Originally from Dispute Resolution Journal
Preview Page
I. INTRODUCTION
Throughout the 1990s, the number of lawsuits in Korean courts
skyrocketed. Because of this, the courts could no longer offer the
same quality legal service. This necessitated a simpler and
timesaving alternative dispute resolution system. At the same time,
there was the belief that resolving conflicts through mediation, in
which the two parties concerned come to an agreement, was better
than even the best judicial decision. When the two parties make
mutual concessions to reach an agreement, both parties are less likely
to be dissatisfied. Moreover, the most important role of
contemporary courts was thought to be bringing legal disputes to an
amicable settlement. In this sense, mediation was the desirable
solution. The Supreme Court of Korea also wanted to accomplish
two things. First, the Supreme Court wanted the litigants to be the
main subjects of litigation. Through mediation, the parties may
participate more actively in the entire process. Second, the judicial
branch aimed to lower the cost of litigation. This is not just limited
to the monetary side. All the parties concerned, as well as the courts,
ought to be able to minimize time and efforts in addition to fees. The
Supreme Court of Korea realized that expanding the role of mediation
would help deal with most of the problems it faced.
Geary Choe is a candidate for J.D. and LL.M. in International and Comparative Law at
Cornell Law School. He holds a Master of International Studies from Seoul National
University and a B.S. in Industrial and Labor Relations from Cornell University.
