Comparative Study on Civil Mediation and Apple v. Samsung: Mediation in Intellectual Property Disputes

( Hyejin Jeon ),( Kenneth Choy ) 서울대학교 법학연구소 2015 Journal of Korean Law Vol.14 No.1

In 2011, Apple’s accusation of Samsung for infringing Apple’s major copyrights sparked the ongoing legal confrontation between the two major IT figures. The lawsuit in California involved mediation which is now widely accepted as an effective means to resolve disputes, especially IP cases. This article accounts for civil mediation in general and focuses on the differences between the US Mandatory Mediation Program for the Court of Appeals of the Federal Circuit and the Ninth Circuit Mediation Program, Hong Kong Court-Annexed Mediation and Korea’s Civil Mediation. The article also introduces mediation in IP along with the requirements in Mandatory (IP) Mediation at the US Courts of Appeal for the Federal Circuit and the Lanham Act Mediation Program, IP mediation In Hong Kong and many Korean ADR Commissions specializing in IP related matters.

변호사법 제109조와 민간조정 활성화를 위한 입법과제

김용섭 대한변호사협회 2021 人權과 正義 : 大韓辯護士協會誌 Vol.- No.502

Article 109 of the current Attorney-At-Law Act prohibits a person who is not an attorney-at-law from performing the work of an attorney-at-law for receiving money, valuables or other benefits. A person who has violated this provision shall be punished by imprisonment with labor for not longer than 7 years or by a fine not exceeding 50 million Korean Won. This paper reviewed Article 109 of the Attorney-At-Law Act and legislative tasks for vitalizing civil mediation in the face of the ADR era. This paper tried to comparatively review mediation-related laws of Germany and Japan which are promoting mediation of civil disputes from the viewpoint of comparative law, to seek the directions of legislating our own mediation law. The Article 109 of the Attorney-at-law Act explicitly provides only for arbitration and reconciliation among ADRs, and does not give any provision for mediation, except for mediation of family disputes. Nevertheless, mediation and international conciliation are recognized as legal affairs, and a person, not an attorney-at-law, who performs mediation or conciliation for receiving money. valuables or other benefits, is criminally punished under the Article 109 of the Attorney-At-Law Act. Accordingly, as it is contradictory to the requirements of the Article 109 of the Attorney-at-law Act in the aspect of interpretation theory, this paper also studied this matter. Meanwhile, in Korea, the court mediations under the Judicial Conciliation of Civil Disputes Act or the administrative mediations performed by various dispute conciliation committees organized under individual laws have been developed, whereas civcil mediation has not been properly activated. One of the reasons therefor is that the Article 109 of the Attorney-at-law Act is acting as a stumbling block. In order to overcome these barriers, this paper tried to seek legislative tasks for vitalizing civil mediation while referring to the legislative examples of Germany and Japan. As a legislative improvement plan for facilitating civil mediation, it is necessary to prepare a system for training and qualification of mediators as in Germany. It may be regarded as a direct invasion on lawyers, but if approached from a broader viewpoint, the design of such a mediator system can function as a new blue ocean for lawyers rather than infringement on the area or work of lawyers. In this regard, in order to secure the credibility of mediation system, this paper also studied enactment of the rules of ethics and conduct of mediators and other matters concerning the completion of education to qualify mediators. In order to reduce the number of cases in the court for activating civil mediation, this paper examined the need to introduce the pre-conciliation principle in the civil small claims of less than 30 million Korean Won which do not even need to explain the reason for judgment inspite of court trial. In addition, this paper also examined the direction of amending the Attorney-at-Law Act, which requires that lawyers be obliged to explain desirable dispute resolution methods in terms of litigation strategy, rather than providing legal services for clients focusing on litigation. 현행 변호사법 제109조에서 비변호사가 금품 등을 수령하는 등 유상으로 변호사의 업무를 처리하지 못하도록 금지하고 있고, 위반 시에 7년 이하의 징역 또는 5천만 원 이하의 벌금에 처하는 내용의 벌칙규정을 두고 있다. ADR시대를 맞이하여 변호사법 제109조와 민간조정 활성화를 위한 입법적 개선과제를 모색하였다. 비교법적인 관점에서 민간조정의 활성화를 도모하고 있는 독일과 일본의 조정 관련 법제를 비교검토하여 우리 조정법 제정의 방향을 고찰하였다. 변호사법 제109조에서 ADR 중 중재와 화해에 관해서만 명문의 규정을 두고 있고, 조정에 관하여는 규정을 두고 있지 않고, 가사조정에 관하여만 명시적으로 기술되어 있다. 그럼에도 불구하고 조정이나 국제조정을 법률사무로 파악하여 비변호사가 조정을 하면서 금품 등을 받을 경우 변호사법 제109조에 따라 형사처벌이 되므로 해석론으로 변호사법 제109조의 요건을 분설하여 상세하게 살펴보았다. 한편 우리의 경우 민사조정법에 따른 법원형 조정이나 개별 법률에 의하여 설치된 각종 분쟁조정위원회 형식의 행정형 조정은 발전되어 있는 반면에 민간 조정이 제대로 활성화 되지 않고 있는 실정이다. 그 이유중의 하나로 변호사법 제109조가 걸림돌로 작용하고 있다고 할 것이다. 이러한 장벽을 극복하기 위해서는 독일과 일본의 입법례를 참고하면서 민간조정 활성화를 위한 입법과제를 모색하였다. 민간조정의 활성화를 위한 입법적 개선방안으로 독일의 경우처럼 조정인의 양성과 자격을 위한 제도를 마련할 필요가 있다. 이를 변호사의 직역침탈로 볼 것이 아니라, 대승적 관점에서 접근한다면 이러한 조정인 제도의 설계가 변호사의 영역이나 업무를 침해하기 보다는 변호사의 새로운 블루오션으로 기능할 수 있다는 점을 밝혀둔다. 이와 관련하여 조정제도의 신뢰성을 확보하기 위하여 조정인의 윤리규범과 행위규범을 제정하고, 조정인의 자격을 부여하기 위한 교육이수에 관한 사항을 검토하였다. 조정의 활성화를 위하여 법원의 사건을 줄이기 위해 법원의 재판임에도 판결이유 조차 설시하지 않아도 되는 3,000만 원 미만의 민사소액사건에 있어서 조정전치주의 도입 필요성에 관하여 고찰하였다. 아울러 변호사가 소송 위주로 의뢰인에게 법률서비스를 제공할 것이 아니라 소송전략적 측면에서 바람직한 분쟁해결 수단에 대한 설명의무를 부과하도록 하는 내용의 변호사법 개정의 방향에 관하여도 살펴보았다.

민사조정의 운영실태와 그 활성화방안에 관한 법사회학적 연구 : 광주 및 전남지역의 법원을 중심으로

오대성 한국중재학회 2007 중재연구 Vol.17 No.2

Mediation is type of intervention in which the disputing parties accept the offer of the judge or a third party to recommend a solution for their controversy. Mediation differs from arbitration in being a voluntary resolution rather than a judicial procedure. Thus, the parties to the dispute are not bound to accept the mediator's recommendation. Resort to mediation has become increasingly frequent for civil disputes. Mediation has been successful in many cases of civil conflict. Mediation has become increasingly important for monetary disputes as well, particularly in damage cases. While most people consider mediation a far superior experience to court, everything I tell you a mediator should not do is something that at least one mediator I have dealt with has done to a client. In theory, a mediator should never share anything you tell him or her without your permission. In theory a mediator should not "spring" evaluations on anyone in a mediation without your permission (e.g. a mediator should never say "your case is worth \ 0000 and I just told the other side that). In theory a mediator should not browbeat or threaten you. At the end, usually about 55% of the time with a good mediator in Kwangju Appellate Court in 2003, the parties reach an agreement that is in their best interests. If they decide to sign off on a signed agreement, the signed agreement is binding. I obviously feel mediation is a very good thing and the numbers and surveys bear me out. This article is written about how mediation is proceeded, what is the realities, what is the problem and what is the activating way For this study, I research with legal sociological approach using Korean Judicial Year Book, judicial document and my experience as meditator in Kwangju District Court.

국가간 분쟁 해결 수단으로서 조정 : 효용성 제고와 제도적 확산을 위한 법적 쟁점

이재민 대한국제법학회 2022 國際法學會論叢 Vol.67 No.3

The entry into effect of the Singapore Convention in September 2020 ushered in a new dispute settlement mechanism for international commercial disputes involving companies and individuals. The convention demands enforcement, in third countries, of a settlement agreement resulting from mediation, which will help facilitate the spread and utilization of mediation among the global businesses and industries. While the scope of the convention is confined to commercial disputes, the same logic and formula could similarly apply to state-to-state disputes. In fact, some recent treaties and agreements undertake new experiments to adopt and apply mediation to settle disputes between contracting parties. This is arguably the reflection of the general consensus that inter-states disputes are equally amenable to mediation and that some disputes among states are more suitable to be resolved through Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) methods such as mediation. In particular, the current global environment wherein the cherished multilateralism has been steadily weakening may find mediation more useful and appropriate considering: a growing gap between treaty texts and reality because of the fast development of technology and human activities, ever deepening fragmentation of respective branches of international law, and glaring inherent limitation of existing binding dispute settlement mechanisms to ensure effective resolution of disputes satisfying disputing parties. Mediation is believed to contribute to alleviating these structural problems of international law and dispute settlement proceedings. In order to achieve the objective of further spreading mediation among states and enhancing states’ reliance on mediation to settle their disputes, attention needs to be directed at core legal issues in this regard. First, coordination of mediation with existing dispute settlement proceedings in treaties and agreements is critical, so that mediation does not cause unnecessary disruption in the existing proceedings. Introducing a reliable procedural guardrail to preempt an unreasonable increase of cost and duration of settling a dispute is another topic that requires careful calibration in future discussions of further systematization of mediation. If mediation is merely inserted into existing dispute settlement proceedings as another procedural layer, then the whole cost and length of time might end up increasing. Ensuring due process principles while also preserving flexibility for mediation proceedings is another critical issue to facilitate the spread of mediation. Most importantly, introduction of a legal system that ensures enforcement of the agreement between disputing states reached by mediation is important for the utilization of mediation to settle state-to-state disputes in international relations. These items may be reflected in existing treaties, or, alternatively, new treaties may be adopted to address them. Settling inter-state disputes whiling maintaining long-term relationship is ever more important at this juncture while the global community is struggling with unilateralism, nationalism and provincialism. Mediation may offer one of the viable choices. What is needed are the systematization and elaboration of mediation proceedings adjusted for state-to-state disputes. 당사자간 조정 합의를 제3국에서 집행하는 것을 골자로 하는 싱가포르 협약이 2020년 9월 발효했다. 이 협약은 국제적 성격을 갖는 상사분쟁을 조정을 통해 해결하는 것을 지원하고자 도입되었다. 이러한 취지를 이어 받아 국가간 분쟁해결에도 조정을 적용할 가능성을 적극 모색해 볼 필요가 있다. 사실 조정을 국가간 분쟁해결수단으로 활용해 보고자 하는 시도는 최근 여러 조약과 협정에서 발견되고 있다. 특히 최근 국제사회의 현실과 이를 둘러싼 국가간 분쟁의 동향은 분쟁해결수단으로서 조정의 유용성을 새롭게 제시하고 있다. 지금 상황에서는 기존의 구속적 분쟁해결절차를 거쳐 결과가 도출되더라도 이를 통해 국가간 분쟁이 원만한 수준으로 해결되는 것이 때로는 어렵게 되는 상황도 목도되고 있다. 이러한 기존의 분쟁해결절차에 대한 대안으로, 또는 이와 더불어 조정을 적극 모색해 볼 수 있다. 기존 분쟁해결절차를 변경, 약화하는 것이 아니라 당사국들에게 조정 절차라는 새로운 선택지를 하나 더 제시하는 것이다. 이러한 국가간 조정의 활성화를 위해서는 다음과 같은 사항에 대한 국제사회의 기초 작업이 전제되어야 한다. 기존의 분쟁해결절차와 관계 설정, 시간과 비용 증가에 대한 통제, 탄력성과 절차적 정당성간 균형점 확보, 그리고 조정 결과에 대한 집행수단의 확보가 그것이다. 이러한 작업은 기존 조약에 대한 개정으로 달성될 수도 있고, 새로운 조약의 체결이 필요할 수도 있다. 조정을 통해 낮은 단계의, 그러나 객관성을 담보한, 분쟁해결제도가 국가간 분쟁에도 적용된다면 장기적인 우호관계 형성과 유지에 도움을 줄 수 있을 것이다.

상사분쟁에서 KCAB 조정의 활용방안

장은희(Eun-Hee JANG) 한국무역상무학회 2018 貿易商務硏究 Vol.77 No.-

Mediation is one of several alternatives to litigation or arbitration. It is the most informal of the alternatives and the only one that gives the parties control over the outcome. The mediator in mediation is there to help the parties persuade each other that it is in their best interests to settle. As several advantages of mediation, it is considered as the fastest way to resolve a dispute because procedures associated with litigation are not imported into the process. In mediation, the client’s resources are focused on resolving the dispute as opposed to building armaments of evidence to buttress legal and factual positions. The AAA commercial mediation rules and operations in the USA are very successful owing to professional training for mediators and simple procedures for mediation to the public. Comparison with USA mediation, KCAB mediation system has several weak points. KCAB mainly deals with administrative matters related to Foreign Trade Law. Therefore, it is necessary for KCAB to come up with more improved international commercial mediation. For example, mediation should be promoted to the public as who easily rely on litigation or arbitration. Second, Setting a rule for easy access to mediation is needed by bench marking AAA’s mediation guidelines and operations. Third, professional mediators should be developed by establishing relevant ADR course in law schools. This article investigated some differences of mediation system between KCAB in Korea and AAA in USA, and present some suggestions in order to promote International commercial mediation in KCAB.

Comparative Study on Civil Mediation and Apple v. Samsung: Mediation in Intellectual Property Disputes

전혜진,Kenneth Choy 서울대학교 아시아태평양법연구소 2014 Journal of Korean Law Vol.14 No.1

In 2011, Apple’s accusation of Samsung for infringing Apple’s major copyrights sparked the ongoing legal confrontation between the two major IT figures. The lawsuit in California involved mediation which is now widely accepted as an effective means to resolve disputes,especially IP cases. This article accounts for civil mediation in general and focuses on the differences between the US Mandatory Mediation Program for the Court of Appeals of the Federal Circuit and the Ninth Circuit Mediation Program, Hong Kong Court-Annexed Mediation and Korea’s Civil Mediation. The article also introduces mediation in IP along with the requirements in Mandatory (IP) Mediation at the US Courts of Appeal for the Federal Circuit and the Lanham Act Mediation Program, IP mediation In Hong Kong and many Korean ADR Commissions specializing in IP related matters.

조정절차에서 인공지능(AI)을 활용하는 방안

함영주 충북대학교 법학연구소 2019 과학기술과 법 Vol.10 No.2

Mediation process have advantages that mediator could intervene each party’s disputes and use verbal and/or nonverbal communication to create voluntary and creative dispute resolution which is hard to get from the litigation process. In this process, the mediator need to understand more deeply in the hidden context of parties behind the party’s verbal language or gestures. In many cases, in the mediation process, mediator could persuade parties with sincere mediating attitudes rather than mediator's communication skills. Many nonverbal signals of parties could help mediator to find what they really want and mediator could also help the parties to realize themselves what they really want. The capacity of these mediatiors may be enhance their ability through mediation training and/or a lot of mediation experiences. However, many mediators regret or sometimes suffer psychological pain after the mediation agreement fails because of the nature of the mediation process, which could affect each other the mood and attitudes of the mediator and of the parties. At this case, in case there is artificial intelligence technology’s and/or intelligence wisdom’s help which gathered from the wisdom of many senior mediators, the development of the mediation skills could take a great leap. Mediation is easier to apply to AI skills than litigation in that the mediation process is not so strict and the mediation agreement is not forced on the parties. In the mediation, the mediation agreement is up to the parties voluntary. Therefore, I suggest how about using artificial intelligence technology in the mediation process first, where the parties' autonomy is indispensable. That’s because the use of entry level artificial intelligence technology also very useful in the mediation process and the side effects are not so greatly worried due to the characteristics of voluntary mediation agreement. 조정은 조정인이 당사자들간의 분쟁에 개입하여 언어 및 비언어적 의사소통방식을 적극 활용하여 천편일률적인 법적용으로 얻을 수 없는 창조적인 분쟁해결을 해 낸다는 점에 장점이 있다. 그 과정에서 조정인은 당사자들의 표면적인 언어나 몸짓의 뒷면에 숨어있는 맥락을 좀 더 깊이 이해할 수 있어야 한다. 조정절차에서 당사자들의 분쟁이 근본적으로 해소되는 경우는 많은 경우 당사자들을 설득시키는 조정인의 언변에 있기보다는 당사자들을 배려하고 그들이 진정으로 원하는 것을 찾아내어 당사자들이 스스로 깨닫게 하는 조정인의 진정성 있는 조정자세에 있기 때문이다. 이러한 조정인의 역량은 조정교육이나 조정경험을 통하여 증진되기도 한다. 그러나 조정인 스스로의 그 당시 마음상태와 당사자들의 태도나 자세에 분위기가 좌우될 수 있는 조정절차의 특성 때문에 조정합의가 실패로 돌아간 뒤 많은 조정인들이 후회를 하거나 심리적인 아픔을 겪기도 한다. 이 때 수많은 선배조정인들의 지혜를 모아서 그 사건에 도움이 될 수 있는 조언을 해주는 인공지능기술이나 인공지능의 지혜가 있다면 조정제도의 발전은 한 단계의 결정적인 도약을 할 수 있을 것이다. 조정은 재판과 달리 절차가 엄격하지 않으며 결과를 당사자들에게 강제하지 않는다는 점에서 재판에 비해 인공지능기술을 적용하기가 한결 수월하다. 서구에서 말하는 조정(mediation)에서는 최종 결론은 당사자들이 내리는 것으로, 재판처럼 법관이 일방적으로 심판을 하고 당사자들에게 강제하는 것이 아니기 때문이다. 이에 필자는 어느 절차보다 당사자들의 자율성이 중시되는 조정절차에서 먼저 인공지능기술을 적극 활용할 것을 제안한다. 초보적인 인공지능 기술만 활용해도 조정절차에서는 그 효용이 매우 클 것으로 생각되고 부작용은 크게 우려하지 않아도 될 것으로 판단되기 때문이다.

공무원 노동관계에서 노동쟁의에 대한 조정(調停)

김홍영(Kim Hong-Young) 한국노동법학회 2008 노동법학 Vol.0 No.26

In Korea, the public officials' unions are legalized on the Public Officials' Unions Act (that is named as “the Act on the establishment and operation, etc. of public officials' trade unions”). The public officials' unions shall have the rights to bargain and conclude collective agreements with the government's negotiating representative. But the public officials' union and its members shall be prohibited to take any industrial action, for example, strike. The other side, the labor relations commission shall conduct mediation or arbitration as to industrial disputes. In this article I examine closely the mediation as to industrial disputes in the labor relations of public officials, in regard to organization, commencement condition, objects, process and other issues involving that mediation. I investigate the provisions of the Public Officials' Unions Act and other related acts as to the topics. The Labor Relations Adjustment Commission for Public Officials(LRACPO), which is established within the National Labor Relations Commission(NLRC), mediates industrial disputes in the labor relations of public officials. If collective negotiations break down, either or both of the parties concerned may apply for mediation to the commission, and then the commission shall commence mediation. The commission may prepare a mediation proposal, present the proposal to the parties concerned, and recommend them to accept the proposal. If the parties have accepted the mediation proposal, a mediated agreement in writing shall be prepared and singed by the commission members together with the parties concerned. The contents of the mediated agrement shall have the same effect as a collective agreement. In case a dispute is not resolved through the mediation and a decision is made to refer the dispute to arbitration at a plenary meeting of the LRACPO, the commission shall conduct arbitration (that is called as compulsory arbitration). And I suggest some improvement plans that make the mediation system be effective and best used. That suggestions are as follows: (1) For the reforms of organization of the LRACPO, as to appointment process of the commission members, it should be adapted hearing of unions and governments before entrusting the members, or approval/hearing of the National Assembly. As well as, with decentralization to the regional labor relations commissions, a industrial dispute, that comes form with a regional government, shall be handled by the regional labor relations commission. (2) It should be necessary that the labor relations commission make its efforts to assist the parties ahead of formal mediation, to mediate objects of the dispute widely and broadly, and to develop and train good skills for professionalism. (3) Many means should be adopted to resolve various or diverse disputes, that includes adversary, conciliation and fact-finding beyond or ahead of formal mediation. (4) The compulsory arbitration referred by the commission should be abolished. Instead either of the parties concerned might alone apply for arbitration to the commission. So the parties could freely apply for mediation not to fear the compulsory arbitration.

우리나라 민간분쟁해결기관 구축시의 유의점– 미국 민간분쟁해결기관의 운영경험을 기초로 –

함영주 한국민사소송법학회 2011 민사소송 Vol.15 No.2

Mediation has grown tremendously last three decades in the developed countries, but only a few persons are interested in promoting mediation system in Korea now. Korea's private system on mediation is not so much developed and it is utilized as a temporary and makeshift tools in a sense. In the case of education on mediation, circumstances are much worse than mediation system itself. Korea have no official mediation educational system in spite of setting up five mediation center already under the supervision of Korea Supreme Court. For this background, every mediator of Korea court mediation center is struggling for developing mediation skills and theories for himself/herself in the real case. The mediator of KCAB (The Korean Commercial Arbitration Board) mediation, Seoul Bar Association mediation and court appointed private mediation is also self educating in their case. For this background, mediation process of Korea is different from person to person and from institution to institution. So, it is urgently needed to standardize mediation process in Korea. It is more urgent to educate expert mediator in Korea than mediation itself. Establishing mediator evaluation system, which is completely separated from the mediation center and mediation educational center, is also needed. This article is trying to find out how to organize private mediation model/system and mediation educational model/system in contrast with JAMS, AAA of America. So mediator's experiences and reputations are essential to the success of mediation, as the mediator's celebrities and authorities are also important. Former judge is usually a good spring of mediator in the mediation history of well developed countries, but sometimes their career of judge could be also a hindrance of being a good mediator. As a result, mediation is a kind of dispute resolution process different from judgment. In this context, mediation training/education program is need to be redesigned by the characteristics of mediation and the original culture of the society. Clinical educational system also need to be introduced as a positive elements for the law school student's mediation education.

민·상사 사건의 소송대체분쟁해결 시스템의 구축을 위한 조정절차기본법 제정의 필요성

함영주 법무부 2017 선진상사법률연구 Vol.- No.80

Mediation is an attempt to settle disputes with the participation of a neutral third party, mediator, who helps beach party come to an agreement by way of finding hidden interests. The mediator is not an adviser or decision-maker. The parties find real problems or hidden interests themselves in the mediation. They can create an outcomes which meet their needs. Mediator facilitates effective communications and building consensus between the parties. Mediation is a voluntary process and mediator leads only the case in the case both parties agree. Mediation is a confidential process where discussions are not disclosed to any party outside of the process. If parties are unable to reach agreement, they can still have a chance to go to court. Details about discussion at the mediation will not be disclosed or used at a court hearing. Mediation differs from arbitration in which the arbitrator acts like a judge. Mediation has becoming more frequent in contract and civil damage cases in the advanced world. In spite of mediation's characteristics of it, the process and effects of Korean mediations are different from global standard. Korean mediation has a Res Judicata effect and thinks as an adjudicative process. The Korea Civil Conciliation Act (Minsa Cho Chung Bup in Korean ; CCA) contains a decision in lieu of mediation, which make CCA into adjudicative process. The CCA also have a process to case referral without each party's consent. Many Korean administrative adjudication(conciliation) agencies also follow CCA process in spite of non judicial institute. Some of Korean administrative conciliation agency also have a decision in lieu of mediation and a Res Judicata effect in their conciliation. For this reason, Korea Mediation(Conciliation) is totally different from western country's mediation. So we usually call Korean mediation in a conciliation (Cho Chung in Korean), which means adjudicative decision. Many Korean scholars are criticizing the different characteristics of Korea conciliation and trying to change Korea Conciliation into mediation. To solve this problem, I recommend the new Korean mediation law, which contains autonomy, spontaneity, confidentiality, facilitation, enforcement of mediation, statute of limitation and mediator training system. 우리나라의 조정제도는 이제 근 30년의 역사를 자랑할 정도가 되었으나 현행 법원의 민사조정과 행정위원회의 조정을 조정의 표준으로 인식한 나머지 당사자의 자율성을 기본으로 하는 조정(mediation)의 세계적 표준에서 너무 멀어진 것이 아닌가 한다. 이 때문에 한국의 조정이 외국의 조정(mediation)과는 다른 조정(調停)이라고 하면서 영어의 conciliation에 해당한다고 설명하기도 한다. 그러나 conciliation 역시 우리나라에서 말하는 조정(調停)과는 거리가 있다. 왜냐하면 conciliation을 판결(adjudication)과 거의 동일한 것으로 인식하는 것은 conciliation 제도를 법원의 판결과 다른 것으로 보고 새로운 제도로 분류하는 출발점과 모순되는 인식이기 때문이다. 이 때문에 우리의 조정(調停)제도는 외국에서는 유래를 찾기 어려운 것으로 기판력까지 인정하는 매우 좁은 의미의 판결(재판)대체분쟁해결절차라고 할 수 있다. 문제는 조정(調停)제도를 판결문을 쓰지 않는 판결(재판)대체적 제도로 인식하는 것은 법관에 의한 재판이라고 하는 헌법상의 요청에 어긋난다는 것은 물론이고 조정인을 법관으로 만들고 있다는 점이다. 조정(調停)이 법원의 재판과 유사한 절차라면 조정은 법관이 소송절차 내에서 당사자 사이의 합의나 양보를 권유하는 소송상의 화해, 화해권고결정, 법관의 직권조정결정과 본질적으로 다를 것이 없게 되기도 한다. 그 경우 조정이라는 제도를 왜 재판과 다른 것이라고 하면서 다른 이름을 붙였느냐는 비판이 따르게 된다. 동시에 조정을 판결대체제도로 인식하는 것은 또한 조정사건의 당사자를 조정인 또는 법관이 설득의 방법을 통하여 교화시키는 설득의 대상에 불과한 것으로 인식하게 하는 계기가 된다. 판결대체절차에서는 당사자들이 누구보다 사건을 잘 알고 있으므로 가장 효과적인 분쟁해결방법 역시 당사자들이 가장 잘 찾아낼 것이라는 제도에 대한 신뢰가 싹이 트기는 어렵다. 한 발 더 나아가 행정위원회의 조정에서는 재판대체적 경향이 더 강화되어 조정위원들이 유사법관의 역할을 하는 것을 당연시하는 경향까지 나타나고 있다. 이 경우 조정위원들에게 심판자의 역할 또는 준법관의 역할을 할 수 있도록 하는 근거는 국회에서 만든 조정위원회와 관련된 법률이라고 할 것이다. 그러나 국회가 유사법관의 역할을 하는 조정인을 단행 법률에 포함된 조정위원회 관련 몇 개의 규정으로 쉽게 만드는 것은 헌법 제27조에서 정한 헌법과 법률이 정한 법관에 의한 재판을 받을 권리를 침해한 것은 아닌지, 또 그 경우 조정위원회의 설치는 유사법원의 창설로 볼 수 있는 것이 아닌가 한다. 국회의 입법권이 유사 사법부의 창설까지도 할 수 있는 것인지 우려되는 부분이기도 하다. 이러한 배경을 고려하여 필자는 당사자 자치를 기본으로 하는 조정(mediation)의 원칙을 다시 세워 조정다운 조정을 할 수 있는 토대를 구축하기 위하여 가칭 조정절차기본법을 제정할 것을 제안한다. 조정절차기본법에는 당사자 자치를 기본정신으로 하는 부분과 당사자의 자발성, 조정인의 중립성과 공정성, 조정절차의 유연성, 비공개성과 비밀보장 등의 내용을 포함시킬 필요가 있다. 또한 조정절차기본법에는 조정인의 자질에 대한 실질적인 검증과 분쟁해결 주체로서의 역량을 강화하기 위하여 학회나 협회 등으로 구성된 민간기관에서 조정인 교육과 인증업무를 하고, 조정기구를 관리하는 공공 ...