Current status of apartment housing defect dispute resolution system and arbitration system

Abstract

Repairs for defects occurring in apartment houses are directly related to the right of residents to live in a pleasant environment. In addition, since disputes over defects in apartment houses fall under disputes in the professional realm, it is more effective to use dispute resolution systems that replace litigation, such as mediation and arbitration, rather than resolving disputes through litigation. Currently, the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport's Defect Review and Dispute Mediation Committee is resolving disputes regarding defects in apartment complexes through the Defect Review and Dispute Settlement System. On the other hand, the arbitration system in relation to apartment housing defect disputes requires an arbitration agreement, is characterized by a single trial system, and a private trial, so it is not actively utilized compared to other ADR mediations. However, in the case of defect disputes, the criteria for determining defects change according to the times, the disputes are in professional fields such as architectural design and construction technology, and the conclusion of the dispute can be different even if the same phenomenon occurs depending on the region, place, culture, environment, contract, etc. It is a compulsory dispute resolution method based on the fact that it can appoint a person with professional knowledge in the field as an arbitrator to accurately find out the substantive truth, leading to a decision including legal knowledge and academic theories. Arbitration, which is located in the middle between trial and reconciliation or mediation, which is a method of independent dispute resolution, can be seen as more suitable for defect disputes. However, in order to introduce a harmonious arbitration of defect disputes, it is desirable to stipulate through an optional arbitration agreement within the apartment supply contract (or standard contract). In addition, since defect disputes are an area where the results can be interpreted differently depending on experts, the principle of confidentiality of the agreement of the arbitration tribunal and the plan to allow the writing of minority opinions within the scope of not harming the fairness and independence of arbitrators are also introduced. should be considered. Regarding arbitration institutions, the dualization of dispute resolution systems (arbitration, finance, mediation, etc.) operating institutions cannot present unified standards, causes confusion in system operation, and confusion among end users, such as residents. unification will be required.