• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제23권1호
• /
• pp.85-105
• /
• 2013

The entertainment industry has developed along with current Korean wave fever, and so entertainment-related disputes are increasing rapidly. Litigation is a poor fit for entertainment disputes because of characteristics such as temporal sensitivity. Thus, in the US, the entertainment industry resolves these disputes through ADR mechanisms like arbitration, but cases of settling such disputes through arbitrations are very rare in Korea. This study examined the characteristics and types of entertainment disputes and considered the compatibility of arbitration as a method for settling disputes, and then suggested tasks for revitalizing arbitration systems as entertainment dispute resolution procedures. Arbitrations have many merits, such as the rapid pace of procedures, confidentiality, satisfying the long-term desires of business relationships, the low cost of settling disputes, judgments rendered by experts, etc.; thus, it is a very suitable mechanism to settle entertainment-related disputes. The study proposes necessary steps for revitalizing arbitration systems for entertainment disputes. First, awareness of entertainment industry workers about the arbitration system should be raised. Second, special educational programs for members the of Korean Commercial Arbitration Board related to entertainment should be set up and operated together with encouraging positive attitudes toward actions like establishing a dedicated arbitration unit on entertainment disputes. Third, neutral, professional arbitrators should be secured and aggressive disclosures made. Fourth, a professional ADR organization such as an "Entertainment Arbitration Committee" should be established.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제17권2호
• /
• pp.141-165
• /
• 2007

This study aims to make a contribution to the promotion of trade and economic development of South Korea, and, at the same time, call attention to the increasing trend of investment agreements concluded within Free Trade Agreements (FTA) by examining theoretically FTAs and dispute resolution and investigating systematically the conclusion procedure of agreements, and the system, institutions, and jurisdiction of dispute resolution, and presenting these findings to the government and investors involved. The most problematic aspect in the legal process of arbitration involving disputes over investment is that of arguments concerning the right of jurisdiction. When a dispute arises, even though an investor files for arbitration at an ICSID institution, the parties become involved in another energy-consuming argument even before proceeding to the hearing and decision of the original plan in cases in which the respondent of the dispute files an objection to the decision rights of the arbitral tribunal. As the main basis for this type of plea, the point of non-existence of jurisdiction is first raised where the applicable dispute does not fall under the range of investments defined in individual investment contracts or investment agreements such as a Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT). To avoid an open-ended definition of investment for the range of investments, articles concerning investments in the FTA and NAFTA between Canada and the USA adopt the limited closed-list method. Article 96 of the FTA between Japan and Mexico applied the same abovementioned method of limited form of definition regarding range of investments and concluded BITs between member countries of APEC applied a similar method as well. Instead of employing the previously used inclusive definition, the BITs concluded between countries of Latin America and the USA are equipped with limited characteristics of an investment. Furthermore, to correspond with this necessary condition the three following requirements are needed : 1) fixed investment funding; 2) expected profits resulting from such investments; 3) and the existence of fixed risk bearing.

• 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
• /
• 제19권3호
• /
• pp.25-42
• /
• 2009

That occur in international trade disputes between the parties without resorting to a court trial on the basis of principle of government by the parties to resolve the dispute resolution in general (Alternative Disputes Resolution: ADR) agreed to, reconciliation, coordination, mediation and other methods are. Here, unlike arbitration and other dispute resolution arbitrator, the court confirmed the arbitration award came from the judge and the same shall become effective in doing international commerce dispute resolution methods are widely used. Arbitration Agreement is a contractual dispute, regardless of whether a certain law there arise about the relationship between the parties, Currently exists, future conflicts can arise in whole or in part by the arbitration agreement is to be resolved. Arbitration agreement include: the effects of out of contract arbitration proceedings, the court does not want the progress of the dispute referred to arbitration proceedings to the effect, and the presence of the parties to the arbitration agreement does not claim to knowing the defense plea that Appeals ticket of destruction that have the effect of demurrer, that the arbitration agreement are rebuttal to the rebuttal of prozesshindernde Einrede and the mediation of a plea on the merits when the first defense must be submitted to the arbitration proceedings in which the applicant until the arbitration award determined that the property dispute to court for water conservation measures to dispose of the watch was in effect for arbitration in the contract. In addition, the arbitration agreement and the court sentenced the same kinds of effects that resolved the final effect, especially at the same time the effect of foreign recognition and enforcement of the decision regarding the New York Convention arbitration award based on the recognition and enforcement of domestic and international effects are being recognized. Consequently, the arbitration agreement to take effect a valid arbitration agreement exists is determined by whether or not staying. Therefore, agreements between individual university entrance exams based on the company signed a contract regarding the effect of arbitration first, associated with individual university entrance exams, and the leading research and analysis, review, and examine the general concept of the arbitration agreement after the arbitration agreement between the parties focuses on information about the effects of study to contribute to the activation of the arbitration system is aimed at the individual university entrance exams.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제30권1호
• /
• pp.87-111
• /
• 2020

Smart contracts are implemented by blockchain technology, which stores the terms of the contracts of both parties on the blockchain. In the event of an international dispute over smart contracts and blockchains, no special solution has been proposed, such as the enactment of the International Unification Act. The blockchain platform which operates smart contracts is decentralized and operates through distributed nodes around the world without central servers, making it difficult to establish jurisdiction and governing laws. As an alternative to traditional dispute-solving methods, a new mediation model-smart arbitration-is being attempted. The arbitration process is likely to be a preferred means of resolving disputes over smart contracts in practice. There are many problems, such as the fairness of the arbitration center on the selection and judgment of arbitrators, the question of securing reliability, the question of the validity of the arbitration agreement, and how much the court can be involved in the case. Preparations at the national level, such as fostering blockchains and smart contract experts, and overhauling the legal system, are needed.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제68권
• /
• pp.43-63
• /
• 2015

The number of final appeal(the rate of final appeal: 43%) has been on the increase every year over the past ten years in Korea. The number of final appeal cases given to a justice of the Korean Supreme Court amounts to nearly one everyday, which makes it vulnerable to faulty decisions. Reversal rate of final appeal is as low as 10% with most of the cases being dismissed and hence the percentage of people having trust in the judiciary is merely 27%. In this context, the Korean judiciary has announced its plan to set up a final appellate court in the Supreme Court. The establishment of final appellate court, however, is not only against the Constitution but also hardly seen in other nations. It would only overexpand the Supreme Court. Furthermore, the final appellate court would end up deteriorating into the court of fourth instance and impose extra burden on the government as well as on the disputing parties. Therefore, it is necessary to upgrade the quality of the court by increasing the number of judges in the lower court and let them focus on the fact finding process. Facilitating the ADR(Alternative Dispute Resolution) process such as arbitration would help improve the structure of the judiciary. The incompatibility among the four values of the dispute resolution process(equitability, truth, quickness and efficiency) calls for building comprehensive judicial system in which disputes are settled by choosing either jurisprudence or utility.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제21권1호
• /
• pp.87-107
• /
• 2011

There are two methods to resolve conflicts related to constructions which are through lawsuits and ADR (Alternative Dispute Resolution) just like any other conflicts. Along with the special characteristics pertaining to the conflicts related to constructions, the advantages that ADR is in possession of such as its cost, duration and professionalism, resolving conflicts through ADR has been considered to be more logical than any other options recently. In Korea's case at present, the resolution of conflicts regarding constructions through ADR is mostly dependent on administrative mediation or through arbitration. However, in the case of the administrative mediation, its usage rate is very low due to problems caused by problems in its running and effectiveness. In the case of arbitration, the services of the Korean Commercial Arbitration Board is comparatively used more but because of the fact that arbitration relies on a single trial system and the fact that its executive powers while having the same effectiveness as the final ruling does not get acknowledged leads to the phenomena of avoiding its usage. In addition, in relation to the selective arbitration clause, the problem of effectiveness of the arbitrative agreement is becoming a hindrance to the activation and promotion of the arbitration process. Furthermore, in the case where the ordering body is the government, the public servant involved in the case avoiding the arbitration process because of concerns of being penalized by the internal and external audit within the institution is becoming a problem as well. These problems are not only limited to conflicts regarding constructions and there needs to be actions taken to promote the activation of ADR by enacting a basic law. The more important issue at hand however is offering a resolution measure that would be the most appropriate for users and this could probably be done only through actions such as implementing the American partnering system or the dispute adjudication board system so that they can supervise the resolution of conflicts through mediation, arbitration, and assistance as well as offering consultations regarding conflicts related to constructions.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제30권4호
• /
• pp.71-94
• /
• 2020

When a dispute or conflict occurs, standard methods for resolving them include resolution by trial or resolutions outside of courts. An alternative dispute resolution method called ADR that aims at remedying disputes instead of filing lawsuits is used commonly throughout the world, including the US and China. ADR, which is a remedy method outside of courts, includes negotiation, arbitration, or mediation between the concerned parties, and the arbitration system has several advantages. The Lemon Law is a consumer protection law of the United States that was enacted in 1975. This law prescribes that when specified quality standards are not met repeatedly due to defects in vehicles or electronic products, the manufacturer must provide exchanges or refunds to consumers. Korea also enacted a newly revised automobile management act, the Korea "Lemon Law," on January 1, 2019, which allows consumers to receive exchanges or refunds from the manufacturer if the same malfunction repeatedly occurs after purchasing a new automobile. There have recently been many cases of large fires occurring while driving import vehicles, causing huge public rage; therefore, interest is being focused on the revised automobile management act. Part 5-2 of the automobile management act was newly added to implement automobile exchange or refund arbitration systems. It is desirable to utilize the arbitration system to smoothly resolve automobile-related disputes that have recently increased significantly, and it is thus being used frequently for practical purposes.

• 의료법학
• /
• 제14권1호
• /
• 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.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제19권1호
• /
• pp.67-98
• /
• 2009

Recently there are many cases on the intellectual property dispute. Among them some cases are solved through mediation and arbitration. Mediation and arbitration hold some advantage over court proceeding for intellectual property dispute. However the traditional litigation system has material limitation to settle down international intellectual property dispute. Without arbitration, litigation in court would be the only choice in case of no consensual settlement between the disputing parties. However, once being aware of the usefulness of the arbitration, people in international business widely realize that arbitration is generally preferred to litigation. Mediation is a method of settling dispute outside of court setting and many mediation committee are established since 1986 in Korea. Arbitrability has been a crucial issue in the intellectual property dispute. In most developed countries including the U.S.A. and Switzerland, arbitrability in the intellectual property dispute has been changed in recent years by law. Now in resolving the dispute with international intellectual property is needed for legal research, experience, working practices and knowledge of the intellectual property industry and so on.