• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제25권1호
• /
• pp.25-46
• /
• 2015

Cross-border consumer disputes are on the increase as cross-border trade between consumers and businesses continues to grow. Cross-border consumer disputes are difficult to solve, because there are different languages, laws and institutions between the parties. These consumer disputes can be solved more easily by Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) in comparison with utilizing court processes. ODR is a branch of dispute resolution which uses technology to facilitate the resolution of disputes between parties. It primarily involves negotiation, mediation or arbitration, or a combination of all three. In this respect it is often seen as being the online equivalent of alternative dispute resolution (ADR). On 18 June 2013, the new legislation on Alternative Dispute Resolution and Online Dispute Resolution has been published - the "Directive on Consumer ADR and Regulation on Consumer ODR". The new legislation on ADR and ODR will allow consumers and traders to solve their disputes without going to court, in a quick, low-cost and simple way. The United Nations working group for online dispute resolution of cross-border electronic commerce transactions (UNCITRAL Working Group III) has been underway since 2010 to continue its work on procedural rules for ODR.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제21권1호
• /
• pp.109-129
• /
• 2011

In the approaching 21th century, the outstanding development in international sports has established arbitration as the preferred form of dispute resolution. Because the form of sports dispute becomes more complicated and varied with the quantitative increase of them, the reasonable and rapid settlement of them must be the important problem. The Alternative Dispute Resolution(ADR) as the settlement of sports dispute is regarded as the one of effective dispute resolution method and merits notice. The Korean Sports Arbitration Committee has been established for dispute resolution between athletes and the clubs or alike. Now, We must review and complements the rules of the Korean Sports Arbitration Committee in order to be a representative system of domestic sports dispute arbitration that settle the sports dispute practically and efficiently.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제29권3호
• /
• pp.121-140
• /
• 2019

First, the purpose of this research is to review the Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) regulations in Korea to resolve disputes which can arise in international e-commerce in the near future. Second, this research tries to look for alternative solutions to dispute resolutions according to these regulations. Third, this research pursues to enhance the effectiveness of business deals by providing efficient and satisfactory dispute resolution methods for e-commerce business. Furthermore, this study evaluates the definition of global e-commerce by comparing Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) with Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). Through analyzing the domestic ODR system and ADR system, this research could boost the employment of settlements in small-sized disputes through easy and convenient consumer access to both ODR and ADR procedures. The enhancement of the competitiveness of Korean companies in the global market is estimated to take place as a result. This research is estimated to provide benefits to our businesses both domestically and internationally by using ODR regulations and ADR methods. Moreover, this research is anticipated to verify usefulness in terms of consumer protection by advancing consumers' access to dispute solution authorities locally and abroad.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제32권1호
• /
• pp.71-91
• /
• 2022

The legal integration in the European Union that seeks a unified system in consumer disputes and the German Consumer Dispute Mediation Act based on this pursues the procedural fairness of consumer disputes and the equality of results. The role and legal status of the dispute mediator, who plays a very important role in this process, and the stable operation of the dispute resolution system and the guarantee of reasonable results through the guarantee of fairness and independence are very important values. In particular, the dispute mediator under the Act is conceptually different from the existing mediator or mediator, and through this distinction, the duties and contents of the dispute mediator are also distinguished. For this reason, the qualifications of dispute mediators that affect the outcome of dispute mediation are strictly stipulated. There have been some criticisms of this strictness, and such strictness is also seen as an excessive limitation. However, these standards can be understood as one of the efforts to make the dispute mediation procedure more systematic and to operate objectively in accordance with laws and procedures. In addition, in relation to the issue of independence and impartiality of the dispute mediator, the status of the dispute mediator is guaranteed in various aspects. In economic terms, it is not influenced by external factors, and furthermore, in order to guarantee job stability, the results of job security and dispute resolution are not linked. By examining the appropriate level of discipline for these dispute mediators, we expect the developmental growth of the consumer dispute resolution system under our Act.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제28권1호
• /
• pp.125-151
• /
• 2018

Rapid industrial growth based on massive fossil fuel energy consumption has caused serious damages on natural environment and every aspects of human life. As demands for clean and pleasant living circumstance increases, conflicts and disputes around environmental problems have also been widespread. Given the 'environmental rights' is a relatively new legal concept, however, resolving environmental disputes through the traditional legal principles and litigation procedures could be restrictive and, in some sense. inefficient as well as expensive. With efforts to develop new legal principles on environmental disputes, the environmental dispute adjustment system has been introduced as an alternative dispute resolution to the traditional legal dispute procedures. The Korean Environmental Dispute Resolution Commission introduced as the environmental dispute adjustment system has been well established for the past twenty-seven years, given the steadily increasing numbers of applications to the Commission over environmental disputes. However, as most cases are still small in money terms and mainly subject to adjudication, the effectiveness and practical contribution of the Commission in the resolution of environmental disputes have in fact been limited. For the enhancement of the status and roles of the Commission as the prior instrument of the alternative dispute resolution(ADR) in environmental disputes, several suggestions could be considered as follows: First, mediation needs to be more activated than adjudication in order to meet the primary purpose of ADR that resolves environmental disputes according to free will of concerned parties. Second, the scope of mediation could be expanded to the areas including potential environmental damages. Third, the roles and responsibilities of the Environmental Dispute Resolution Commissions at both central and local levels need to be evenly distributed. Fourth, the mechanism and procedures of environmental dispute resolution should be standardized. Fifth, the status of the Environmental Dispute Resolution Commission could be elevated in rank by shifting its current affiliation from the Ministry of Environment to the Office of Prime Minister. Sixth, the organizational structure and human resources of the Commission need to be reinforced. Seventh, the current situation that tends to give priority to litigation procedures when an environment dispute is simultaneously pending in litigation and mediation should be eased and properly adjusted. Eighth, the adoption of mandatory mediation in advance to litigation needs to be discussed. Ninth, the legal authority of the Commission's decisions should be further guaranteed. If above suggestions are thoroughly reviewed and properly adopted, the roles, authority and power of the Environmental Dispute Resolution Commission would be increased in the era when environmental conflicts get widespread, requiring an effective alternative environmental dispute resolution mechanism.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제19권2호
• /
• pp.73-94
• /
• 2009

There are significant differences between disputes among enterprises and disputes between consumers and an enterprise. A majority of consumers may suffer from the same damages at the same time with small amount concerned and sometimes low chances for find the real cause. Among these distinctive features, the most significant characteristic in consumer-business disputes can be found in that consumers are in a disadvantageous position compared to businesses. When it comes to consumer policy, the biggest aim lies with turning back the damage a consumer is suffering into normalcy. In this regard, the Consumer Dispute Resolution System is the most essential among consumer policies. In Korea, the Collective Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) System was introduced to the Consumer Dispute Resolution System in 2007 in line with revision on the Consumer Basic Law. However, smooth damage redress for consumers is still not taking place. Against this backdrop, this report suggests that 'consumer arbitration' program should be introduced to the Consumer Dispute Resolution System as part of making good and smooth progress for consumer damage redress.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제19권3호
• /
• pp.199-217
• /
• 2009

During the urbanization progresses, apartments such as the house of commons, representing our homes are situated in space. However, many consumer problems of our country's apartment house are caused by the government's failure of housing policy and consumer dispute resolution system In this study, apartment house and alleviate consumer disputes relating to in proactive ways to improve the government's housing policy was presented. At the same time, since the revision of Consumer Fundamental Act on collective alternative dispute resolution system has proposed scheme, this occurred after a dispute to resolve the dispute can be more efficient ways.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제11권1호
• /
• pp.217-245
• /
• 2001

Like traditional commerce, disputes are bound to arise in the course of conducting an e-commerce transaction. At present of June 30, 2001, 259 cases of dispute on e-commerce have been applied for the mediation of Electronic Transaction Dispute Mediation Committee, types of them are 170 cases of delayed delivery of commodity, 21 cases of contract cancellation and refund, 16 cases of personal information protection, 16 cases of false and exaggerated advertisement, 14 cases of commodity defect. The settlement systems of e-commerce dispute are litigation and Alternative Dispute Resolution(ADR). ADR encompasses mediation, arbitration, and similar private tools for resolving disputes. ADR offers many perceived advantages. Speed of resolution and low cost are often cited as the primary benefits. Therfore e-commerce disputes may be settled more effectively by litigation. The settlement systems of e-commerce dispute by ADR are the mediation of Electronic Transaction Dispute Mediation Committee, the mediation of Consumer Dispute Mediation Commercial Arbitration Board, and the arbitration of Korean Commerical Arbitration Board. E-commerce sets up the probability that its merchants and customers will not exist in the same legal jurisdictions. The confusing application of laws and wide geographical dispersion of these parties will necessitate a faster and cheaper dispute resolution methodology. Therefore, online ADR may be effective for e-commerce dispute resolution. The examples of online ADR opetation are the cyber mediation of Electronic Transaction Dispute Resolution Committee, the cyber mediation of Korean Commercial Arbitration Board, the cyber mediation of Click N Settle, the online ADR of BBB online, and the cyber arbitration of virtual Magistrate.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제16권1호
• /
• pp.219-251
• /
• 2006

As the scale of electronic commerce increases more and more, disputes in the electronic commerce also happen more frequently. As the development of electronic commerce is difficult without smooth settlement of dispute, the pursue of smooth settlement of dispute is very important. Regarding smooth settlement of dispute, the way of dispute settlement through Online Dispute Resolution(ODR) is pursued positively nowadays. However the responsibility of related parties still remains to complete such system. This paper divides related parties into the parties(seller, buyer), ODR providers, the neutral dispute resolver, and the governments. Later this paper examines the responsibility of related parties. As related parties complete their own responsibility, electronic commerce may develop more and more. Furthermore through the development of electronic commerce all nations will enjoy mutual benefit.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제25권3호
• /
• pp.155-184
• /
• 2015

This paper addresses the question of what kinds of dispute resolution choices can effectively handle complex intellectual property disputes, given the rising importance of IP, the increasing frequency and complexity of IP disputes, and the lack of research on dispute resolution strategies. For this analysis, the study adopted the analytic hierarchy process approach, which covers complex, multi-criteria decision problems, to quantify the expert's judgments on IP dispute resolution choice. Its results show that the effectiveness of resolution methods differs, depending on the type of IP dispute classified into seven issues, which are (i) requirement for validity of IP right, (ii) range and duration of IP right, (iii) transfer of IP right, (iv) licensing, (v) use of IP right, (vi) declaration of IP infringement, and (vii) estimation of damage. The disputes over IPR ownership and IP infringement remain challenging issues in due to strong requirement of the cross-border enforcement. Alternative dispute resolution (ADR), especially arbitration, is determined to be a more effective method to deal with international IP disputes, but various advanced types of ADR techniques should be further developed to deal with the increasing complexity of IP disputes.