• 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.12 no.1
• /
• pp.271-321
• /
• 2002

Every year, many million of business transactions take place. Ocassionally, disagreements develop over these business transactions. Many of these disputes are resolved by mediation, arbitration and out-of-court settlement options. The American Arbitration Association(AAA) helps resolve a wide range of disputes through mediation, arbitration, elections and other out-of-court settlement procedures. The AAA offers a broad range of dispute resolution services to business executives, attorneys, individuals, trade associations, unions, management, consumers, families, communities, and all level of governments. The 198,491 cases composed of the 194,303 arbitration cases and the 4,188 mediation cases, were filed with the AAA in 2000. These case filings represent a full range of matters, including commercial finance, construction, labor and employment, environmental, health care, insurance, real state, securities, and technology disputes. The Korean Commercial Arbitration Board (KCAB) does more than render arbitration services. It helps facilitate settlements and guarantee implementation thereof between trading partners at home and abroad involving disputes related to such areas as the sale of commodities, construction, joint venture agreements, technical assistance, agency agreements, and maritime transport. The 643 cases composed of the the 197 arbitration cases and the 446 mediation cases, were filed with the KCAB in 2001. There are some differences between the AAA and the KCAB regarding the number and the area of mediation and arbitration case filings, the breath of service offerings, the scope of alternative dispute resolution, and the education and training. In order to apply to the proceedings of the commercial mediation and arbitration, the AAA has the Commercial Mediation Rules, the Commercial Arbitration Rules, the Expedited Procedures, the Optional Procedures for Large, Complex Commerical Dispute, and the Optional Rules for Emergency Measures of Protection as amended and effective on September 1, 2000. In order to apply to the proceedings of commercial arbitration, the KCAB has the Arbitration Rules as amended by the Supreme Court on April 27, 2000, which have been changed to incorporate the revisions of the Arbitration Act that went into effect on December 31, 1999. There are some differences between the AAA's commercial Arbitration Rules and the KCAB's Arbitration Rules regarding the clauses of jurisdiction and administrative conference, number of arbitrators, communication with arbitrator, vacancies, preliminary hearing, exchange of information, oaths, evidence by affidavit and posthearing filing of documents or others, interim measures, serving of notice, form of award, scope of award, delivery of award to parties, modification of award, release of liability, administrative fees, neutral arbitrator's compensation, and expedited procedures. In conclusion, for the vitalization of KCAB and its ADR system, the following measures should be taken : the effective case management, the development of on0-line ADR, the establishment of ADR system of electronic commerce disputes, and the variety of dispute resolution rules in each expert field.

• Health Policy and Management
• /
• v.31 no.3
• /
• pp.280-291
• /
• 2021

Background: Based on the fact that the Korea Medical Dispute Mediation and Arbitration Agency is a public institution established by social demands for medical disputes, this study reviews the publicness of public organization and discusses its policy implications. Methods: Through Moore's strategic triangle, which consists of legitimacy and support, public value and operational capacity, the process of creating public value is examined. For the analysis, case studies were conducted using related literature data from 2012, when the agency was established, to the present. Results: As a result of the analysis, first, the related law examined in the operational capability has been revised dozens of times, but the revised law has its own contradictions and limitations. The human resource system is also being improved, but there is a problem with the fairness and reliability of the arbitration process, especially due to the limitations of the appraiser system. Second, in terms of legitimacy and support, a regional gap occurred despite efforts to improve accessibility through the expansion of the organization. And the arbitration agency failed to reconcile conflicts caused by stakeholders' perception of each other as a trade-off relationship. Third, the public value result shows that, despite many explicit (statistical) achievements, citizens' use of the past dispute resolution means (litigation) has not decreased. Likewise, the perception of value makers (citizens) is important for creating public value as an invisible result, but it has not yet been formally investigated, so the performance can not be recognized. Conclusion: While the organization's efforts for continuous change and improvement are encouraging, it is not perceived as a better means of resolving disputes and improving quality of services. Therefore, it is necessary to reconsider the institutional design centered on value creators.

• Korea Trade Review
• /
• v.43 no.5
• /
• pp.139-158
• /
• 2018

As trade volume increases and the business environment becomes more complex and competitive, international trade disputes are also increasing and becoming more complex. Parties need to become more aware of alternatives to costly and time consuming arbitration and litigation. The ADR (Alternative Dispute Resolution) can encompass all dispute resolution processed and can act as a substitute for traditional litigation. Mediation, a type of ADR, offers an amicable dispute settlement mechanism between concerned parties through a natural mediator. There are several strong points of mediation compared with litigation or arbitration. First of all, mediation can take place without having to complete time-consuming and expensive discovery processes associated with litigation. In addition, since mediation is considered a private process, the dispute can remain out of the public eye. It can be embarrassing and disrupt business when customer or suppliers learn that a company is involved in litigation. Lastly, mediation is less adversarial than litigation or arbitration, so the parties often can salvage their relationships. Often the parties to mediation find themselves continuing to conduct business. In spite of such benefits of mediation, it is less used in Korea and therefore, this article aims to promote the mediation system in international trade disputes. However, this paper has limitation, for example, why ADR is not used well in Korea and need to suggest how ADR can work best in international trade disputes.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.13 no.2
• /
• pp.403-424
• /
• 2004

In the solutions of civil disputes, there are decision of a court and alternative dispute resolution. Arbitration is one of alternative dispute resolutions. The decision of a court is the compulsory settlement and the solution by citizenship between two opposing parties, but arbitration is the autonomous and voluntary settlement by a private person, that is arbitrator. Besides these points, arbitration has various features in comparison with a decision of a court. The procedure of arbitration is not open to the public and single trial system guarantees speedy solution of disputes In the procedure of arbitration, arbitrator who pass judgement is selected and appointed by the parties to an affair. And there are questions how the arbitrator to become independent from them. Because Arbitration is not agreed solution which based on the concession between opposing two parties but imposed solution which is alike decision of a court. This study illustrates the system of challenge on arbitrator to guarantee independence of arbitrators.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.27 no.2
• /
• pp.3-18
• /
• 2017

International legal reviews on ISD, a procedure for resolving disputes under the Korea-US FTA, are examined from the perspective of law. If the ISD system does not exist, even if the investor suffers damage due to the illegal act of the host country, he or she must file a lawsuit through the court of the host country, which is unreasonable from the investor's point of view and makes it difficult to guarantee fairness and transparency. Some of the Koreans pointed out that there are some problems with the KORUS FTA dispute settlement regulations, and that the United States federal courts are taking a friendly attitude to the decisions made by the US Customs in determining the dispute by the KORUS FTA Agreement and the US Customs Act. In cases where the State does not violate international law but results in harmful consequences, the responsibility of one country is borne by the treaty. Foreign investment always comes with many challenges and risks. Therefore, the ISD system is a fair and universal arbitration system, which is considered to be a necessary system even for protecting the Korean companies investing abroad. In the investment treaty, compensation for the nationalization of foreign property and reimbursement under the laws of the host country were dissatisfied with foreign investors. In particular, some Koreans have pointed out that there are some problems in the KORUS FTA dispute resolution regulations and there is a need for further discussion and research. Based on the experiences and wisdoms gained in the course of Korea-US FTA negotiations, the dispute arbitration mechanism is urgently needed to reduce the possibility of disputes and to make amicable directions.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.14 no.2
• /
• pp.3-46
• /
• 2004

To realize the spirit of the South-North Joint Declaration of June 15, 2000, the competent authorities of the South and the North of Korea have reached two Agreements to settle commercial disputes as well as to set up an arbitral organization called 'South-North Commercial Arbitration Commission'. The Commission is an institutional organization for settlement of commercial disputes arising from trade and investment between south and north Korea. Under the situation, it is becoming a problem of vital importance how to manage and control the Commission for prompt and effective settlement of south-north commercial disputes. While analyzing the above two Agreements for dispute-settlement mechanism, the author proposes desirable ideas and directions in connection with the Commission as follows: 1. First of all, the Commission should become a central common system for settlement of commercial disputes which meets the demand of capitalistic market economy. 2. The Authorities of south and north Korea should recognize that the availability of prompt, effective and economical means of disputes resolution such as arbitration and conciliation to be made by the Commission would promote the orderly growth and encouragement of south-north trade and investment. 3. The Korean Commercial Arbitration Board(KCAB) should be designated as the Arbitration Commission of South Korea because the KCAB is the only authorized institution in South Korea, statutorily empowered to settle any kind of commercial disputes at home and abroad.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.24 no.1
• /
• pp.3-24
• /
• 2014

The Arbitration Act of Korea entered into force on December 31, 1999. It was modeled after the UNCITRAL Model Arbitration Law to meet the goal of the internationalization of the arbitration system of South Korea mainly in terms of the System (Alternative Dispute Resolution) Act. In general, a hearing of arbitration is made up of an arbitrator, claimant, and respondent. This is accomplished in a single core. The advantages of arbitration are low cost and confidentiality. In addition, there is the participation of experts and rapidity with a single core agent. However, under the current Arbitration Act, there is no provision expressly relating to the qualifications of arbitrators. This should be accomplished by the arbitration act enforcement ordinance. Following specific details of the 'party' in conjunction with all the provisions of the Arbitration Act, Article 1 should be revised in a timely manner so that "conflict of private law" covers cases in which a dispute between the parties is desirable. In addition, in Article 3 the phrasing of "also dispute 'judicial'" should be revised to over disputes between parties. Furthermore, the provisions of Article 40 are described in the Supplement and so it is preferable to address Supplementary Delete. In addition, this study will analyze ADR in Japan and present a plan to establish a law to resolve disputes outside of court in that country. Therefore, the objective of this study is to assist in the study of legislating fundamental law for alternative dispute resolution. In spite of this, there are many in business and academia who would like to modify the arbitration system in South Korea to improve its function. There is much interest in accomplishing this,so proposals for legislation should continue to be made.In order to accomplish this, the arbitration systems of developed countries such as the United States can be used as a model. It can be seen that despite the idea that the parties involved engage in arbitration autonomously, many elements of the process from the selection of the arbitrator of the arbitral tribunal are specified in legislation and thus it is necessary to develop legislation that will allow arbitration to perform its intended function. Any given arbitral tribunal can be specialized, typically in a case an arbitrator who is an expert in the field is selected. This helps to avoid complaints concerning the results of the arbitration. In the case of international arbitration, however, this provision is often not employed and instead it is necessary to provide a Schedule and Supplement concerning international arbitration. Finally, the promotion of the enactment of the Arbitration Law Enforcement Ordinance must be a top priority in order to ensure proper implementation of the arbitration law.

• International conference on construction engineering and project management
• /
• 2022.06a
• /
• pp.551-562
• /
• 2022

The building production system has been analysed by the dichotomy "employer-contractor" relationship, which failed to take into account of the role and function of multiple stakeholders within the life-cycle supply chain. This is further observed in the current conflict resolution model, which, in my argument, struggles to contribute to industrialize the building production and achieve better efficiency and effectiveness as expected. The purpose of this paper is to critically assess the issues of current programme-based conflict resolution model, and discuss alternative models how they can be modelled and applied to the construction projects. The conclusions of findings are; First, the current model is framed around the contracts and dispute resolutions based on the legal concept of "claimant and respondent" where one party(s) advances a claim once and the other(s) objects, as such it fails to reflect the nature of construction projects where multiple stakeholders are involved concurrently and for a long period of life-cycle of buildings. Second, an alternative is "Six-stakeholders model" which represents the multiple stakeholders and clarifies the flow of obligation-liability-monetary relationships among participants for a long period of life-cycle of buildings. Further, with reference to both historical and recent cases, a reflection and insight into pros and cons of programming method is added, especially as to why this method is considered to have become a mandate of the modern construction management, and how academics and practitioners should deal with it more cautiously and prudently.

• Journal of Digital Convergence
• /
• v.15 no.12
• /
• pp.203-212
• /
• 2017

This research analyzed the factors that have the influences on the intentions to use the consumer dispute settlement system for the small- and medium-sized corporations. The consumer dispute settlement system is a general Internet information portal service which enables the small- and medium-sized corporations and the small businesses receive the support for the accurate damage handling method and the legal service through the Internet in their disputes with the black consumers or the consumers. With the small- and medium-sized corporation users who use the consumer dispute settlement system as the subjects, the research took a lot at what influences the consumer dispute settlement system has on the quality of the information, the quality of the system, the ease-of-use regarding which the environmental factors are perceived, and the ease that was perceived and, finally, what influences it has on the intention of the use. The accuracy, the convenience, and the costs of the consumer dispute settlement system had the positive influences on the ease-of-use that was perceived and the accuracy and the convenience, also had the positive influences on the usefulness that was perceived. Also, it was verified that the ease-of-use of the consumer dispute settlement system that was perceived and the usefulness of use of the consumer dispute settlement system that was perceived finally had the positive influence relationships with the intention of the use. It is highly expected that if, based on the results of this research, the quality of the consumer dispute settlement system is maintained and supplemented to fit the priority order, there will be the maintenance of, and the development toward, a system that is even more improved than the previously existent system.