종료방식으로 본 한국의 공공갈등 특징

가상준 ( Sangjoon Ka ) 단국대학교 분쟁해결연구센터 2020 분쟁해결연구 Vol.18 No.3

본 연구는 우리 사회에서 발생하는 많은 공공갈등들이 어떠한 해결방식으로 종료되고 있는지 살펴보고 여기에 영향을 미친 요인은 무엇인지 공공갈등의 다양한 특징을 통해 알아보는 것을 목적으로 하였다. 구체적으로 공공갈등 발생 이후 많은 특징을 파악할 수 있는데 이러한 특징과 공공갈등 해결방식과의 관련성을 알아보았다. 분석을 통해 공공갈등의 유형과 종류는 공공갈등 종료방식에 영향을 미치고 있음을 알 수 있었다. 그러나 공공갈등의 성격은 해결방식과 관련성을 찾을 수 없었다. 한편, 공공갈등지속 기간과 참여자 수가 늘어날수록 공공갈등은 제3자에 의한 권위적 방식으로 해결되는 경향을 보이고 있었다. 공공갈등 중 노동갈등을 제외하고 살펴보면 공공갈등의 유형, 종류에 의한 공공갈등 해결방식에 대한 영향력은 노동갈등을 포함할 때와 차이가 있는 것으로 나타나고 있다. 이는 노동갈등의 대부분이 민-민 갈등이며 당사자 중심의 해결이 많기 때문이다. 이를 통해 공공갈등 해결방식은 공공갈등 발생과 함께 어느 정도 윤곽이 나오고 있으며 진행과정에서 나타나는 특징을 통해 좀 더 정확히 파악할 수 있다는 가능성을 보았다. 그럼에도 공공갈등이 어떠한 방식으로 해결되고 있는지 설명하고 예측하는 데는 아직 한계가 있다. 공공갈등 해결방식에 대해 좀 더 정확하게 설명하기 위해서는 더 많은 공공갈등 자료가 필요하며 공공갈등의 특징을 세부적으로 구분하는 작업이 요구된다. 이러한 한계에도 불구하고 본 연구는 공공갈등 자료에 대한 구축, 이를 통한 통계적 분석, 그리고 무엇보다 공공갈등에 대한 이해의 폭을 넓혔다는 점에서 의미를 찾을 수 있었다. 공공갈등에 대한 연구에 있어 발생원인을 파악하고 해결방식을 찾는 것은 학자들의 가장 큰 관심이다. 본 연구는 이러한 연장선에서 공공갈등을 좀 더 경험적으로 분석하고 체계적으로 고찰하였다고 말할 수 있다. The purpose of the study is to examine how public conflicts occurring in our society have been terminated and to find out what factors influenced the termination of public conflicts by analyzing various characteristic of public conflicts. In particular, since a number of characteristics can be identified after the occurrence of public conflict, the study attempts to find the relevance between these characteristics and the method of resolving public conflicts. Statistical results show that the issues and types of public conflicts affect the way public conflicts end. However, the character of the public conflicts is not associated with resolution. Meanwhile, the study finds that as the duration of public conflict and the number of participants increase, public conflicts tend to be resolved in an authoritative way where a third party involved. Likewise, the study finds labor conflicts is very different from other conflicts and have an effect on statistical results. This is because unlike other public conflicts, most of the labor conflicts are private-private conflicts and are resolved by parties directly involved in. Through the results, the study show the possibility that the public conflict resolution method is somewhat outlined along with the occurrence of public conflict, and that it can be more accurately identified through the characteristics that appear in the process. Nevertheless, there are still limitations in explaining and predicting how public conflicts are being resolved. In order to more accurately explain how public conflicts are terminated and resolved, more public conflict data are needed, and the work of dividing the characteristics of public conflict in detail is required. Despite these limitations, this study was meaningful because it analyzed public conflicts with systematic data and above all expanded the scope of understanding about public conflict.

공공갈등해결을 위한 ADR의 활성화 방안 : 미국, 일본, 한국의 조정제도 비교분석

정정화 한국자치행정학회 2012 한국자치행정학보 Vol.26 No.2

본 연구는 미국, 일본, 한국에서 공공갈등을 해결하기 위한 ADR의 운영실태를 비교분석하였다. 행정형 ADR의 경우 미국은 연방정부와 지방정부 수준에서 다양한 형태의 분쟁조정기구를 운영하고 있으며, 일본과 한국은 분쟁조정위원회 형태의 조정제도를 운영하고 있다는 점에서 유사했다. 민간형 ADR의 경우 미국은 이웃분쟁해결센터에서 가족이나 이웃간의 작은 다툼뿐만 아니라 지역사회에서의 공공갈등 사안도 조정하는 역할을 수행하고 있고, 일본에서는 금융분쟁을 민간형 ADR로 해결하고 있으며 ADR기관간의 연계와 협력체계를 강화하고 있다는 것이 특징이었다. 이에 비해 한국은 공공갈등을 해결하기 위한 민간형 ADR이 매우 취약한 것으로 나타났다. 공공갈등분야에서 ADR을 활성화하기 위해서는 첫째, 행정형 ADR기구의 당사자 자율성을 보장하고 조정인의 중립성과 전문성을 강화하는 한편 중복적인 분쟁조정기구를 정비할 필요가 있다. 둘째, 피해구제의 성격이 강한 분쟁조정위원회의 기능을 점차 민간형 ADR로 전환하는 것이 바람직하다. 셋째, 미국이나 일본에서와 같은 행정분쟁해결법이나 ADR기본법을 제정해 ADR관련 법제를 정비할 필요가 있다. 마지막으로 행정형 ADR과 민간형 및 사법형 ADR과의 연계를 통한 ADR의 활성화 방안으로 중앙정부와 지방정부에 공공분쟁해결센터의 설립을 제안하였다.

중견기업의 기술보호를 위한 ADR의 현황과 개선방안

이규호 ( Gyooho Lee ) 한국중견기업학회 2023 중견기업연구 Vol.10 No.2

중견기업 성장촉진 및 경쟁력 강화에 관한 특별법 (약칭: 중견기업법)에서는 중견기업에 대한 정의 규정을 두고 있다. 중견기업법 제2조 제1호에 따르면, (i) 「중소기업기본법」 제2조에 따른 중소기업이 아닐 것, (ii) 「공공기관의 운영에 관한 법률」 제4조에 따른 공공기관, (iii) 「지방공기업법」에 따른 지방공기업 등 대통령령으로 정하는 기관이 아닐 것, (iii) 그 밖에 지분 소유나 출자관계 등이 대통령령으로 정하는 기준에 적합한 기업의 요건을 모두 갖추고 영리를 목적으로 사업을 하는 기업을 말한다. 하지만, 중견기업법은 중견기업기술에 대한 정의를 두고 있지 않다. 중견기업법 제17조의2 (기술보호지원에 관한 특례)에 따를 때, 대기업과의 기술분쟁에 대해서는 중소기업기술보호법 제23조 내지 제28조의 분쟁조정 및 중재에 관한 규정을 적용하도록 되어 있으므로, 이 기술분쟁과 관련해서는 중견기업기술은 중소기업기술의 정의에 따를 것이다. 매출액 3천억원 미만의 중견기업 대 대기업 사이의 분쟁에 대해서만 중소기업기술보호법상 분쟁의 조정 내지 중재를 적용하는 것이 타당한지 여부가 문제될 수 있다. 중소기업기술보호법의 소관부처가구 중소기업청이었던 때에는 산업통산자원부와의 예산 조율 등의 관계로 중견기업의 범위를 일정 한도로 정할 필요가 있었다. 그런데, 구 중소기업청이 중소벤처기업부로 격상되고 별도의 예산이 책정된 현재에는 매출액 3천억원 미만의 중견기업으로 조정신청인적격을 제한할 필요가 있는지 그리고 중견기업법에 따른 분쟁조정 대상에서 중견기업 대 중견기업의 분쟁을 배제할 필요가 있는지 여부를 고찰할 필요가 있다. 그리고 중소기업기술보호법상 대체적 분쟁해결방식을 개선할 방안이 있는지 여부도 살펴볼 필요가 있다. 예컨대 민사조정법 제30조를 적극적으로 수용할 필요성이 있는지 살펴볼 필요가 있다. 아래에서는 대체적 분쟁해결방식의 일반론을 소개하고, 현재 기술보호 관련 대체적 분쟁해결방식의 현황을 살펴본다. 그런 다음, 세계지식재산권기구의 대체적 분쟁해결방식이 살펴보고 우리 법제상 시사하는 바를 언급하고자 한다. 그리고 마지막으로 중견기업 기술보호를 위한 대체적 분쟁해결방식을 제안하고자 한다. “Special Act on the Promotion of Growth and the Strengthening of Competitiveness of Middle-Standing Enterprises”(hereinafter “Middle-Standing Enterprises Act”) prescribes the definition of middle-standing enterprises. According to Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the Middle-Standing Enterprises Act, the term “middle-standing enterprise” is defined as an enterprise that meets the following requirements and engages in business for profit: (i) It shall not be a small or medium enterprise referred to in Article 2 of the Framework Act on Small and Medium Enterprises; (ii) It shall not be an institution prescribed by Presidential Decree, such as a public institution referred to in Article 4 of the Act on the Management of Public Institutions, or a local public enterprise referred to in the Local Public Enterprises Act; and (iii) Any other enterprise, the ownership of shares, investment relationship, etc., of which meet the standards prescribed by Presidential Decree. However, the Middle-Standing Enterprises Act does note provide a definition of the middle-standing enterprises’ technology. According to Article 17 bis of the Middle-Standing Enterprises Act, whose title is the ‘special exception for technology protection support’, the provisions of Articles 23 to 28 of the Middle-Standing Enterprises Act shall be applied to technology-related disputes between middle-standing enterprises and big companies in terms of mediation and arbitration for technology-related disputes. In this context, the technologies of middle-standing enterprises can be defined following the definition of SME’s technologies under the Act on Support for Protection of Technologies of Small and Medium Enterprises (hereinafter “SME Technology Protection Act”). A question may arise as to whether it is adequate to apply provisions of the mediation and arbitration under the SME Technology Protection Act to the disputes between SMEs with sales of less than 300 billion Korean wons and large enterprises. When the SME Technology Protection Act was administered by the former Small and Medium-sized Businesses Administration (hereinafter “SMBA”), it was necessary to set a certain ceiling on the scope of the SMEs due to budget coordination with the Ministry of Trade Industry and Energy. However, now that the former SMBA has been upgraded to the Ministry of SMEs and Startups and has a separate budget from the Ministry of Trade Industry and Energy, it has to be taken into account whether it is necessary for the Middle-Standing Enterprises Act to limit the applicability for mediation to the SMEs with a turnover of less than 300 billion Korean wons and to exclude mediations between Middle-standing businesses. It is also necessary to examine whether there are ways to improve alternative dispute resolution methods under the SME Technology Protection Act. For example, it is necessary to consider whether Article 30 of the Civil Mediation Act should be actively adopted. This Article overviews the ADR and examines the current developments of ADR in the context of technology protection. The Article then discusses the WIPO’s ADR system and its implications to the Korean legal system. Finally, the Article proposes more improved ADR methods for the technology protection of SMEs.

우리나라 특유의 집단분쟁에 대한 ADR방식의 대안모색- 식품, 집단시위 집단소송법 제정논의와 관련하여 -

함영주 한국민사소송법학회 2008 민사소송 Vol.12 No.2

The debate about class action, which is related to environment, food, and illegal strikes, is now being reignited in Korea’s National Assembly. The new ruling Grand National Party, which traditionally antagonistic to class action, now want to introduce class action suits as a way to compensate victims of illegal collective actions such as illegal rallies and strikes. The opposition party oppose this act as a weapon to stifle the right of rally and strikes. They think that this act is trying to suppress common sense as well as the freedom of the media, publication and expression as guaranteed by the Korean Constitution. The ruling party says that the rule of law has collapsed and the fundamental principles of the government have been destroyed because of chaotic illegal rallies and strikes. Therefore, the new class action bill plans to recover store owners who suffered from a fall in revenues due to illegal rallies, to file class-action lawsuits against rally organizers. Under the current korean law, victims can file only representative group litigation (Seon-jeong-dang-sa-ja Sosong [선정당사자소송] in Korean law) to recover their compensation. But, on the contrary, this present system caused a massive retaliation from protesters who got their private records in their written complaints. The protesters menaced with a phone call, picketed in front of complaint’s shops and posted complaint’s record on the internet. Superficially the two parties reversed their political views about class action after the change of regime, they actually had and have been choosing the field advantaged to them. They all struggle against general class action bill which can cause burden to their party’s supporters. In spite of those party’s policy decision by their own self interest, solving mass litigation has become present national problem awaiting solution. Upgrading the index of Korean National competitiveness can be gained only after solving mass disputes which is spread to all over the country for a long time. Under these Korean social and cultural backgrounds, I propose to establish Korean National Dispute Management System. I proposed a buleprint of Korean style mass disputes solving system, which is hybrid-, private sector participated- and ADR-oriented system based on Korean tradition in this paper. This is a sort of down-top and lower people friendly system. At this system, judge or lawyer have to exert himself or herself to hearing the voice of inflicted mass victims on-the-spot. The debate about class action, which is related to environment, food, and illegal strikes, is now being reignited in Korea’s National Assembly. The new ruling Grand National Party, which traditionally antagonistic to class action, now want to introduce class action suits as a way to compensate victims of illegal collective actions such as illegal rallies and strikes. The opposition party oppose this act as a weapon to stifle the right of rally and strikes. They think that this act is trying to suppress common sense as well as the freedom of the media, publication and expression as guaranteed by the Korean Constitution. The ruling party says that the rule of law has collapsed and the fundamental principles of the government have been destroyed because of chaotic illegal rallies and strikes. Therefore, the new class action bill plans to recover store owners who suffered from a fall in revenues due to illegal rallies, to file class-action lawsuits against rally organizers. Under the current korean law, victims can file only representative group litigation (Seon-jeong-dang-sa-ja Sosong [선정당사자소송] in Korean law) to recover their compensation. But, on the contrary, this present system caused a massive retaliation from protesters who got their private records in their written complaints. The protesters menaced with a phone call, picketed in front of complaint’s shops and posted complaint’s record on the internet. Superficially the two parties reversed their political views about class action after the change of regime, they actually had and have been choosing the field advantaged to them. They all struggle against general class action bill which can cause burden to their party’s supporters. In spite of those party’s policy decision by their own self interest, solving mass litigation has become present national problem awaiting solution. Upgrading the index of Korean National competitiveness can be gained only after solving mass disputes which is spread to all over the country for a long time. Under these Korean social and cultural backgrounds, I propose to establish Korean National Dispute Management System. I proposed a buleprint of Korean style mass disputes solving system, which is hybrid-, private sector participated- and ADR-oriented system based on Korean tradition in this paper. This is a sort of down-top and lower people friendly system. At this system, judge or lawyer have to exert himself or herself to hearing the voice of inflicted mass victims on-the-spot.

학회발표논문 : 대체적(代替的) 분쟁해결수단으로서 행정소송에서의 조정(調停)

정남철 ( Nam Chul Chung ) 안암법학회 2005 안암 법학 Vol.- No.21

The Status of Damage Relief in the Cosmetics Industry and the ADR System

엄미선 한국중재학회 2022 중재연구 Vol.32 No.3

Cosmetics are products that consumers use every day to maintain or improve the health of their skin and hair. Therefore, the expansion of the cosmetics market leads to the expansion of disputes over cosmetic damage. Along with constant social changes, new conflicts continue to arise. In order to resolve these disputes, various consumer dispute resolution organizations and methods are required. Therefore, Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), an alternative method that can provide a reasonable judgment on problems that occur during the manufacture and distribution of cosmetics with expert knowledge of the industry, is required. Korea resolves disputes between consumers and manufacturers caused by cosmetics through the ADR of the Korea Cosmetics Association and the Korea Consumer Agency. It handles disputes related to accidents caused by cosmetics, offers consultation on consumer complaints on cosmetics and provides information on accidents and safety related to cosmetics. It is not possible to completely eradicate disputes from cosmetic damages. Therefore, it is necessary to expand and efficiently operate the cosmetic ADR system for consumers. In this study, the current status of cosmetic damage disputes and damage relief and the role of the domestic ADR system were reviewed. Consumers should be easily relieved from damage caused by cosmetics. By accumulating important precedents with an efficient cosmetic damage dispute resolution system, disputes over cosmetic damage should be smoothly resolved.

ADR의 선택에 관한 연구

이동율(Dong Ryul Lee),이기희(Kee Hee Lee) 중앙법학회 2008 中央法學 Vol.10 No.3