• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.8 no.1
• /
• pp.123-148
• /
• 1998

Recently many controversies originate for varies reasons, ranging from normal market competition to honest disagreements about rights. Disputes also arise from the clash between institutions and individuals. A free society should provide many systems for resolving controversies. We think of the courts as being primary, but, of course, they are not. In Korea, and in most other parts of the world, disagreements are resolved informally, without the need for judicial intervention. Settlements are worked out privately, usually without lawyers and certainly without judges. Most of judges are finding it difficult to cope with the needs and demands of society. Many businessmen who no longer want to get involved in lawsuits, are looking for alternative methods for resolving their disputes. However, there are actually two systems, litigation and arbitration only, to resolve disputes with binding both parties concerned. Litigation emphasizes on the equity and the justice with allowing three time's judgment for the resonable resolution, and arbitration, which is not subject to appeal, stress on the economic settlement rather than justice. Arbitration process results in a final and binding decisions. Although arbitration is a voluntary procedures that is created by the parties themselves, arbitration differs from mediation and conciliation because of its binding power. Arbitration is today coming into fashion as our primary methods for settling disputes. No company wants to have its funds tied up for long periods. Many parties prefer that the decision be final, rather than facing the prospect of extended appellate litigation. Therefore, government must encourage parties to settle their disputes by arbitration instead of litigation.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.29 no.1
• /
• pp.91-113
• /
• 2019

The fashion industry has been growing in Korea, but the law and the dispute resolution have been less than effective so far. Copyright and patent law have proven only minimally effective in fashion, ending up with designers and fashion companies relying on their trademarks to protect their design. Litigating trademark disputes in the fashion industry presents a host of problems and leads to resorting to the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). ADR methods, especially arbitration, however, are emerging as substitutes to litigation. Using these methods, the fashion industry should sincerely consider a self-regulating program in which its members-both fashion designers and corporations alike-can resolve disputes in a manner mutually beneficial to all parties in order to preserve the industry's growth, solidarity, and esteem. From 2016, KCAB's Fashion Industry Dispute Advisory Committee (FIDAC) for ADR has promoted a better solution for disputes in the fashion industry. Therefore, stakeholders in the fashion industry should commit to procuring innovation in fashion on a long-term basis by establishing a panel handling an alternate dispute resolution process. The ADR process can mitigate the uncertainty created by relevant legislation or any other disputes, which could result in shying away from any business in the fashion industry.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.32 no.1
• /
• pp.3-24
• /
• 2022

Today's society appears to be entering a hyper-connected society due to mental notions and information communication technologies being converged for advanced development. Trade between countries around the world is increasing amidst the digital economy and fourth industrial revolution, which is being accompanied by a growing number of trade disputes. Appropriately resolving disputes is crucial for corporate growth, and ADR is drawing attention as a more reasonable solution between interested parties compared to lawsuits. This also applies to international trade as there is growing movements to resolve disputes between parties more efficiently and feasibly through mediation. The adaptation of an international convention for implementation in a third country for settlement agreements drawn up through such international mediation is a new and unprecedented attempt. In other words, the Singapore Convention on Mediation looks to resolve international commercial disputes by granting executive force on the outcomes of mediations. However, a system to solve various legal issues must be put into place to execute the outcomes in the respective country or third country, and a variety of tools for this are necessary.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.21 no.2
• /
• pp.27-46
• /
• 2011

In the intellectual based society of the 21th century, intellectual property of nation and enterprise management has been the key element of nation's competitiveness and development. Therefore in countries like Korea, China, and many other countries, intellectual property of advancement strategy are being constructed and intellectual properties are protected at national level. Top priority task of protecting the intellectual property is to efficiently resolute intellectual property right disputes. Considering the nature of intellectual property right and arbitrage system, arbitration to solve intellectual property disputes is realistically the best method. However, not all cases of them are qualified. In order to relieve the intellectual property disputes through arbitration, qualification must be obtained. During the process, generally and globally, intellectual property right dispute is evaluated by three parts, intellectual property right contract dispute, intellectual property right violation dispute, and intellectual property right validity dispute. Based on UN's "Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards Agreement" in 1958, June 10th, in New York, both arbitrage organization and judgment can be approved in both Korea and China countries. However, as of today, there is a big gap of arbitration qualification between two countries, which can be troublesome if intellectual property right disputes arise. For instance, in Korea, intellectual property right contract disputes and intellectual property right violation disputes are both generally accepted as arbitration qualification. However for intellectual property right validity dispute, arbitration qualification is only accepted for non-registered intellectual property as in copyright entity. It does not apply to other registered intellectual property right as in patents. In China, arbitration qualification is accepted for intellectual property right contract dispute, and also accepted for intellectual property right violation dispute to copyrights but restricted to others. As for intellectual property right validity dispute, arbitration qualification is completely denied. Therefore, when there is an intellectual property right dispute between Korea and China, the biggest problem is whether China will accept arbitrage judgments made in Korea. Theoretically, arbitrage judgement made in Korea should be also accepted in China's court. However, considering the criticism of China's passive nature of arbitration qualification for its own local intellectual property right disputes, it's very unlikely they'll actively accept arbitrary judgment made in foreign countries. Korea and China must have a more open minded approach for intellectual property disputes and arbitration qualification. Base on WTO's Intellectual Property Right Agreement, it's being defined as private right. Therefore, sovereign principle should be the basic principle of solving intellectual property right disputes. Currently, arbitration qualification is expanding internationally. So both Korea and China must also follow the trend expand the arbitration qualification with a more open minded and forward looking approach, for the good of intellectual property disputes.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.11 no.1
• /
• pp.75-93
• /
• 2001

The advantages of arbitration such as promptness, economy and flexibility apply to the disputes arising from corporate governance between shareholders and a corporation. The confidentiality of arbitration can be particularly highlighted in the disputes among the members inside corporation. But it appears that the shareholders believe litigation the best way to pursue liabilities of managers of corporation and improve the system of corporate governance. And it is claimed that the current litigation system lacks the implementation of shareholders rights due to structural deficiency and therefore need bring class actions into the system of Korean jurisprudence. The OECD, which afforded the rescue finances to Korea, also recommended shareholder class actions as a way to improve corporate governance. Class actions have merits but even advanced countries consider the changes of existing system or only stay class actions in the stage of discussion. Rather, legal experts urge arbitration to be used more frequently and the Courts also approved the dispute resolutions of the disputes as to corporate governance through arbitration. There is no report in Korea that arbitration was used to resolve the disputes between shareholders and the managers, or between shareholders and corporation, which is listed in the Stock Market. There only are the debates for bring class actions into the judicial system between NGOs and the organizations of corporate managers. But arbitration has greater advantages in resolving the disputes among the members of corporation that any other methods for dispute resolution. Arbitration can interpret flexibly the mandatory provisions of the Statutes of Security and the Code of Commerce to meet the needs of parties involved, which is not possible to the Courts. Arbitration can issue the award to meet the equity of the parties. And arbitration can avoid a resolution of All or Nothing by fully considering the specific situations of Korean corporations(such as family-dominated management) and can issue the award beneficial to all parties of shareholders, managers and corporation. Thus it should be sought to resolve the disputes as to corporate governance through arbitration.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.16 no.2
• /
• pp.3-49
• /
• 2006

The purpose of this paper is to make research on the settlement mechanism of the commercial disputes between the South and the North of Korea. Also, this paper is to make research on the south-north Korea's cooperative tasks to promote the disputes settlement, including the operation and management of the South-North Arbitration Commission as well as the enactment of the South-North Arbitration Rules. To realize the spirit of the South-North Joint Declaration of June 15, 2000, the Authorities concerned of the South and the North of Korea have reached an agreement titled 'Agreement on Settlement Procedure of Commercial Disputes' on December of the same year. As the follow-up measures of the said Agreement, the South-North Authorities have signed an another agreement called 'Agreement on Organization and Administration of the South-North Arbitration Commission' on October, 2003, which is becoming vital importance for settlement of the commercial disputes between south and north Korea including the Gaeseong Industrial Complex. Gaeseong, a city surrounded by the North Korean military and a symbol of inter-Korean tensions, is now turning into a peace zone where thousands of North and South Koreans are working side by side. The Gaeseong Industrial Complex project, driven by the logic and economic necessity of cooperation, has been steadily moving forward since the North designated it as a special economic zone and has enacted related laws and regulations for its development. Under the situation, the matter of primary concern is how to organize and conduct the Arbitration Commission for the prompt and effective settlement of the south-north commercial disputes. First of all, the South-North Authorities should recognize that the availability of prompt, effective and economical means of dispute resolution such as arbitration and mediation to be made by the Arbitration Commission would promote the orderly growth and encouragement of the south-north trade and investment. In this connection, the Korean Commercial Arbitration Board(KCAB) should be designated as the arbitral institution of the south Korean side under the Agreement on Organization and Administration of the South-North Arbitration Commission. The KCAB is the only authorized arbitral organization in South Korea to settle all kinds of commercial disputes at home and abroad.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.13 no.1
• /
• pp.125-167
• /
• 2003

ADR program is designed to solve the problem such as the increase of suits and decision delayed. ADR program has the several significances, decreasing inappropriate cost as time and burden of courts, providing an approachable measure of relief and more efficient tool for settlement of dispute. Particularly ADR program satisfies the needs Intellectual property disputes need specialists that are versed in the subjected problem and, need to be souled quickly in confidence. And parties concerned are not good at the strict judicial procedure in courts, At this point, ADR program holds some advantages over court proceeding for intellectual property disputes. Specialists can be selected as arbitrators or mediator; Cofidentiality may be preserved; Flexibility allows settlement based on mutual commercial interests; Single solution is possible for multiple disputes involving parties from different countries. However, ADR program has not been properly used in. Korea, which is due to not only the lack of understanding the ADR program, but the poor number of filings and settlements. Intermediaries are not professional and also they do not take active hands in disputes. Sometimes, their fairness is asked as peacemakers. Eventually, it is said that this program is not enough to settle international disputes. To activate the ADR program, we can propose the ADR program annexed to court for example. And we can introduce the conciliation and arbitration to disputes in intellectual property. Traditionally arbitration has been a crucial issue in intellectual property disputes. In that intellectual property rights are granted by the local sovereign power, many legal systems in the past maintained the position that the existence, extent, meaning and application of such rights could only be definitively decided by the granting authority or the courts of that country. There is wide recognition that the arbitration of intellectual property is desirable. The law in most of the major countries has been changed in recent years in favor of arbitrability of intellectual property rights. We can also propose ADR on-line.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.12 no.2
• /
• pp.185-220
• /
• 2003

Korean Government is increasingly focusing on the Northeast Asia Business and Logistics Hub strategy to create a competitive advantage. A key element of this strategy is creating or leveraging distribution and logistics hubs that act as centres for distribution in Northeast Asia. A Northeast Asian e-Hub Policy is required for business hub and logistics hub in the Northeastern Asia. An e-Hub is an integrated, sophisticated set of e-Biz, information and e-trade facilities and services that provides access to a marketplace and exchangee the e-trade data. To study the e-Hub policy, Pan Asian e-Commerce Alliance, Korea-Japan e-Trade Hub project, and ASEM e-Trade project are considered. E-trade via cyberspace may need new methods of dispute resolution to reduce transaction costs for small value-related disputes and to erect structures that work well across national boundaries. Voluntary Mediation Councils and cyber tribunals should be encouraged by governmental sectors to continue developing private sector mechanisms to resolve e-trade disputes. Government-sponsored online cross-border dispute resolution systems may be also be useful to complement these private sector approaches. E-trade in Northeast Asia results in disputes owing to the incompleteness of e-trade law in the countries. These disputes contain disputes regarding e-trade model, central title registry, authentication body. To resolve these disputes in the Northeast Asia, a variety of electronic alternative dispute resolution bodies must be organized under cooperation of Korea, Japan, China. This study deals with the e-ADR construction in the Northeast Asia to resolve the disputes in the e-trade and to activate the e-trade in the Northeast Asia.

• International Area Studies Review
• /
• v.13 no.1
• /
• pp.371-389
• /
• 2009

Recently the ordinances of the Conciliation Committee of Distribution Disputes have been enacted and revised throughout the country. The purposes of the ordinances are to establish and operate the Conciliation Committee of Distribution Dispute. But several problems have been found in the ordinances of the Conciliation Committee of Distribution Disputes. These are the appointment of the chairman of the Conciliation Committee of Distribution Disputes, appointment of the acting chairman of the committee, consolidation of the requests of conciliation, challenge of the committee member. Also, the conciliator must keep in mind the several consideration when the Conciliation Committee of Distribution Disputes render the conciliation. These are the mutual survival between large distributer and small and medium distributer, care of consumer in the region, the growth and development of regional economy.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.20 no.3
• /
• 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.