Earticle

의료 사고에 대한 법적 책임은 업무상 과실치사상 죄에 대한 형사 책임과 손해배상과 관련된 민사 책임으로 구분할 수 있다. 최근에 들어서 사회 전반적으로 필수 의료 부족 현상이 두드러지고 있는데, 그 원인의 하나로 최근에 필수 분야 의료 사고에서 10억을 넘는 고액 배상 판결이 영향을 미친 것으로 판단한다. 필수 의료는 대부분 국민건강보험 요양 급여에 해당하여, 비급여 의료행위를 하는 것에 비하여 수가가 낮고, 본질적으로 사고 발생 위험성이 높기 때문에 의사들이 이를 꺼려하는 현상이 나타난 것이다. 본 논문 에서는 필수 분야 의료 사고에 대하여 의사의 민사 책임을 제한하고 국민건강보험 공단 의 보충적 또는 연대적 책임을 인정하는 것이 필요하고, 이를 위하여 대체적 분쟁 해결방 식의 유용성, 미국의 배상 제한 입법, 캐나다의 주정부의 배상 보험료 환급 제도와 2024 년 현재 정부에 의하여 제시된 의료사고처리 특례법의 문제점을 고찰하였다.

Legal liability for medical malpractice accidents can be divided into criminal liability for occupational negligence and civil liability related to compensation for damages. Recently, the shortage of essential medical care has become more noticeable throughout society, and one of the reasons is believed to be the recent high-cost damage compensation ruling exceeding 1 billion won in medical accidents in essential areas. Essential medical care is mostly covered by National Health Insurance, and the cost is lower than that of non-covered medical treatment, and the risk of accidents is inherently high, so doctors are reluctant to practice it. In this paper, it is necessary to limit doctors' civil liability for medical accidents in essential areas and recognize the supplementary or joint liability of the National Health Insurance Corporation. To this end, the usefulness of alternative dispute resolution methods, the United States’ compensation limitation legislation, and Canada’s provincial governments reimbursement program are examined. The problems of the special act on medical accidents handling proposed by the government as of 2024.

The victim-offender mediation system refers in principle to the procedure in which a third party who is situated in the neutral position arranges to mediate the directly concerned persons to eventually come to reconciliation and to reflect such results in processing or judgement of a case. In a word, the victim-offender mediation is simply a process of resolving disputes or conflicts resulted from the offense happening between an offender and a victim and of recovering the loss of the damaged. Viewed from the perspective of the judicial system, the victim-offender mediation could be seen as a form of citizen participation in that the neutral third party, instead of the criminal justice agency, plays a key role in mediation and the mediator cooperates with the criminal justice agency to a certain extent while keeping a good distance from it, at least when resolving conflicts. It may be said, however, that the victim-offender mediation system is very significant since both offender and victim take initiative in mediation to solve the case jointly, which is totally different from the process of handling legal cases under the existing criminal justice system. The victim-offender mediation system in Korea is applauded as having raised capabilities of the investigating and judicial authorities by reducing their burden of having to deal with matters of private autonomy, encouraging to solve problems autonomously, letting judicial officers by thus concentrate on investigating into important incidents, prompting victims to recover from the damage rapidly, ridding offenders of unnecessary restriction or threatening of such by the investigating authorities, defending as a consequence the human rights of offenders, helping them to reunite with the community or society they belonged to in the past, preventing them from repeating offenses, etc. In parallel with widening awareness of positive effects and usefulness of the victim-offender mediation system among the people in this country, responses to the system are expected to become more and more intensified in the days to come. To vitalize and refine the victim-offender mediation system more exquisitely, it seems essential for the prosecutors standing in front line, on the one hand, to drastically increase referral of incidents to settlement by victim-offender mediation and, on the other hand, for the heads of legal institutions, prosecutors in charge and staff members of prosecution to show more active concern and cooperation to increase the number of criminal mediation, minimize the ratio of failure to call for mediation and ward off difference in the number of victim-offender mediations among each prosecutor's office. Moreover, it is also deemed necessary to diversify and specialize election of members for mediation, increase their numbers, organize seminars or workshops to train them and to develop and share their techniques to improve successful settlement by mediation and to give publicity of exemplary cases, in addition to continued efforts to improve working conditions of those engaged in mediation.

대체적 분쟁 해결방법(ADR)은 항상 논쟁자와 법원이 분쟁 해결사를 찾는 데 있어서 대체 수단으로 간주된다. ADR 역시 항상 모든 민간영역의 문제를 조화롭게 해결하려고 한다. 이러한 과정은 많은 장점을 가지고 있는데, 그 장점으로는 첫째, 비용이 효율적이 다. 그리고 문서만을 이용한 분쟁 해결 능력과 관련 당사자 간의 대면적으로 논쟁 능력은 편리하고 적용 가능한 것으로 밝혀졌다. 게다가, 최근 말레이시아와 세계에서의 이슬람 금융 분쟁과 관련된 사례가 증가함에 따라, 분쟁 당사자들은 ADR 메커니즘을 적용할 때 의사결정의 질이 손상되지 않고 분쟁이 신속하게 해결될 수 있다는 것이 점점 더 인식하고 있다. 본 논문에서는 말레이시아의 ADR과 이슬람 금융의 발전과 관련된 이슈에 대해 논하고자 한다. 그뿐만 아니라, 연구자들은 분쟁을 해결하기 위한 중요한 역할로서 이슬람 ADR을 발견하도록 전달 될 것이다. 따라서 말레이시아의 이슬람 금융과 관련된 법적 갈등을 해결하기 위해 새로운 권고안이 마련돼야 한다.

Alternative dispute resolution (ADR) is always seen as substitute way for the disputants and the court to look for dispute resolvers. ADR too has always been keen to solve any civil matters in a harmonious way. Due to its process which has many merits. First is of being cost effective. Then, the ability to resolve a dispute using a document only procedure and face to face discussion between the parties involved has been found to be both convenient and applicable. Moreover, with the increase cases involving Islamic finance disputes in Malaysia and the world in recent years, parties in dispute have become increasingly aware that disputes may be resolved quickly and without the quality of the decision impaired when applying the ADR mechanism. This paper discusses issues related the evolution of ADR and Islamic finance in Malaysia. In addition to that, researchers will also be conveyed to discover Islamic ADR as one vital role to resolve the dispute. Therefore, new recommendation should be imposed to solve legal conflicts related to Islamic finance in Malaysia.

Community Mediation은 미국에서 실험적으로 시작되어 미국뿐만 아니라 영국, 오스트레일리아, 캐나다 등의 선진국을 비롯하여 아시아에서도 싱가포르, 말레이시아, 네팔 등에서 도입되어 운영되고 있다. 이제는 Community Mediation이 지역사회 분쟁해결의 새로운 추세의 한 흐름이 되고 있다. 본 연구는 외국에서 Community Mediation 제도가 속속 도입되는 추세에 주의를 기울이고, 외국의 이러한 움직임에도 불구하고 우리나라에서 이에 대한 연구가 거의 없는 상황에 주목하였다. Community Mediation은 단순히 분쟁해결 건수나 성공률에 의미를 부여하는 것에 그치지 않고, 지역사회 주민 간의 커뮤니케이션 증가나 긴장 또는 갈등의 완화, 지역정부와 주민 간의 관계 증진 등의 부수적인 효과를 중시해야 한다. 우리나라는 2010년 기준으로 OECD 회원국 중 종교적 갈등이 심한 터키에 이어 두 번째로 갈등 정도가 심한 것으로 나타났다. 지역주민들의 분쟁인 층간소음, 학교폭력, 주차 시비, 토지 경계, 지역개발로 인한 갈등 등 그 수많은 분쟁의 종류에 대응해서 일일이 개별적인 분쟁해결기구를 둔다는 것은 너무 큰 자원낭비라 할 수 있고 분쟁해결의 효율성 측면에서도 문제가 있는 방식이라 할 수 있다. 이제는 우리도 지역사회 분쟁을 해결하기 위한 종합적인 대안으로서 Community Mediation을 위한 주민분쟁해결센터의 도입을 추진하여야 할 것이다.

Introduced experimentally in the United States, Community Mediation is being operated in Singapore, Malaysia, Nepal etc in Asia as well as in the United States, United Kingdom, Australia, and Canada which are the developed countries. Community Mediation is becoming a new trend of community dispute resolution. Nevertheless, there is seldom the study on Community Mediation as a single subject matter in our country. Paying attention to the tendency that Community Mediation systems are introduced one after another in foreign countries, this study takes note of the situation which relevant researches on Community Mediation are scarce in our country. Community Mediation is not limited to simply giving meaning to the dispute resolution caseloads or its success rate. We need to attach importance to ancillary effects which are communication enhancement among residents, mitigation of tension or conflict, relation reinforcement between the residents and the regional governments, and the like. Based on the criteria of the year 2010, Korea was disclosed that the degree of conflict was in the second severe among the OECD countries, following Turkey. It is not only a great waste of resources but also problematic approaches in terms of efficiency of dispute resolution that we establish individual dispute resolution machineries, matching so many kinds of regional disputes that are inter-layer noise, quarrels over the parking lot, boundaries of the land, school violence, regional development conflict etc. Now, we should push ahead with introduction of the community dispute resolution center for Community Mediation as a comprehensive alternative to solve the community disputes.

학폭법상 학교폭력에 관해 발생하는 법적 분쟁은 가해학생에 대한 직접적인 조치 내지 처벌에 관한 것과 학교폭력으로 인해 발생한 민사상 손해의 배상에 관한 것으로 나눌 수 있다. 특히 후자의 경우, 가해학생과 피해학생 및 그 보호자 외에 교사와 학교 법인 등도 주요한 관련 당사자가 될 수 있는데, 학폭법은 가해학생과 피해학생측에 관한 규율에 치중하고 있다. 한편, 학폭법은 분쟁당사자들 사이의 관계회복에도 중점 을 두고 있어 이러한 분쟁의 해결을 법원의 소송에만 의존하지 않도록 하면서 당사자 들의 자율성과 신속성을 토대로 한 행정형 ADR의 일종인 조정방식으로 처리하도록 하고 있다. 그러나 현행 학폭법상 분쟁조정에 관한 규정을 살펴본 결과, 분쟁조정 신청 인을 가해·피해 학생 및 그 보호자로 제한하고 있어 교사 등은 조정을 활용하지 못할 가능성, 조정절차와 소송절차가 병행할 가능성으로 인해 분쟁의 장기화가 초래될 우려 및 이와 관련하여 조정신청에 소멸시효 중단효를 인정하는 조항을 두고 있지 않아 분 쟁의 당사자들이 분쟁조정제도를 활용할 가능성이 저하될 우려 등이 있다. 이를 보완하기 위해 분쟁조정 신청인의 범위를 교사 등으로 확대하고, 다른 행정형 ADR에 관한 근거 법률에 규정되어 있는 조정절차와 소송절차와의 관계 및 조정신청에 대한 소멸시효 중단효와 관련된 규정을 참고하여 이를 입법에 반영하는 것이 타당하 다. 그 외 신속한 분쟁조정을 위해 두고 있는 1개월의 분쟁해결시한을 가해학생이 “불 가피한 불출석 사유”로 불출석함으로써 경과하도록 하여 분쟁조정을 의도적으로 회피할 근거로 악용할 우려가 있는 부분은, 불가피한 불출석 사유의 유형화·구체화를 통 해 방지할 필요가 있다.

Legal dispute regarding school violence stipulated in the ｢Act on the Prevention of and Countermeasures against Violence in Schools｣(the “Act”) may be categorized into measures on related students and mediation as one of the administrative alternative dispute resolution for the settlement of a dispute regarding compensation for damage between a victim student and an aggressor student or between their guardians. However, the Act focuses on measures on aggressor students and victim students. Also, the Act introduces mediation for resolving dispute arising in connection with school violence in order to restore relationship between parties, although, it seems highly likely to reduce the possibility of use the mediation by teachers and schools for the following reasons: (i) the restriction on the petitioner for mediation in dispute, only permitting to victim students and aggressor students or between their guardians; (ii) possibility of simultaneous progress of mediation process and criminal or civil trial; (iii) non-stipulation regarding interruption of extinctive prescription. To address these concern, the Act should be revised–that is, (i) inclusion of teachers and schools as petitioner for mediation, (ii) exclusion of possibility of simultaneous progress of mediation process and criminal or civil trial, and (iii) recognition of legal effect as interruption of extinctive prescription of filing of mediation, etc.

지방계약과 관련해서는 낙찰관련분쟁, 부정당업자제재관련 분쟁, 계약금액조정과 관련된 분쟁 등 다양한 분쟁이 발생하고 있다. 이러한 분쟁들은 법원에서 소송을 통해서 해결될 수 도 있지만, 재판외 분쟁해결제도를 통해 해결하는 것이 소송비용의 절감, 행정의 전문성 활 용 등 여러 가지 장점을 갖고 있다. 현재 우리나라에서는 지방자치단체를 당사자로 하는 계약에 관한 법률 을 근거로 하여 이의신청, 계약분쟁조정위원회의 재심제도 등 재판외 분쟁해결제도를 두고 있으나, 이들 제 도들이 아직 활성화되어 있다고 보기는 힘들다. UN상거래법위원회에서는 공공조달계약과 관련한 모델법을 제정하였고 여기에서는 재판 외 분쟁해결제도에 관해서도 규정을 두고 있다. 이러한 UN상거래법위원회의 사례는 우리나 라의 지방계약관련 분쟁해결제도의 발전에 여러 가지 시사점을 제공한다. 지방계약법상의 재판외 분쟁해결제도가 활성화되기 위해서는 신청요건이나 본안요건을 지나치게 엄격하지 않게 운영함으로써 법원에서의 소송과 차별성을 기해야 한다. 그리고 재 심제도의 경우 지방계약분쟁의 종류가 매우 다양하다는 점을 고려하여 행정심판적 성격과 조정의 성격을 함께 가진 제도로 운영을 할 필요가 있다.

Disputes relating to local government contracting occur very often nowadays. Disputes relating award of contract, debarment, and change of contract price are typical examples. These cases can be resolved by the lawsuit in court, however, resolution through ADR (Alternative Dispute Resolution) has strength in saving the cost and use of expertise in public officials. In Korea, 'Act on the Contracts in which the Local Government is a Party' provides the ADR such as 'complaint to procuring agencies' or 'application of review to Local Government Contract Dispute Resolution Board'. However, these procedures are not actively implemented yet. United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) established the Model Law on Public Procurement which provides ADR on public procurement disputes. This model law provides some lessons to Korea. For the active implementation of ADR, standings or merits should not be managed too rigidly, and ADR should be managed in differentiation from lawsuit in court. Application of review to Local Government Contract Dispute Resolution Board should be handled as a system which has both administrative appeal and conciliation nature.

지방계약법이 제정 시행된 이후 입찰공고, 낙찰자 결정, 설계변경으로 인한 계약금액 조정, 지연배상금 등과 관련하여 자치단체와 계약상대방 간의 분쟁이 계속해서 빈번히 발생하고 있다. 63) 과거에는 계약상대방이 지방자치단체를 상대로 계약의 체결 또는 이행과정에서의 불 공정행위에 대하여 이의를 제기하는 경우가 많지 않았으나 최근에는 지방자치단체에 자 신의 권리구제를 위하여 적극적으로 이의를 제기를 하는 경우가 갈수록 증가하고 있다. 지금까지 지방자치단체와 계약상대방 간 분쟁의 대부분은 소송으로 해결해왔다. 그러 나 소송을 통한 분쟁해결은 분쟁해결의 장기화를 초래하고 이로 인한 과다한 소송비용으 로 소송당사자들 모두에게 큰 부담을 주고 있어 사회적 비용을 증가시키는 주요한 요인 이 되어왔다. 이러한 이유로 미국에서는 오래전부터 분쟁해결을 위한 수단으로써 소송보다는 대체 적 분쟁해결(ADR)을 통해 문제를 해결해오고 있으며 최근에는 우리나라도 행정형 ADR을 중심으로 행정부 또는 행정부 산하기관에 설치된 각종 분쟁조정위원회에서 조정 등 여러 형식으로 각종 분쟁의 해결을 시도해오고 있다. 지방계약과 관련하여 계약과정에서 불이익을 받은 자는 계약상대방인 지방자치단체에 이의신청을 제기할 수 있는데 이의신청에 대한 조치에 이의가 있는 자는 그 통지를 받은 날부터 15일 이내에 지방계약분쟁조정위원회에 조정을 위한 재심을 청구할 수 있도록 제 도화하고 있다. 한 가지 사례를 들어보면, 지방자치단체가 저류조 설치공사에 대한 실적부족을 이유로 적격심사 부적격통보를 한 것에 대해 청구인이 이의신청을 제기하였다. 그러나 지방자치 단체가 “수용불가”를 통지하자 청구인이 지방계약분쟁조정위원회에 분쟁조정을 위한 재 심을 청구한 사안이 있었다. 본 사안에 대해 지방계약분쟁조정위원회는 저류조의 규모와 각 저류조의 공사현장의 사실관계 파악을 위해 청구인과 피청구인 그리고 제3자인 전문가가 공동으로 현장방문을 한 후에 인용결정을 내렸다. 본 사례에서 알 수 있듯이 분쟁조정위원회의 조정은 소송과는 달리 신속한 결정과 함 께 소송비용을 절감할 수 있고 일도양단의 결정이 아닌 당사자의 이익을 충족하는 보다 탄력적이고 유연한 결론을 내릴 수 있다. 또한 풍부한 경험과 지식을 가지고 있는 전문가 를 활용할 수 있어서 보다 다양한 요소를 고려하여 공정하고 합리적인 판단이 가능하다 는 점뿐만 아니라 분쟁 당사자 스스로 합의에 이르는 경우 당사자에게 큰 만족감을 줄 수 있다는 점에 있어서 소송에 비하여 뚜렷한 장점이 있다. 그동안 행정안전부는 지방계약분쟁조정위원회 활성화를 위하여 분쟁조정대상 확대 등 다양한 노력을 시도하였지만 제도정비의 미비와 지방자치단체의 소송 선호 경향, 사회 전반적인 인식변화 부족 등으로 인하여 아직까지 지방계약분쟁조정위원회에 의한 실질 적인 분쟁해결은 요원한 실정이다. 이에, 본 논문에서는 지방계약법에 있어서 분쟁의 해결방법으로 현행 우리나라의 지방 계약 분쟁조정위원회 현황을 소개하고, 이들 제도의 문제점을 분석한 후 지방계약분쟁조 정위원회 활성화를 위한 구체적인 개선방안을 제시하였다 현재까지도 행정안전부는 분쟁조정 전담인력이 없어 분쟁조정 민원신청에 대한 수요 를 감당하지 못하고 있는 실정이다. 따라서 가능한 빠른 시일 내에 사무국을 설치하고 온 라인분쟁해결(ODR) 제도를 도입하여 분쟁조정위원회 독립홈페이지를 개설할 필요가 있 다. 이를 통해 온라인 사건접수 및 처리가 가능하도록 업무전산화를 하여 주민들의 접근 성을 높여야 할 것이다. 요컨대 행정안전부는 지방계약분쟁조정위원회 활성화를 위한 조속한 제도적 기반마련 과 시스템 구축을 통하여 지방자치단체와 계약상대방들이 지방계약 관련 분쟁을 적은 비 용으로 보다 신속하게 해결할 수 있는 환경을 조성해야 할 것이다.

Since enactment of the Local Contract Act in 2006, disputes among local governments and contract counterparts have been frequently made, regarding bid notices, selection of final bidders, amendments on contract amounts coming from structure changes, delay recompenses and etc. 48) It was not an usual case to raise an objection on unfair acts happened to occur in the process of entering into a contract and carrying it out. However, the number of such objections raised by people against the local governments to fight for violation of rights are increasing these days. Until now, most of these disputes have been ended up by litigation. However, solving disputes by litigation has become a main factor that causes a lot of social costs because it makes the solving process lengthy and both the plaintiff and the defendant get superabundant burdens of lawsuit costs. For this reason, the US has long resolved the problem through Alternative Dispute Resolution rather than litigation as a means of resolving disputes. In recent years, Korea has been trying to resolve disputes in various forms, mainly by administrative ADRs including conciliation through various dispute conciliation committees established in the Ministry of the Interior and Safety or under its affiliating organization. People who got disadvantages in the process of contracts with local governments may raise objections against them. Moreover, those dissenting from actions taken from the objection can petition for a retrial to the Contract Dispute Conciliation Committee of Local Governments for conciliation within 15 days from the date of receiving the notice. For example, there was an objection against a local government for issuing a notice of disqualification saying that the claimant had insufficient performance of reservoir construction. However, the local government notified it “unacceptable” and the claimant filed a request for reexamination to the local contract dispute conciliation committee. The local contract dispute conciliation committee made a conclusion to accept the objection after jointly visiting the construction site with the both counterparts and the third-party experts in order to figure out the reservoir scale and the related facts. As you can see in this example, conciliation made by the committee, contrast to litigation, can reduce the litigation costs and make a speedy and a more resilient and flexible conclusion that meets the interests of directly involving parties. In addition, there are distinct advantages over litigation because it is possible to utilize experts with abundant experience and knowledge so that fair and reasonable judgments can be made considering various factors, and it also can satisfy the involving parties when it reaches a consensus. Until now, the Ministry of the Interior and Safety has tried to activate the committee in various ways such as expanding the conciliation targets. However, the actual resolution of disputes are hardly made by the committee due to tendency of preferring lawsuits, lack of policy modification, less changes on the overall social recognition and etc. In this regard, this paper explained the meaning of the alternative dispute settlement procedure and introduced the related settlement procedures in Korea by comparing those of foreign countries. Also, the paper closely examined the current status on local contract petition, the local contract dispute conciliation committee, actual cases of dispute conciliation, and provided with the actual methods to activate the committee. In addition to the methods of activating, it provided the policy betterment plans that governments should follow in a wide level in order to resolve the local contract disputes promptly and economically. The Ministry of the Interior and Safety still cannot meet the demands of petition for dispute conciliation because there is no personnel in charge for dispute conciliation. Therefore, it should set up a secretariat as soon as possible and introduce the ODR(Online Dispute Resolution) system to open an independent homepage of the committee. Through this process, it should increase the accessibility of residents by computerizing the work so that people can make applications and handle the cases online. In short, the government should create an environment in which local governments and their contract counterparts can resolve disputes more quickly at a lower cost by quickly establishing the policy infrastructure and the related systems to activate the local contract dispute conciliation committees.

한국 사회전반에서 발생하고 있는 공공갈등에 따른 분쟁해결이 종국에는 법원의 판단에 의해 결정이 이루어지는 구조에서 갈등해결을 위해서는 소송 외에 다양한 대체적 분쟁 해결(Alternative Dispute Resolution : ADR) 방식이 마련될 필요가 있 다. 이 논문에서는 대체적 분쟁해결 방식으로서 중재법제에 대하여 논의하였다. 갈등해결의 이론적 배경 및 해양에서 갈등사례 분석에서는 이익갈등의 개념과 유 형, 조합주의와 다원주의에 대하여 고찰하고, 제주 해군기지건설 사례에서는 갈등의 전개과정, 갈등의 본질, 갈등의 해법제시로 나누어 분석하였다. 공공갈등관리를 위해 서는 공공갈등전문기구와 전문가 집단이 필요하다는 것을 시사하고 있다. 현재 한국에서 마련되어 있는 제도 중 대체적 분쟁해결 방식으로서 중재제도를 활성화시킬 필요가 있다고 본다. 대체적 분쟁해결방식으로서 중재법 검토에서는 대 체적 분쟁해결 방식의 필요성을 제기하고, 중재법을 검토하여 목적과 적용, 중재절차 및 중재판정, 중재인 선정, 중재합의에 대하여 검토하였다. “현행 ‘사법(私法)상’의 분쟁 해결만을 규정하고 있는 중재법 제 1조를 개정하여 ‘공공(公共)’ 분쟁을 포함하도록 한다면 공공갈등을 중재(仲裁)에 의하여 적정ㆍ공평 ㆍ신속하게 해결할 수 있음을 제안하였다. 그리고 공인중재인 등록제도를 마련하여 중재판정부를 구성할 수 있도록 할 필요가 있음을 제안하였다. 이 논문에서 주장하 는 공인중재인 등록제도는 국내에서 발생하고 있는 다양한 갈등과 분쟁으로서 신규 항로 개설에 따른 주민(어민)들과의 갈등, 어업권 조정, 해양오염사고, 항만의 개발, 해상공사 등에 대하여 적용할 수 있다.

Dispute settlement for public conflicts occurring in the Korean society at large is made by the decision of the court in the end. Owing to such structure, various means of (Alternative Dispute Resolution : ADR) need to be brought forward for the resolution of conflicts. This article has discussed the Arbitration Act as a means of ADR. This article has reviewed the concept and forms of the conflict of interests, unionism and pluralism in the section of the theoretical background of dispute resolution and the analysis of conflict cases in the maritime field. Also discussed were the development, core and resolution of disputes respectively in the section of instances of naval base construction in Jeju. This suggests that a specialized body for public disputes and a group of experts are necessary in order to deal with such disputes. The author suggests that among disputes settlement system currently available in Korea, arbitration as an alternative dispute resolution needs to be revitalized. This article has suggested the necessity of alternative dispute resolution regime at the section of the discussion of the Arbitration Act and also reviewed the purpose and application of arbitration, its procedure, arbitration award, the selection of arbitrators and the agreement of arbitration. The author has suggested that if Article 1 of the Arbitration Act applying to settling disputes falling within private law areas is revised to embrace the settlement of public disputes, public disputes can be resolved by arbitration in a reasonable, equitable and swift manner. This article has also suggested that it is necessary to be able to compose an arbitrational tribunal by means of an official arbitrator registration system. The arbitrator registration system that this article argues for can be applied to settling various conflicts or disputes occurring in Korea such as conflicts with residents (fishermen) owing to the establishment of a new sea route, the modification of fishery rights, marine pollution accidents, the development of a port, and marine construction.

Just in case a patient's state couldn't get better or get even worse after medical practices, it is difficult for the patient's side to accept the result and it tends to think that its damage is caused by his doctor's malpractice. Medical practices of a doctor require highly advanced attention duty as a medical expert, because they are targeted at a human body of the best benefit and protection of the law. However, it is hard to prove the malpractice on the patient's side in medical dispute. Therefore, to solve a medical dispute quickly and fairly before the medical suit Korea Consumer Agency (KCA) has done a medical dispute adjustment business since 1999. For the past 5 years (2006~2010), the medical team of KCA had managed 4,171 cases as an injury relief, but it had dealt with them focusing on an injury relief business only after the occurrence of a medical accident. Afterwards, it is necessary to expand the range of its services in purpose of preventing the injury of consumers. If we can solve the problems -the clear statements about the cease of extinctive prescription in the fundamentals of comsumer act, the presence of parties directly concerned at comsumer dispute adjustment committee, and the effect of an agreement, etc. -, which have been founded in medical injury relief service of KCA and the management and procedures of the comsumer dispute adjustment committee of KCA and if we can also give KCA more workers and the proper budget of the government, we can expect KCA to become a more useful agency.

The growing importance of biological resources as sovereign rights to healthcare, energy, and food has sparked international discussions on Genetic Resources (GRs) and Traditional Knowledge (TK). As the bio-industry continues to grow, research and development utilizing patented biological resources are advocated. Currently, World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) is actively discussing GRs and TK, and an effective response to national interest has been sought. Of late, there have been growing disputes over issues like ownership, control, and access and benefit-sharing between indigenous peoples and users of GRs and TK resources. Resolution of disputes concerning GRs and TK are thus becoming critical not only to stakeholders such as the indigenous peoples and corporations, but also to third-party users. Due to the weakness of the current IP and court system however, such disputes are not addressed adequately. This paper will address the use of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), which is an out-of-court dispute resolution system, on conflicting issues regarding GRs and TK. It will consider the WIPO as a forum for ADR and ADR for GRs and TK disputes and it will seek both parties in the dispute to benefit from the use of the ADR process.

우리나라 건설분쟁에 대한 해결은 재판을 통한 소송을 비롯하여 재판 외 분쟁해결제도인 협상, 중재, 조정을 통해 해결하고 있다. 하지만 건설 분쟁 제기 수가 발주자와 시공자의 인식 변화와 시장 개방, 기업 여건 악화 등으로 계속해서 증가하는 추세에 있다. 이에 본 연구에서는 그 동안의 건설 분쟁에 대한 해결방안이 사후적인 대책에 머물러 있음을 감안하여 사전에 예방하는 방법으로 파트너링 도입안을 제시해 보고자 한다. 미국에서 시작된 파트너링은 현재 분쟁감소와 공기절감, 참여자 상호교류의 증진 등의 효과를 가져왔다. 이에 본 연구에서는 분쟁 감소 방안으로 파트너링에 대한 모델안을 제시하고자 한다.

Alternative dispute resolution(ADR) techniques, like negotiation, arbitration, meditation, have been used to resolve dispute in Korea construction industry with litigation. Nowadays, in construction, there are growing numbers of disputing cases, because of the different viewpoint of the owner and the constructor, great demand of opening market, and bad construction business situation. As the name implies, ADR plays an important roles after disputes have already arisen. This paper suggests the one of the solutions that prevents disputes befor they have been occurred. There are some proves that the partnering has a substantial effect on reducing disputes and time reduction and improving communication among the parties. This paper proposes the partnering model for the one of preventive methods to solve disputes.

방송분쟁은 방송분야에서 발생하는 이해당사자 간의 다툼이다. 이러한 분쟁을 해결하기 위한 전형적인 수단은 법원에 소를 제기하는 것이다. 그러나 소송에 의한 분쟁해결은 엄격한 절차와 기준을 따라야 하며, 당사자는 상당한 비용과 시간적 소모를 감수해야 한다. 이러한 단점들을 보완하기 위한 제도가 바로 재판 외 대체적 분쟁해결제도(ADR)이다. 여기에는 중재, 재정, 조정, 알선 등이 포함된다. 방송법도 방송분쟁을 해결하기 위한 ADR로서 방송분쟁조정절차를 규정하고 있다. 그러나 방송분쟁조정절차가 도입된 지 상당한 시간이 흘렀음에도 불구하고, 사실상 거의 활용되고 있지 못하고 있는 실정이다. 오늘날 방송분쟁의 핵심 쟁점은 재송신료, 프로그램 사용료, 홈쇼핑송출수수료 등 주로 ‘대가’와 관련된 것이다. 그런데 이러한 유형의 분쟁은 법원에서 해결할 수 없는 성질의 것이다. 판단을 내리기 위한 대가 기준이 존재하지 않을 뿐 아니라, 당사자 간 장래의 대가에 대한 적정성 판단은 법원의 역할도 아니고, 법원은 이에 능하지도 않다. 그러나 분쟁이 해결되지 않으면 방송송출이 중단되고, 그 피해는 시청자에게 고스란히 영향을 미친다. 경우에 따라 그 정도가 심할 경우 이러한 분쟁은 방송법상 금지행위를 위반할 가능성도 있다. 방송분쟁조정절차는 이러한 성격의 분쟁에서 서로 간의 양보와 타협을 통해 합의점을 찾아나가는 과정이다. 적정한 대가에 대해 법에 의존하지 않고 유연하게 대처할 수 있는 장점이 있다. 특히 전문성을 갖고 있는 조정위원이 주도하는 절차이기 때문에 그 결론이 더욱 설득력을 가질 수 있다. 시정명령이나 과징금의 제재에 그치는 방송법상 금지행위 규제보다 조정을 통한 합의로 당사자를 만족시킬 수 있기 때문에 당사자에게 직접적이고 실질적인 해결방안이다. 규제 단계까지 굳이 나아갈 필요가 없으므로 규제자원의 효율성을 꾀할 수 있다는 점에서 분쟁조정절차가 더욱 장려되어야 할 것이다. 이에 본 논문은 방송분쟁조정절차를 활성화할 수 있는 제도적 측면 또는 조정절차의 운용 측면에서 다양한 개선방안을 제시하였다. 방송사업자의 재허가ㆍ재승인 시 방송분쟁조정절차를 통한 분쟁해결 노력을 반영하고, 소송으로 분쟁조정절차를 무위(無爲)로 만드는 시도를 제도적으로 억제하며, 방송법상 금지행위 규제와 연계하여 가급적 분쟁조정절차 단계에서 문제가 해결될 수 있도록 유도하고, 법원연계형 조정제도를 활용하며, 방송분쟁조정위원회의 전문성과 권위를 강화하는 등의 제안을 하였다.

Broadcast disputes are conflicts between stakeholders in the field of broadcasting. The typical means of resolving these disputes is to bring the case to the courts. However, dispute resolution by litigation is subject to strict procedures and standards, and the parties are required to bear considerable expense and time-consuming costs. The system to compensate for these shortcomings is the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). These include arbitration, adjudication, mediation, and conciliation. The Broadcasting Act also provides for the dispute settlement procedure as an ADR to resolve broadcast disputes. However, despite the considerable time has passed since the introduction of the ADR into the Broadcasting Act, it is practically ineffective. The key issues in today's broadcast dispute are mainly related to balance of payments such as retransmission fees, program license fees, and home-shopping transmission fees. This type of dispute can’t be solved easily by the court. In addition to not having a criterion to make judgments, judging the appropriateness of the future cost between the parties is not the role of the court, nor is the court capable. Moreover, if the dispute is not resolved, the broadcast transmission will be suspended and the damage will affect viewers as a whole. In some cases, such disputes could potentially violate the prohibited acts under the Broadcasting Act if they are serious. ADR is a process of reaching an agreement through mutual concessions and compromises in such a dispute. It has the advantage of being able to flexibly cope with reasonable costs without depending on the law. The conclusion can be more persuasive, especially because it is a procedure led by a mediator with expertise. It is a direct and practical solution to the parties, as it can satisfy the parties through mediation rather than regulation of prohibited acts under the Broadcasting Act, which is limited to imposing corrective orders or fines. ADR should be encouraged further in the sense that it is not necessary to go to the regulatory level. As a result, the regulator can focus on the important issues, so it can make the efficiency of regulatory resources. Thus, this paper suggests various improvement measures in terms of institutional aspects or operation of mediation to activate the broadcasting ADR. In the event of reauthorization or reapproval of broadcasting company, the regulator reflects its efforts to resolve disputes through broadcasting ADR. It is also necessary to block attempts to make ADR ineffective through litigation, links to the broadcasting regulation to resolve the problem in the ADR stage, utilizes the Court-connected Early Mediation, and to strengthen the expertise and authority of the Broadcasting Dispute Settlement Commission.

개인들 간의 중고 물품을 거래하는 현상이 온라인 플랫폼을 통해 활발히 촉진됨으로써 다양한 법적 문제점들이 야기되고 있다. 특히 최근에는 중고 물품 거래량이 급증함에 따라 물품 거래와 관련된 분쟁 건수도 자연스럽게 증가하였고, 이러한 개인들 간의 분쟁들을 어떻게 원만하게 해결할 것인지가 문제 되었다. 또한 중고물품 거래와 관련된 분쟁이 증가함에 따라 온라인상의 개인 간 분쟁 해결을 담당하고 있었던 ‘전자문서⋅전자거래 분쟁조정위원회’의 분쟁조정 사건들이 폭발적으로 늘어나면서 큰 사회적 관심을 받기도 하였다. 중고물품의 거래를 중개하는 대표적인 국내 온라인 플랫폼인 ‘당근’이 ‘전자문서⋅전자거래 분쟁조정위원회’에 이관한 분쟁조정 신청 건수가 2019년에 19건에 불과하였으나, 2021년에는 1167건으로 2년간 61배 이상 급증한 것으로 나타난 바 있다. 최근 중고물품 플랫폼인 당근을 통하여 민간영역에서의 체계적인 분쟁조정절차가 도입된 것에 많은 주목을 받고 있다. 또한 당근의 분쟁해결 절차와 분쟁해결 기준이 실무상에서 효과적이고 최적이라 부를 수 있는 자율규제(best practice)의 모델로서 정부의 입법 내지 가이드라인으로 이어지는 대표적인 사례가 된 것도 주목할 만하다. 즉 공정거래위원회 에서 2023년 6월 12일에 중고거래 플랫폼 4개사들과 함께 체결한 “중고거래 플랫폼 사업자 제품안전ㆍ분쟁해결 협약”을 바탕으로 한 “중고거래 분쟁해결기준”과 “공정한 중고거래를 위한 자율준수 가이드라인”에 당근에서 마련한 내용이 결정적인 영향을 미친 것으로 보이기 때문이다. 이 모두 법적 강제성은 부재하고, 자율적으로 준수해야 하는 자율협약의 성격만을 가지고 있을 뿐이다. 하지만 온라인 사업자가 선제적으로 최적의 자율규제를 시행하여 사회적으로 많은 문제가 되고 있는 사항을 스스로 해결하게 되면서, 어떤 새로운 법적 규제 없이도 민간 영역에서 분쟁을 해결하게 되는 긍정적 모델 사례를 제기하게 되었고, 다른 온라인 사업자도 참고하여 유사한 모델을 도입할 수 있는 사례로서 기능할 수 있게 되었다. 행정형 ADR이 넘쳐나고 있지만 모든 개인 간 거래 관련 분쟁을 이들을 통해 해결할 수 없음은 자명하다. 온라인 사업자가 선제적으로 최적의 자율규제를 시행하여 사회적으로 많은 문제가 되고 있는 이슈를 스스로 해결할 수 있다는 점에서, 그리고 강제성 없이 민간영역에서 분쟁을 자체적으로 해결하 있다는 점에서 이번 모델 사례는 적지 않은 의미를 가진다고 생각한다. 당근의 분쟁조정센터가 국내에서는 개인 간 거래 플랫폼 최초로 전담 기관을 조직화한 사례라는 점에서도 기대가 적지 않고, 타 플랫폼으로 확산되길 기대해 본다.

The phenomenon of trading second-hand goods between individuals through online platforms has been actively facilitated, raising various legal issues. In particular, as the volume of used goods transactions has increased rapidly in recent years, the number of disputes related to goods transactions has naturally increased, and how to resolve disputes between individuals amicably has become a problem. In addition, as the number of disputes related to second-hand goods transactions increased, the number of dispute mediation cases at the ‘E-commerce Mediation Committee’, which was in charge of resolving disputes between individuals online, exploded, attracting great social attention. The number of dispute mediation applications submitted to the Electronic Document and Electronic Transaction Dispute Mediation Committee by Carrot Market, a leading domestic online platform that brokers the trade of second-hand goods, increased from only 19 in 2019 to 1167 in 2021, a surge of more than 61 times in two years. Recently, the introduction of a systematic dispute resolution procedure in the private sector through the second-hand goods platform Carrot Market has attracted much attention. It is also noteworthy that Carrot Market’s dispute resolution procedures and dispute resolution standards have become a model of effective and optimal self-regulation (best practice) in practice, leading to government legislation and guidelines. In other words, the contents of Carrot Market seem to have had a decisive influence on the ‘Used Transaction Dispute Resolution Standards’ and ‘Self-Compliance Guidelines for Fair Used Transactions’ based on the ‘Agreement on Product Safety and Dispute Resolution for Used Transaction Platform Operators’ signed by the Korea Fair Trade Commission with four used transaction platforms on 12 June 2023. Both of these are not legally enforceable and are only voluntary agreements that should be followed voluntarily. However, by proactively implementing optimal self-regulation, online operators have taken matters into their own hands to resolve many socially problematic issues, providing a positive example of how disputes can be resolved in the private sector without the need for new legal regulations, and serving as a model for other online operators to follow. Despite the proliferation of administrative ADRs, it is clear that not all person-to-person transactional disputes can be resolved through them. I think this model case is significant in that online operators can proactively implement optimal self-regulation to resolve many socially problematic issues and resolve disputes in the private sector without coercion. The dispute resolution centre of Carrot Market is the first case of a person-to-person transaction platform in Korea to organise a dedicated institution, and I expect it to spread to other platforms.

국가가 필요로 하는 물품･용역･공사를 조달하는 과정에서 체결하는 공공조달계약(이하 국가계약)과 관련해서는 계약체결 이전단계와 이후단계에서 다양한 분쟁이 발생하고 있다. 이러한 분쟁을 해결하기 위해서 국가계약분쟁조정위원회의 조정제도가 마련되어 있지만 소송에 비해 덜 활성화되어 있다. 이러한 상황을 극복하기 위해서 이 글에서는 WTO 정부조달협정, EU, 미국 등의 해외법제를 비교하고 우리나라의 국가계약 대체적 분쟁해결제도의 발전방안을 다음과 같이 제시하였다. 첫째, 국가계약분쟁조정위원회에 의한 조정제도의 ‘공정성’을 확보하기 위해서는 위원회의 구성에 있어서 법률가 등 전문가의 참여가 보다 적극적으로 이루어지도록 할 필요가 있으며, 동 위원회를 감사원 등 보다 독립적인 기관에 두는 방안도 모색해볼 필요가 있다. 둘째, 동 제도의 ‘투명성’을 확보하기 위해서는 증거조사와 관련하여 청구인의 권리가 보다 강화될 필요가 있으며, 필요적 구두변론절차를 거치도록 하는 것도 필요하다. 셋째, 동 제도의 ‘신속성’을 확보하기 위해서는 발주청에 대한 이의신청의 필요적 전치주의를 폐지할 필요가 있다. 넷째, 동 제도의 ‘효과성’을 높이기 위해서는 국가계약분쟁조정위원회에 의한 심사시에 심사강도를 보다 강화함으로써 권리구제가 보다 실효적으로 이루어지도록 할 필요가 있다.

Many disputes are occurring in relation to “public procurement contract in which the State is the party (hereinafter: state contract)”. To solve these disputes, conciliation of “State Contract Disputes Resolution Board” (SCDRB) is in place. However, this remedy has not been actively implemented since its inception. To address this problem, this paper analyzed World Trade Organization (WTO) Government Procurement Agreement (GPA), European Union (EU) Remedies Directive and United States (US) bid protest and contract disputes resolution system. Based on this analysis, this paper suggests following reform proposals for Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) system on Korea’s state contract. First, to guarantee “fairness”of conciliation of SCDRB, organization of expertise of this board should be strengthened through more active participation of lawyers, and this board should be positioned in more independent institution such as Audit and Inspection Board of Korea. Second, to strengthen “transparency” of conciliation of SCDRB, claimant’s right to evidence investigation should be enhanced, and mandatory hearing procedure should be implemented. Third, for the “timely” resolution of the disputes, mandatory protest before conciliation of SCDRB should be removed. Fourth, to spur “effectiveness” of conciliation of SCDRB, the scope of control in this process should be strengthened in comparison to lawsuit in courts.

This article was modified and the original article was lectured and discussed on the Conference(2008.9.27.) held by Korea Environmental Law Association. This article focus on the main issue of the relation between Environmental Dispute Resolution and Environmental Litigation. Basically the Environmental Dispute Resolution is the one of the ADR(Alternative Dispute Resolution). ADR(Alternative Dispute Resolution) has the merits of informalization, delegalization and deprofessionalization comparing with the litigation at the court. In the aspect of environmental dispute, National Environmental Dispute Resolution Commission deals with disputes and potential conflicts under the Environmental Dispute Resolution Law, which is one of models of ADR. Recently the Environmental Dispute Resolution Law gives the decision of National Environmental Dispute Resolution Commission the power of enforcement. This change would increase the possibility of litigation of decision of National Environmental Dispute Resolution Commission. Environmental Dispute Resolution and Environmental Litigation has different goals and procedure. Nevertheless Environmental Dispute Resolution has to be offered under the rule of law. Also the public legal assistance or legal aid has to be prepared to protect the party who suffered personal injury and property damages, specially in the case of the Environmental Dispute Resolution case is handed over the court.

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.

One of the most pressing issues in our society these days are social conflicts and their solution. People are sometimes described as ‘homo conflitus.’ Conflicts exist in every society and at any time.Society is now facing unseen upheavals and changes as we enter the 21st century. In particular, administrative conflicts are often caused by an antagonism between development and preservation, and a local or regional resistance against certain developments. For example, when it comes to the selection of sites for public facilities which are dangerous or which arouse public disapproval, the conflicts become very obvious.However, the judicial procedure needs too much money and time. It has made us attracted to the Alternative Dispute Resolution(ADR) as a recommendable measure for the dispute of the administrative matters. In Japan, the ADR has been reappraised as a useful measure not less than the regular judicial process, which has made them enact the “Act on the Promotion of the Alternative Dispute Resolution” on December 1st, 2005 after considering to enact the ADR legislation. I expect they positively consider to enact the legislation for the activating of the use of the ADR such as the “Standard Act on the ADR” in the process of the Korean Juducial Reform.

When individuals need to resolve their disputes with other individuals, they may often go not only to courts for trial but also to alternative methods of dispute resolution (“ADR”). Drawing upon a few recent studies, this article provides some economic explanation about why individuals make use of ADR instead of trial and/or settlement. By examining what the social interest is in ADR, it also provides a useful reference point by which one can evaluate the ADR system the “Environmental Dispute Adjustment Act” has developed to cope with complicated environmental disputes. Part I begins with defining the characteristics of environmental disputes that make environmental litigation less frequent. Due to the tendency of “under-litigation” involving environmental disputes, ADR is particularly needed for environmental disputes. An ADR system aiming at environmental disputes needs to be designed so as to i) minimize the total cost of resolving disputes, and simultaneously ii) to engage as many parties involved as possible and make an ideal communication structure where the parties involved can provide each other with the relevant information(Part II). Part III looks over the cost structure of ADR. The dispute resolution costs of ADR consist of ADR-using cost(“operation cost”) and misjudgment cost(“error cost”). To save the former, it is necessary to trade off the latter. Accordingly, an ideal ADR system must be such that the sum of both can be minimized. In general, ADR brings about less operation costs than a trial before the courts. Therefore the success of ADR depends upon how much it can minimize error costs. If one can design an ideal communication structure in ADR process, it may also help lower error costs. Part IV specifies ADR's institutional elements necessary to cope successfully with environmental disputes. Drawing upon the findings of Part III and IV, Part V evaluates the current ADR system established by the Environmental Dispute Adjustment Act.

The Medical disputes have increased continuously in Korea since all Koreans get the policy of public medical insurance in the 1980s. But the Korean legal resolution system including the medical litigation do not take confidence from any parties of the disputes. Especially the plaintiffs tend to think the distribution of the burden of proof in the medical litigation is still unfair. Many defendants including physicians complain that the present precedent of Korean Supreme Court relating to the medical litigation is not fair, so they insist that they should practice medicine defensively. It is suggested that one of the causes of the discontent of the all parties of the medical litigation be the lack of the judges’ knowledge about the medicine, so the alternative dispute resolution[ADR hereafter] should be introduced. Therefore the medical malpractice crisis and the ADR system of the United States are analysed in this paper. Many states of U.S. have the positive attitude toward the introduction of the ADR system in the medical malpractice litigation. But it should be noted that they have experienced twice the medical malpractice crisis, have tried the reform of the litigation system and they have the different judicial system. So the present writer takes the prudent attitude about the introduction of the ADR system for the medical dispute resolution. The causes of the discontent with the present medical litigation system should be analysed for sufficient time and try to reform the litigation system including the evidence rule of the medical litigation.

물 분쟁은 더 이상 다른 나라의 이야기가 아니다. 우리나라 역시 산업구조의 변화와 인구의 증가로 물의 수요가 증가함에 따라 많은 물 분쟁이 발생하고 있다. 물 분쟁은 많은 원인과 다양한 차원의 분쟁주체들이 관계하고 있어 복잡한 네트워크구조로 나타나는 특징이 있다. 이러한 다양한 종류의 물 분쟁을 해결하기 위해서는 그 대책 또한 법률적, 기술적, 사회적으로 다양하게 접근 하여야 할 것이다. 그러나 과거 우리나라의 경우 분쟁이 발생하였을 때 그 분쟁의 최후 결정은 주로 사법기관에 의하여 처리되곤 하였다. 이러한 사법적 분쟁해결은 많은 시간과 비용을 필요로 하며 분쟁당사자 모두 만족할 수 없는 결과를 야기 할 수 있는 큰 단점을 안고 있다. 본 연구에서는 이러한 단점을 보완하고 물 분쟁을 해결하기 위한 방안으로 대안적분쟁해결방안(ADR: Alternative Dispute Resolution)을 소개하고, 적용가능성에 대하여 검토하였다. 물 분쟁의 해결을 위해 ADR을 활용한다면 시간과 비용의 절약, 원만한 분쟁해결, 사후에도 당사자들의 좋은 관계 유지 등의 이점을 기대 해볼 수 있다.