“소비자분쟁해결기준”의 법적 성격 - 민사분쟁해결의 메카니즘을 통한 분석 -

서희석 한국민사법학회 2012 民事法學 Vol.61 No.-

“Consumer Dispute Resolution Criteria"(CDRC) may be substantial legal criteria for consumer dispute resolution outside lawsuit. The problem is the relationship between these criteria and substantial laws such as Civil Code. CDRC under Framework Act of Consumers becomes the basis of the agreement or recommendation for the settlement of disputes as long as there is no separate expression of dispute resolution between parties (art.16(3)). However, in a case that there is no indication of a separate dispute resolution between the parties in civil dispute, the basis for the dispute resolution is substantial law (non-mandatory provision) such as Civil Code. When article 16(3) is literally interpreted, it is likely to be that, in the ADR(Alternative Dispute Resolution) process for consumer dispute resolution, CDRC applies prior to substantial laws such as Civil Code or CDRC alone applies. However, the issue is that such interpretation could possibly happen in a country with civil substantial laws including Civil Code or Commercial Code and civil justice system. Only if the parties agreed to resolve a dispute with CDRC, the criteria shall be interpreted to be the basis or standard of an agreement or recommendation for consumer dispute resolution. Accordingly, this standards is different from non-mandatory provision which naturally applies in a case that the parties have no apparent agreement on the dispute resolution. According to Framework Act of Consumers(article 9(1)), if CDRC is favorable to consumers (when the parties agreed to resolve a dispute with the CDRC), CDRC shall be interpreted to apply prior to substantial laws such as Civil Code. In that case, CDRC will be construed as unilateral mandatory provision. Labelling "You can receive compensation of damages from this product according to the Notice by Korean Fair Trade Commission" on the surface of the product shall be interpreted as the expression of dispute resolution with CDRC by the business. Therefore unless the consumer explicitly oppose, it shall be considered that there is an implied agreement for the dispute resolution with CDRC between the consumer and the business.

지식재산 분야의 대체적 분쟁해결제도에서 온라인 분쟁해결절차의 도입방안

서진원 서울대학교 기술과법센터 2021 Law & technology Vol.17 No.1

전통적인 소송절차만으로는 지식재산권에 관한 분쟁을 신속하고 효율적으로 해결하기 어렵다. 따라서 지역적 제한 없이 신속하고 포괄적인 결론을 도출할 수 있는 조정, 중재, 협상등의 대체적 분쟁해결제도(Alternative Dispute Resolution, ADR)가 지식재산권에 관한 분쟁을 해결하는 데에 적절한 수단이 될 수 있다. 그런데 지식재산 분야의 대체적 분쟁해결제도는 그다지 활성화되어 있지 않다. 비활성화의 원인은 두 가지가 있다. 첫째, 지식재산권에 관한 분쟁의 국제적 특성, 최근의 COVID-19 사태에도 불구하고 현재 국내 지식재산 분야의 대체적 분쟁해결제도는 기본적으로 조정기일에의 출석을 요구하고 있다. 둘째, 지식재산권에 관한 분쟁은 여러 지식재산권을 대상으로 하는 경우가 많을 것임에도 현재 국내 지식재산 분야의 대체적 분쟁해결제도는 지식재산 권별로 분쟁해결을 담당하는 기관이 파편적으로 나뉘어져 있다. 따라서 전면적인 온라인 분쟁해결 절차를 도입하고, 파편적으로 나뉘어져 있는 대체적 분쟁해결절차를 통합할 필요가 있다. 지식재산 분야에 고유한 대체적 분쟁해결제도는 행정기관이 주도하고 있는데, 행정기관 소속 위원회들인 산업재산권분쟁조정위원회, 한국저작권위원회 등은 일부 온라인 조정신청만을 허용하고 있을 뿐 대부분 온라인 분쟁해결절차를 갖추고 있지 않다. 한편 세계지식재산기구 중재조정센터(WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center)는 온라인 분쟁해결절차로 eADR 서비스를 제공하고 있고, 미국의 Smartsettle 프로그램은 민간영역에서 온라인 분쟁해결절차 서비스를 제공하고 있으며, 캐나다의 Civil Resolution Tribunal은 경미한 사건에 대한 온라인 재판을 진행하고 있다. 위와 같은 외국의 사례를 참고하여, 통합적인 온라인 분쟁해결절차 플랫폼을 마련하여야 하는데, 시간과 비용 면에서 볼 때, 대한민국 법원 전자소송 프로그램을 활용하는 방법을 고려할 수 있다. 당사자들은 위 프로그램을 통해 조정신청을 하고, 행정 기관 소속 위원회가 그 절차에 따라 위 프로그램에서 조정절차를 진행하는 것이다. 한편 인공지능 기술의 도입 여부에 대해서는 특정 주제에 관한 빅 데이터를 조사, 수집, 분석하는 약 인공지능(Weak AI)은 활용될 필요가 있을 것인데, 이는 향후 기술발달 및 여건을 지켜보아야 할 것이다. It is difficult to resolve disputes over intellectual property rights quickly and efficiently using traditional litigation procedures alone. Therefore, alternative dispute resolution (ADR), such as mediation, arbitration, and negotiation, that can lead to quick and comprehensive conclusions without regional restrictions, can be an appropriate means for resolving intellectual property disputes. However, the alternative dispute resolution system in the field of intellectual property is not very active. There are two reasons for inactivation. First, in spite of the international nature of disputes over intellectual property rights and the recent COVID-19 incident, the alternative dispute resolution system in the domestic intellectual property field basically requires attendance at the mediation date. Second, although disputes over intellectual property rights will often target multiple intellectual property rights, the current alternative dispute settlement system in the field of intellectual property in Korea is divided into fragments of organizations responsible for dispute resolution by intellectual property rights. Therefore, it is necessary to introduce a full-scale online dispute resolution process and to integrate alternatively divided dispute resolution procedures. The alternative dispute resolution system unique to the field of intellectual property is led by an administrative agency. But the committees belonging to the administrative agency, such as The Industrial Property Dispute Resolution Committee, The Korean Copyright Commission, only accept some online mediation applications, and most don’t have online dispute settlement procedures. Meanwhile, WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center provides eADR services for online dispute resolution procedures, and the US Smartsettle program provides online dispute resolution procedures in the private sector, and Canadian Civil Resolution Tribunal conducts online trial for a minor cases. With reference to such foreign cases as above, an integrated online dispute resolution procedure platform should be prepared. Considering the time and cost, it is possible to consider how to utilize the Korean court electronic litigation program. The parties apply for mediation through the above program, and the committee belonging to the administrative agency proceeds with the mediation procedure in the above program in accordance with the procedure. On the other hand, about the introduction of artificial intelligence technology, Weak AI, which investigates, collects, and analyzes big data on a specific topic, will need to be utilized, which will need to be monitored for future technology development and conditions.

소비자분쟁해결기준의 현상과 전망

송민수(Song Min Su) 충북대학교 법학연구소 2015 法學硏究 Vol.26 No.2

“Regulations on Consumer Dispute Resolution" may be substantial legal Standard for consumer dispute resolution in the ADR(Alternative Dispute Resolution). The main focus on this study is the status and perspective of Regulations on Consumer Dispute Resolution. The purpose of this Regulations on Consumer Dispute Resolution is to provide specific criteria for compensation agreements or recommendations so as to smoothly settle disputes between a consumer and a business by stipulating regulations on consumer dispute resolution by product item according to the General Regulations on Consumer Dispute Resolution as per Article 16(2) of the Framework Act on Consumers and Article 8(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act. Concern about Request for Damage Redress, If the parties to a dispute fail to reach an agreement, they may seek redress for damage from the heads of the central administrative agencies, mayors or governors, the president of the Korea Consumer Agency or consumer organizations. Concern about Product Item & Regulations on Consumer Dispute Resolution, targeted product items, regulations on dispute resolution by product item, warranty period & parts replenishment period by product item, and useful period by product item set forth in this Notification are specified in Appendix I, Appendix II, Appendix III and Appendix IV, respectively. Regulations on Consumer Dispute Resolution under Framework Act of Consumers becomes the basis of the agreement or recommendation for the settlement of disputes as long as there is no separate expression of dispute resolution between parties (art.16(3)). However, in a case that there is no indication of a separate dispute resolution between the parties in civil dispute, the basis for the dispute resolution is substantial law such as Civil Code. Regulations on Consumer Dispute Resolution arranges consumer dispute resolution in the ADR. This Regulations has contributed to redress of consumer damages. But the legal substance of this Regulations is ambiguous and not elaborate systematically. And actually Regulations on Consumer Dispute Resolution is misunderstood as a legal regulation and occasionally made against consumer. This Regulations should be advanced to apply the consumer dispute resolution in the ADR. Consumer Fundamental Law should be clarify that the enactment process must be settled by Presidential decree more details. Not only General Regulations on Consumer Dispute Resolution but also Regulations on Consumer Dispute Resolution by Product Item should be declared comprehensively. Therefore Regulations on Consumer Dispute Resolution is to be recompose which considered to substance of this Resolution and legislation.

싱가포르 국제상사분쟁해결 제도의 최근 쟁점과 시사점 : 국제상사분쟁해결 허브국가를 지향하는 관점에서

김영국(Kim, Young Kook) 충북대학교 법학연구소 2020 法學硏究 Vol.31 No.1

Today s commercial disputes cause enormous damage to companies in terms of time and money if they lead to indiscriminate litigation, so companies facing disputes need to settle disputes more quickly, clearly and efficiently. Since commercial disputes have the international character of different nationalities between the parties, the utilization is bound to increase if there is a system that can apply relevant laws and regulations from an objective and neutral standpoint. As a result, countries around the world are to become the leading countries of international commercial transactions by seeking alternative dispute resolutions in relation to commercial disputes. As trade and investment in the Asia-Pacific region has increased rapidly, Asian countries have been paying attention to the system for resolving commercial disputes. In particular, Singapore, one of the world s leading merchandising trade countries, is actively expanding its influence in the market through prompt and reasonable resolution of disputes. For example, Singapore has well-organized related laws for the smooth and efficient operation of international commercial courts as well as commercial arbitration and commercial conciliation. As it has a positive effect in terms of the national economy, many Asian countries are trying to strategically foster Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). Not only being a trading power, but also having several geopolitical advantages, Korea is actively working to develop ADR. Since commercial disputes of international nature tend to prefer dispute resolution methods of third countries rather than the country to which the company belongs, the parties to the dispute have no choice but to prefer a country that can handle disputes neutrally and fairly based on its advanced dispute resolution system. In addition, companies will evaluate their ability to respond quickly and actively to changes in the international transaction environment and the trial method under dispute resolution procedures as an important criterion in choosing a dispute resolution site. In this paper, therefore, we tried to derive meaningful implications by examining the international commercial dispute resolution system in Singapore, and examined ways to increase competitiveness as a dispute resolution site by using non-face-to-face trial methods. Since international commercial dispute resolution is also developed in various ways as the times change, an attitude to adapt well to this environment is first required. The examples include commercial arbitration and commercial conciliation in one protocol, the effectivation of international agreements to enhance the executive ability of commercial conciliation, or non-face-to-face video trial procedures to be implemented without technical problems. Although the limitation is that we do not use English as an official language as a non-English speaking country, we need to make efforts to create international standards by leading the technical system to speed up the trial procedure. The introduction and activation of non-face-to-face trial procedures may be a good alternative. In addition, we need to make Singapore s one-stop dispute resolution system more efficient. There is controversy over the establishment of the International Commercial Court right now, but ultimately, we think it should be established someday in order to function as an international hub for resolving international commercial disputes. In addition, it is necessary to actively attract international commercial dispute resolution sites to Korea by taking the lead in creating conciliation and arbitration cooperation relationships in this region by using the geopolitical point, which is the center of Northeast Asia.

일본 금융상품거래법상 금융ADR의 특징과 지정분쟁해결기관

오성근 한국경제법학회 2011 경제법연구 Vol.10 No.1

Debates over the introduction of financial alternative dispute resolution (ADR) in Japan took almost eight years starting from 2000,although since 2006 the country has enacted the Financial Instruments and Exchange Act (FIEA), which is similar to the Financial Investment Services & Capital Market Act of Korea. Behind such delay was the concern of some participants of the country's financial industry that the use of a designated dispute resolution organization might have the effect of undermining the public's right of access to the courts as provided by Article 37 of the constitution, which is a counterpart of Article 37 of the constitution of Korea. As of now, however, the issue over possible conflict between financial ADR and Article 37 of the country's constitution seems to have been settled as the June 2009 amendment to the FIEA (through the 171st session of the Diet of Japan) and revisions to the country's Banking Law and other related laws adopted a new system of financial alternative dispute resolution. Under Japan's FIEA as amended in 2009, dispute resolution organizations play important roles and perform significant functions. As such, Part II of this essay overviews the important characteristics of financial ADR under the current FIEA and Part III examines the structure of the designated dispute resolution organization system, core services of dispute resolution organizations, requirements for designated dispute resolution organizations, the duty of a financial institution as the interested financial product trader to execute the procedural proceedings as provided by the master agreement, dispute resolution procedures, and dispute resolution committee members. Part IV lists the code of business conduct and the supervision of business operation of designated dispute resolution organizations. 2006년부터 우리나라의 자본시장법과 유사한 금융상품거래법(Financial Instruments and Exchange Law)을 시행하고 있는 일본은 2000년부터 새로운 금융ADR(Financial Alternative Dispute Resolution)의 창설을 위한 논의를 하여왔다. 그럼에도 불구하고, 우리 헌법상 국민의 재판청구권을 보장하고 있는 제27조와 유사한 일본 헌법 제37조의 규정으로 인하여 2008년까지 그 결실을 맺지 못하였었다. 그러나 2009년 일본은 그간의 논의를 바탕으로 제171회 국회에서 금융상품거래법 및 은행법을 비롯한 금융관련법제에서 새로운 금융ADR를 창설하였고, 일본 헌법 제37조에 대한 위헌 가능성의 문제도 해결하고 있는 듯 하다. 2009년 일본의 개정금융상품거래법상 금융ADR에서 중요한 역할과 기능을 담당하고 있는 것은 분쟁해결기관이다. 따라서 이 글에서는 일본 금융상품거래법상 금융ADR의 특징을 간략히 살펴본 후 지정분쟁해결기관의 구조와 업무 등에 대하여 검토하여 보았다. 주요 전개 순서로 Ⅱ.에서는 금융상품거래법상 금융ADR의 특징을 살펴보았다. Ⅲ.에서는 금융상품거래법상 지정분쟁해결기관의 구조를 살펴보았다. 여기에서는 지정분쟁해결기관의 지정요건, 금융상품거래업자와 지정분쟁해결기관의 절차실시기본계약의 체결의무, 분쟁해결절차 및 분쟁해결위원 등에 대하여 살펴보았다. Ⅳ.에서는 지정분쟁해결기관의 업무규정 및 동 기관에 대한 감독 등에 대하여 기술하였다.

環境紛爭調整法에 따른 분쟁해결과 ADR의 일반이론(Ⅱ)

김시철 한국환경법학회 2009 環境法 硏究 Vol.31 No.1

The Environmental Dispute Adjustment System (“EDAS”) stipulated in the Environmental Dispute Adjustment Act (“EDAA”) is a form of Alternative Dispute Resolution (“ADR”) handled by a division of the Administrative Branch. This particular dispute resolution mechanism followed in the EDAS, consists of several controversial aspects, when viewed in the light of various general principles that lies in the core of ADR. Though the main purpose of EDAS, which models after the Japanese Adjustment System for Grievances from Pollution, is to settle civil disputes arising in the environmental areas, when compared, the vast majority of EDAS cases in Korea relate to adjudicatory awards while mediation cases constitute overwhelming dispute resolutions in Japan. This, therefore, has drawn criticism concerning the Korean practice of dispute resolution in the environmental dispute setting, since it runs contrary to the very nature of ADR. Furthermore, in consideration of the general principles of ADR, the provisions of EDAA consist of various fundamental defects. In fact, due to the tendency of ‘under-litigation’ involving environmental disputes, to some extent, this requires a specific mechanism for resolution of such disputes. Under the current system of EDAS, however, the State provides public subsidy to litigants as a matter of fact, which may result in ‘over-litigation’ of disputed cases and actually create a converse effect. Though it may be inevitable to sustain the current system for the time being, for the future, the EDAS should be framed in order to minimize the total cost of resolving disputes. Since the total cost consists of both an ‘operation cost’ and an ‘error cost,’ to reduce the former cost, the latter cost is considered as a necessary trade-off. The EDAS, therefore, must be constructed in a way to minimize the sum of both costs accordingly. Until recently, the successful outcome of a mediation or an adjudicatory award within the EDAS has been considered as a formal consent agreement between the parties concerned, which is greatly similar to that of Japan. Nevertheless, because of the newly enacted statute, EDAA(amended by Act No. 8955 on Mar. 21, 2008, and effective on Sep. 22. 2008), the final outcome of EDAS now has the same effect as a consent judgment of a court. This raises doubts on whether the amendment of the statute can even be upheld as legitimate at all. Under the current Civil Procedure Act in Korea, consent judgments not only have the effect of an execution(enforcement power) but also the effect of a claim preclusion(res judicata). When compared, the Korean consent judgment system is somewhat different from the German system, which only has the effect of execution(enforcement power) but not of claim preclusion. The constitutionality of the statute must also be strictly scrutinized since outcomes of the ADR conducted by the Administrative Branch have the similar effect of a consent judgment. Even from the standpoint of democratic legitimacy, the Korean EDAS is relatively inferior to the Japanese system. Thus, it seems unreasonable to produce the outcomes of EDAS have the similar effect of a consent judgment. Furthermore, in light of the precedents of the Korean Constitutional Court, controversy surrounding the constitutionality of the provisions on the effect of EDAS or Ex Officio Mediation system still remains as an important issue to be considered. The very nature of the ADR must be emphasized that respects the parties’ autonomy involving each dispute, in order to establish a dispute resolution system that is based on sound ADR principles. From another standpoint, the success of EDAS system depends on the extent of reducing the error costs associated with the disputes resolutions. Therefore, in addition to reviewing the empirical research conducted in the U.S. or Japan for guidance in improving the current EDAS system, attempts to narrow the gap between the decisions of the...

환경분쟁조정제도의 현황과 과제

윤이숙,이춘원 한국중재학회 2018 중재연구 Vol.28 No.1

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. 산업 발전에 따라 환경 침해가 점점 증가하고 있고, 환경의 중요성이 인식됨에 따라 환경침해를 둘러싸고 갈등과 분쟁이 다수 발생하고 있다. 환경권은 근대법이 예상하지 못했던 권리이어서, 환경분쟁을 전통적인 법 이론과 소송절차에 따라 해결하는 것은 한계에 봉착하고 있다. 따라서 환경분쟁에서 새로운 법리의 개발은 물론이고 전통적인 소송절차이외에 대안적 해결방법으로 환경분쟁조정제도가 도입되었다. 환경분쟁조정제도로서 도입된 환경분쟁조정위원회는 설립 된지 어언 27년이 지났다. 그동안 환경분쟁조정위원회에 조정 신청되는 수가 지속적으로 증가함을 볼 때에 나름대로 성과가 있었다. 그러나 대부분의 사건이 소액이고 재정에 치우쳐 있어서, 환경분쟁해결에 있어서 환경분쟁조정위원회의 실질적 기여도는 한계가 있었다. 이러한 한계를 극복하고 환경분쟁에 관한 ADR기관으로서 환경분쟁조정위의 위상을 높이기 위해서 몇 가지 개선과제가 주장되고 있는데 다음과 같은 것이다. 첫째, ADR 본연의 취지인 당사자의 자유로운 의사에 의한 분쟁해결이라는 취지를 살리기 위해서 재정보다는 조정을 활성화시켜야 한다. 둘째, 환경분쟁조정위원회의 조정대상범위를 환경피해가 우려되는 범위까지 확대하여야 한다. 셋째, 중앙조정위원회와 지방조정위원회의 역할배분에 관한 것이다. 넷째, 분쟁처리기법을 표준화할 필요성이 있다는 것이다. 다섯째, 환경분쟁조정위원회를 현행 환경부 산하기관에서 총리실 산하기관으로 지위를 격상시킬 필요가 있다. 여섯째, 환경분쟁조정위원회의 조직과 인력 구성을 강화해야 한다는 것이다. 일곱째, 환경분쟁사건이 소송과 조정절차에 동시에 계류 중일 때, 현행법상으로 소송절차를 우선시하고 있는데, 이를 완화하여 적절히 조율할 필요가 있다는 것이다. 여덟째, 조정전치주의 도입에 관한 논란이 있다. 아홉째, 환경분쟁조정위원회의 판결예측력을 확보해야 한다는 것이다. 이러한 문제점을 검토한 후 적절히 반영하여 환경분쟁조정위원회의 권위를 확보한다면, 환경분쟁 해결에 있어서 환경분쟁조정위원회의 역할이 향후에 보다 증대될 것으로 생각된다.

Identifying Effective Dispute Resolution Mechanisms for Intellectual Property Disputes in the International Context

Ju-Yeon Lee 한국중재학회 2015 중재연구 Vol.25 No.3

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.

전자사회와 IT분쟁조정법제

최승원 이화여자대학교 법학연구소 2007 法學論集 Vol.11 No.2

The information society that newly emerges as a result of knowledge and information revolution is based in cyber space, the integrated on-offline space. In the society, ADR(Alternative Dispute Resolution) is being increasingly needed to meet demand for fast dispute resolution. On the other hand, an IT related dispute is often characterized by crossing regions or borders. Especially in cross-border disputes, some obstacles to jurisdiction, governing law and litigation are raising the need for a new dispute resolution mechanism. ODR(Online Dispute Resolution), one of ADR, which exists in cyber space, is based on a resolution structure that is convenient and equally accessible to both the claimant and the respondent. It is emerging as an optimal alternative that is cost effective and overcomes the limitations of jurisdiction and governing law. In Korea, dispute mediation system is defined in IT related individual acts such as Electronic Transaction Basic Act , Act on Protection of Information and Promotion of Information Communication Network , Computer Program protection Act and Act on Internet Address Resource . Through the analysis of these legislations on IT dispute mediation, the study examined the problems and sought improvement of policy and legislation in the following four areas: dispute resolution means, dispute resolution procedures, dispute resolution institution, and dispute resolution legislation. ADR needs to be more vigorously practiced. To this end, ADR should secure speed, specialty and fairness to strengthen the trust of dispute parties in ADR and diversify its types to allow the parties to select the most suitable means for each IT related dispute, and lower its costs. In addition, as IT related disputes occur in the area of overlapping regulation of T-Code and L-Code and are effectively resolved only on the professional and technical grounds, it is worth considering unified regulation by establishing the tentatively named “IT Dispute Mediation Act” The establishment of uniform law and organization on IT dispute mediation not only closes loopholes in the current IT dispute mediation regulations in individual acts but also becomes the base for aggressive and leading participation in the agenda of international regulations of global IT dispute which will get prominent in new patterns in the future. 지식정보혁명에 의하여 새롭게 도래하는 이른바 전자사회는 On-Offline 통합공간으로서의 전자공간을 기반으로 한다. 유비쿼터스 기술발전 등과 함께 인류의 생활에 전자 공간이 차지하는 비중이 커질수록, 전자사회의 중심축도 그 쪽으로 이동해간다. 전자공간의 등장은 21세기의 전후를 구분하는 인류사의 큰 획이자 종래의 지역적·인종적 장벽을 넘어 전 인류적 차원의 다원주의적 복합 공동체를 지향하는 새 시대의 예고일 수 있다. 인터넷의 발달로 글로벌 웹기반의 복합멀티미디어매체 내지 이를 통한 다종·다양의 콘텐츠 서비스매체가 기하급수적으로 증대되고 있다. 전자사회에서는 신속한 분쟁해결의 요정에 따른 ADR(Alternative Dispute Resolution) 즉, 대체적 분쟁해결수단의 필요성이 갈수록 커지고 있다. IT분쟁의 복잡다양하고 전문기술적 성격으로 인하여 전통적인 재판제도나 법관보다 관련 지식을 가진 전문가들에 의한 ADR 절체에 따른 분쟁해결이 분쟁의 공정성을 더 담보할 수 있다. 절차공개가 원칙인 소송에 비하여 정보의 비밀유지가 더욱 용이하다. 특히 영업비밀보호나 프라이버시 보호가 중요한 IT산업영역에서 그 효용은 더욱 크다고 할 수 있다. 또한 법적 결론을 반드시 요하는 것이 아닌 ADR에서는 당사자들의 이익을 조화시킬 수 있는 탄력적이고 창의적인 해결방안을 당사자들이 합의를 통하여 모색할 수 있는 장점이 있다. 특히 중소기업의 지적 재산권 침해나 전자상거래관련 소비자피해 등에 관한 소액분쟁해결에는 재판절차보다는 저비용구조의 ADR이 상대적으로 더 적합하다고 할 수 있다. 설령 ADR이 실패하더라도 당사자들간의 입장 및 분쟁의 내용이 정리되어 불필요한 대립의 감소, 법률적인 쟁점이 선명해질 수 있다. 물론 이후 제기될 소송의 신속·원활한 진행에도 도움이 된다. 한편 정보혁명으로 인한 IT분쟁은 격지자간에 발생하는 경우가 많으며 국경을 넘나드는 일도 다반사이다. 이러한 분쟁을 법원에 제소하여 해결하기란 어렵다. 특히 소액분쟁의 당사자가 해당지역 변호사 선임료, 여비, 통역 비용 등을 감당할 수는 없다. 소액분쟁의 해결은 적은 비용으로 가능하여야 한다. 저비용으로 접근 가능한 분쟁해결수단이 마련되지 않으면, 신뢰는 약화되고 이용확대에도 한계가 있게 된다. 국경을 넘는 경우 재판관할, 준거법 등 풀기 어려운 난제 때문에도 기존 법정에서의 해결이 매우 어려운데, ADR의 하나라 할 수 있는 ODR(Online Dispute Resolution)은 전자공간상에 위치하기 때문에 청구인과 피청구인 양 당사자에게 편리하면서도 접근가능한 동등한 해결구도를 기반으로 분쟁을 풀어갈 수 있어, 비용 효율적이면서도 관할, 준거법 등의 한계를 극복 할 수 있는 IT관련 분쟁해결의 최적대안으로 부상하고 있다. 우리나라의 경우『전자거래기본법』,『정보통신망 이용촉진 및 정보보호 등에 관한 법률』,『컴퓨터프로그램보호법』,『인터넷주소자원에 관한 법률』등과 같은 IT관련 개별법에 분쟁 조정제도를 규정하고 있으나, IT분쟁 발생시 ADR의 활용도는 그리 높지 못한 편이다. 그 이유는 조정외의 다양한 ADR 수단이 미련되어 있지 못하고, 전문성·공정성의 담보가 미흡하여 신뢰확보의 걸림돌이 되고 있을 뿐 아니라, 궁극적으로 재판을 통하여 해결할 수 밖에 없다는 당사자들의 인식 등에 기인하는 것으로 보인다. 따라서 ADR의 신속성·전문성 ·공정성을 확보하여 분쟁당사자들의 ADR에 대한 신회를 제고하고, ADR 유형을 다양화하여 각 IT분쟁에 가장 적합한 수단을 선택할 수 있도록 하며, 저비용이로 이용 가능하도록 하여 ADR을 활성화할 필요가 있다. 여기서는 IT분쟁조정 법제의 검토를 통하여 IT분쟁조정제도의 활성화 방안을 살펴보도록 한다. 아울러 IT분쟁해결을 위한 ODR의 법제화와 IT분쟁에 관한 통일법적 규율 및 전문전담기구의 설치 등도 검토해본다.

글로벌 전자상거래 분쟁과 온라인 ADR에 대한 연구

정용균 국제e-비즈니스학회 2011 e-비즈니스 연구 Vol.12 No.5

The online alternative dispute resolution or online dispute resolution is an alternative to traditional dispute resolution in which two or more parties negotiates by electronic means in order to reach an agreement. The main advantage of online dispute resolution is that it is less expensive and less time-consuming than most traditional procedures. People who resolve their disputes online do not have to travel or attend meetings. Instead, they simply negotiate from their computers at home. Skeptics of Online ADR argue that it is less powerful than face-to-face negotiations because the absence of non-verbal cues interfaces with an understanding of the other party's interest. The types of online dispute resolution in this paper are online negotiation, online mediation, and online arbitration. The online negotiation consists of assisted negotiation and automated negotiation. The purpose of this study is as follows. First, this study is to show the detailed study of each segment of online dispute resolution. The Online ADR has its own benefits and pitfalls. This study show the benefits and pitfalls of each segment of the Online ADR. Second, this paper investigates the role of online dispute resolution as the possible solver of disputes in global e-commerce. The global e-commerce has multipled the number of cross-border transactions with connections to several countries that could have a legitimate claim for jurisdiction. Jurisdictional uncertainties may have several consequences including the inability of states to exercise legal power over transactions within their territories. This problem can be avoided by online alternative dispute resolution. Third, this paper is to evaluate future direction of Online ADR. For this purpose, this paper analyzes the various issues in implementing online dispute resolution such as impartiality, the cost-saving, information technology, and the role of third party neutral in dispute resolution in cyber space. 최근 들어 전자상거래를 통한 거래가 활발해지고 있다. 그러나 이와 동시에 전자상거래 상의 사기 행위, 물품의 품질에 대한 분쟁 등 인터넷 쇼핑몰 상에서의 구매자와 판매자 간의 분쟁도 빈도수가 늘고 있다. 만약 전자상거래를 통한 거래의 경우, 분쟁의 해결이 신속하게 된다면 전자상거래를 통한 물품의 교역은 더욱 활성화될 것이다. 전자상거래가 전 세계적으로 확대되기 위해서는 예측가능하고 신속한 분쟁해결 제도의 확립이 필수적이다. 특히 신속하고 소액 단위로 이루어지는 B2C 전자상거래의 경우, 기존의 소송제도로 분쟁을 해결하기에는 소송가액이 상대적으로 소액이고, 전자상거래를 활용하는 거래자들이 신속한 분쟁해결을 원하기 때문에 시간이 많이 소요되는 소송제도는 전자상거래 분쟁해결에는 적합하지 않은 것으로 분석되고 있다. 온라인 ADR제도는 전자상거래 관련 분쟁에 매우 효과적인 분쟁해결수단으로 알려지고 있다. 본 연구는 온라인분쟁해결(ODR)을 세분화하여 온라인 협상, 온라인 조정, 온라인 중재로 세분화하여, 각각의 장점과 단점을 분석한다. 또한 ODR을 통한 전자상거래 분쟁해결 시도를 개관하고 온라인 분쟁해결의 미래방향을 제시한다.