공정거래분야에 있어서 조정제도의 현황과 개선방안 = Methods of Activation in Fair Trade Fields according to Introduction of Mediation System

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

It has been assumed that mediation system could be applied better to the fields, in which the compromise plans by negotiation would be appropriate, or to the fields such as environmental disputes or public policy-related disputes that would require lots of cost and time than to the disputes among family members or the fields required for legal judgments or forced conclusions. In addition, it is advantageous in terms that it could efficiently and effectively deal with the disputes based on sophisticated professional knowledge that may be hardly understood by judges or the disputes related to the secrets of companies. Furthermore, mediation system does not require the aid of lawyers in its procedures so that it may resolve the disputes within 2 to 3 months of relatively short period of time as well as lower or eliminate pertinent costs.
Owing to its strengths, it has been used in various fields of the court other than its mediation by attaching it legal procedures and it has tended to be applied in a variety of fields in the countries around the world.
In the revised Fair Trade Act (July 3, 2007), mediation system was introduced in ‘the field of unfair trade.' Most cases concerning unfair trade practices reported to Fair Trade Commission have been characterized by private disputes and most reporters have tended to want a remedy for violation of their private rights rather than a strict punishment on harmers. Therefore, it would be significant in that the resolution through mediation in these fields puts priority on the remedy for the victims of unfair trade and provides the harmers with an opportunity to correct their faults on their own.
In this regard, this study investigated actual current conditions and problems of 'the dispute resolution system' introduced in fair trade and offered several suggestions for the activation of its use.
First of all, in order to activate the mediation system in ordinary fields as well as fair trade fields, equivalent effectiveness with ‘settlement in court’ should be given to mediation. The study described concrete grounds for this in detail.
Moreover, it suggested a method of ensuring the neutrality and fairness of mediation system. It is no exaggeration to say that the core element of mediation system is to secure the neutrality and fairness. Accordingly, it should be established in the groups or organizations ensured with fairness and neutrality.
Lastly, it has been believed that the method of endowing 'the effectiveness of suspension in extinctive prescription during the application of mediation’ would also contribute largely to the activation of mediation system.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 김정순, "행정법상 재판외 분쟁해결연구, 법제연구원(2006)"

2 김용섭, "행정법상 분쟁해결수단으로서의 조정, 저스티스 제81호(2004)"

3 정선주, "조정제도 활성화를 위한 조정절차의 개선방안" 7 :

4 한국조세연구포럼, "조세분쟁의 사전·사후 조정제도의 도입방안에 관한 연구(2005)"

5 옥무석, "전자상거래분쟁과 ADR" 13 (13):

6 호문혁, "재판에 갈음하는 분쟁해결제도의 현황과 과제, 비교사법(2005.10)"

7 김종대, "재판과 조정" 부산판례연구회 12 : 2001

8 정영수, "일본의 ADR법에 관한 소개" 7 (7): 2005

9 정찬모, "인터넷분쟁의 소송외적 해결을 위한 법제도 연구, 정보통신정책연구원 정책연구(2001)"

10 원용수, "우리나라 증권분쟁조정제도의 발전방향" 8 :

11 유병현, "우리나라 ADR의 발전방향" 22 : 2006

12 이창범, "온라인 개인정보분쟁해결제도 발전방안 연구, 개인정보분쟁조정위원회"

13 송상현, "소송에 갈음하는 분쟁해결방법(ADR)의 이념과 전망" 14 : 1992

14 사법개혁위원회, "사법개혁을 위한 건의문(2004.12.31)"

15 이희정, "법의 지배와 행정법상 재판외 분쟁해결수단" 서울대 2004

16 김상영, "민사조정·화해제도의 활성화 방안과 ODR" 22 (22): 2006

17 문흥수, "민사조정·화해제도의 이념과 그 활성화 방안" 박영사 2002

18 김용진, "민사분쟁조정법규의 개선방향 -콘텐츠분쟁의 조정제도에 겸하여-" 한국재산법학회 22 (22): 291-316, 2005

19 김태한, "미국의 재판외 분쟁해결제도" 한국중재학회 13 (13):

20 정갑주, "미국에 있어서 ADR의 제도화" 58 :

21 이규진, "미국 ADR에 비추어 본 우리나라의 ADR, 중재 제296호, 대한상사중재원"

22 전병서, "대체적 분쟁처리제도의 도입방안, 사법제도개혁추진위원회 연구용역보고서(2005.12)"

23 신학용, "공정거래위원회 국정감사보도자료, 2004.11.18"

24 두성규, "건설분쟁조정위원회 활성화 방안, 건설교통부 연구용역(2002)"

25 大小島武司, "裁判外紛爭處理と法の支配" 有斐閣 2000

26 大橋眞由美, "行政紛爭解決の現代的構造" 弘文堂 2005

27 石川 明, "比較裁判外紛爭解決制度" 慶應義塾大學出版會 1996

28 Riskin, Leonard L., "Dispute Resolution and Lawyers, Second Edition, West Group, 1997"