• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.27 no.4
• /
• pp.35-60
• /
• 2017

Arbitration, a form of alternative dispute resolution (ADR), is a technique for the resolution of disputes outside the courts. Parties often seek to resolve disputes through arbitration because of a number of perceived potential advantages over judicial proceedings: Arbitration is generally faster and more inexpensive (cheaper) than litigation in court. The Republic of Korea enacted the "Arbitration Industry Promotion Act" to develop arbitration. This law provides for the establishment and operation of arbitration institutions, training of arbitration experts, and support of arbitration studies and international exchanges. Effective operation of an arbitration institution has an important influence on the development of arbitration. Neutral and good arbitration experts improve the authority of arbitration. The academic study of arbitration theoretically develops the arbitration procedure. In addition, this paper referred to some additional factors that South Korea should have in order to become an attractive place of arbitration. Neutrality and fairness of the court of arbitration are highly important factors in arbitration. Therefore, the arbitration institution should be operated independently and clearly from the government to ensure neutrality and fairness. The parties of arbitration should also be free and able to defend their interests sufficiently in the arbitration proceedings. Lastly, coordination between this law and other laws is necessary.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.29 no.4
• /
• pp.101-120
• /
• 2019

This study examines the development strategies of the arbitration industry in Singapore and Hong Kong, and its purpose is to provide implications for the development of the arbitration industry in South Korea. The main strategies implemented by Singapore and Hong Kong to develop the arbitration industry are as follows: first, improvement of the arbitration law system; second, active support of the government for promoting the arbitration industry; third, build up of an effective arbitration expert training system; and fourth, an arbitration-friendly attitude of the court. In order for South Korea to become an international arbitration hub in Northeast Asia, it is necessary to refer to the above-mentioned strategies. In addition, South Korea needs to develop marketing strategies that can differentiate itself from Singapore and Hong Kong, such as the development of an arbitration system in connection with the 4th Industrial Revolution, differentiation of the disputes sector, use of geographical advantages and a penetration pricing strategy, and support of the Korean Commercial Arbitration Board. In terms of marketing strategy, there are few studies on the development strategy of the arbitration industry in South Korea. In this respect, this study has academic value and differentiation.

• 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.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.32 no.4
• /
• pp.53-85
• /
• 2022

Small and medium-sized enterprises ("SMEs") are vulnerable to trade secret misappropriation. Korea's legislation for the protection of SMEs' trade secrets and provision of civil, criminal, and administrative remedies includes the SME Technology Protection Act, the Unfair Competition Prevention Act, the Industrial Technology Protection Act, the Mutually Beneficial Cooperation Act, and the Subcontracting Act. Among these acts, the revised SME Technology Protection Act of 2018 introduced the "administrative technology misappropriation investigation system" to facilitate a rapid resolution of SMEs' technology misappropriation disputes. On September 27, 2021, Korea's Ministry of SMEs announced that it had reached an agreement to resolve the dispute between Hyundai Heavy Industries and Samyeong Machinery through the administrative technology misappropriation investigation system. However, not until 3 years and a few months passed since the introduction of the system could it be used to resolve an SME's technology misappropriation dispute with a large corporation. So there arose a question on the usefulness of the system. Therefore, we conducted a comparative legal analysis of Korea's laws enacted to protect trade secrets of SMEs and to address technology misappropriation, focusing on their legislative purpose, protected subject matter, types of misappropriation, and legal remedies. Then we analyzed the administrative technology misappropriation investigation system and the cases where this system was applied. We developed a proposal to enhance the usefulness of the system. The expert interviews of 4 attorneys who are experienced in the management of the system to check the practical value of the proposal. Our analysis shows that the lack of compulsory investigation and criminal sanctions is the fundamental limitation of the system. We propose revising the SME Technology Protection Act to provide correction orders, criminal sanctions, and compulsory investigation. We also propose training professional workforces to conduct digital forensics, enabling terminated SMEs to utilize the system, and assuring independence and fairness of the mediation and arbitration of the technology misappropriation disputes.