arising out of legal relationships, whether contractual or not, which are considered as commercial under the national law of Korea. The provision relating to the enforcement of arbitral awards falling under the New York Convention consists of Article III, IV, V. In particular, Article V of the New York Convention enumerates the grounds for refusal of recognition foreign arbitral awards. The grounds are separated into two categories : One that abides by procedures and the others are based on national legal sovereignty. In Korea, a holder of a foreign arbitral award is obliged to request from the court a judgment ordering enforcement of awards. Because Korea requires enforcement to be based on a judgement, the result is that arbitral of award holders are forced to institute domestic litigation.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.17 no.1
• /
• pp.33-55
• /
• 2007

Parties to national or international disputes use arbitration because they think it is faster than litigation or affords privacy. But it is very important for the parties that the decision of arbitrators is made impartially and independently. For the parties to accept the outcome of an arbitration, it is essential that the final outcome be the result of an impartial process, especially because arbitration is a form of adjudication, albeit a private one. The success of arbitration resides in the conduct of arbitrators. The more independent and impartial arbitrators are, the more trustworthy arbitration will be. Just as court procedures allow for the recusal of judges under certain circumstances, the arbitral process provides means to remove arbitrators from a tribunal if arbitrator can no longer be considered impartial or independent. This is blown as the disqualification or challenge of arbitrators. An arbitrator can also be challenged when he or she does not fulfill the contactually agreed and stipulated qualifications required by the arbitral agreement. An arbitrator's inability to act impartially could give rise to a challenge to the arbitrator, and even to the award. However, deciding whether an interest or relationship could give rise to an apprehension of bias is a difficult issue for every arbitrator. The standard of arbitrator's impartiality and independence is not commensurable to that of judge, because the parties are permitted considerable autonomy in selecting arbitrators. Particularly it may be expected for the party-appointed arbitrator to act as the advocate of the party in the deliberations of the tribunal. Doubts that could give rise to a challenge to the arbitrator should be justifiable. That is the case if a reasonable, informed third party would conclude that the arbitrator's decision making might be influenced by factors other than evidence presented by the parties. Consequently, for example, the mere fact that an arbitrator was to work in the same firm as one of the parties' counsel, this could not automatically be considered as grounds for challenge for lack of impartiality.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.30 no.3
• /
• pp.3-19
• /
• 2020

With the advent of the Free Trade Agreement between Korea and the U.S. and an increase in trade volume between the two countries, the possibility of commercial disputes has escalated among international merchants. It has been well-known that arbitration as an alternative dispute resolution is an efficient way to resolve international commercial disputes. When arbitral awards are enforced in the judicial system, the court will inevitably have to be involved with the enforcement procedures. The court is a typical legal entity to confirm arbitral awards. Through a confirmation process, the winning party obtains the same legal status of final judgment rendered by the court. However, a winning party in arbitration will have to overcome a legal hurdle in the enforcement process of arbitral awards. This article aims to investigate how the courts control the arbitration practices and what the basic legal issues in the enforcement of arbitral awards are. The US Federal Arbitration Act is investigated, while relevant cases are reviewed and updated for legal analysis.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.33 no.2
• /
• pp.23-52
• /
• 2023

In this thesis, the domestic and foreign legislative background and legislative process of the Serious Accident Punishment Act were reviewed, and the Serious Accident Punishment Act in Korea was reviewed. In 2022, more safety accidents occurred in the construction industry than in other fields, and in particular, the most deaths occurred in the 'fall' type. In April 2023, regarding two criminal first-instance trial cases, the courts all sentenced guilty, and in one case, the representative of the company(CEO) was sentenced to imprisonment and was arrested. In response, the management side expresses the opinion that the punishment is excessive and there is a concern that corporate management will shrink, while the workers side(Union) argues that the responsibility of the business operator or manager should be strengthened by heavier punishment. As a countermeasure to overcome rationally, we present a plan in terms of legislation and resolution process. In other words, we present a review of the amendment to the Serious Accident Punishment Act and the Court Organization Act. In addition, guidelines for the a safety and health system must be implemented, and if an accident occurs, it must be dealt with reasonably. As a result, safety accidents in the construction industry should drastically decrease and safety culture should be properly established.