Korean judicial system, recognized for its expeditious litigation process,
inexpensive litigation cost and excellence of quality - Korea on Rank 2 in Enforcing Contracts on the World Bank Doing Business Report 2016
¡Ü World Bank ranked the Korean civil judicial process on the second position:
- World Bank released the Doing Business Report 2016 on October 28, 2015
- The Korean Judiciary maintained its excellence in the criteria of expeditious litigation process and inexpensive litigation cost
- Korea also scored high in the 2016 report’s new evaluation criterion of the “Quality of Judicial Process” index - Ranked in the top amongst nations with more than 10 million population for seven consecutive years
The Republic of Korea was also ranked high in other areas:
¡Ü Leaped from rank 79th last year to 40th in the Registering Property index
- Mainly based on the high score received in the 2016 report’s new evaluation criterion of the “Quality of Land Administration” index
¡Ü Korea maintained its strength in the Resolving Insolvency index with improved ranking from the fifth last year to the fourth this year
¡Ü Korea is on Rank 4 on the 2016 Ease of Doing Business Ranking that covers all specific indicators, maintaining the same rank as the previous year
- It is expected that the efficient and high-quality judicial system of Korea will contribute to improving international creditworthiness and economic growth
¡à World Bank evaluation on the Korean Judiciary for “Enforcing Contracts”
¡Ü World Bank’s Doing Business Report is published every year based on the survey results on the ease of doing business in each country
- Korea was ranked in the second place for three consecutive years since 2012 and dropped to the fourth place in 2015 for methodological change in evaluation; then climbed to the second place again in 2016
- Korea continued to maintain high scores in the Resolving Insolvency: ranked at fifteenth in 2014; fifth in 2015; and fourth in 2016 - Big leap of 39 ranks in the Registering Property: from rank 79 in 2015 to rank 40 in 2016
Evaluation Areas |
2011 |
2012 |
2013 |
2014 |
2015 |
2016 |
Overall Rankings |
16 |
8 |
8 |
7 |
4 |
4 |
Enforcing Contracts |
5 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
4 |
2 |
Resolving Insolvency |
13 |
13 |
14 |
15 |
5 |
4 |
Registering Property |
74 |
71 |
75 |
75 |
79 |
40 |
¡à Rankings on the evaluations of judicial systems for “Enforcing Contracts”
|
2009 |
2010 |
2011 |
2012 |
2013 |
2014 |
2015 |
2016 |
1 |
Hong Kong |
Luxembourg |
Luxembourg |
Luxembourg |
Luxembourg |
Luxembourg |
Singapore |
Singapore |
2 |
Luxembourg |
Iceland |
Hong Kong |
Korea |
Korea |
Korea |
Luxembourg |
Korea |
3 |
Iceland |
Hong Kong |
Iceland |
Iceland |
Iceland |
Iceland |
Iceland |
Lithuania |
4 |
Latvia |
Norway |
Norway |
Norway |
Norway |
Norway |
Korea |
Australia |
5 |
Finland |
Korea |
Korea |
Hong Kong |
Germany |
Germany |
Austria |
Russia |
6 |
U.S.A. |
France |
Germany |
France |
U.S.A. |
Austria |
Hong Kong |
Austria |
7 |
Norway |
Germany |
France |
U.S.A. |
Austria |
France |
Belarus |
China |
8 |
korea |
Finland |
U.S.A. |
Germany |
France |
Finland |
Norway |
Norway |
9 |
Germany |
U.S.A. |
Austria |
Austria |
Finland |
Hong Kong |
New Zealand |
Kazakhstan |
10 |
France |
New Zealand |
New Zealand |
New Zealand |
Hong Kong |
Russia |
Belgium, France |
Croatia |
¡Ü Korea maintains the first rank among countries with population of 10 million since the year 2010
¡Ü Evaluation was made based on the survey results of: (1) the average time and (2) the cost taken to obtain a decision from first-instance court for a contract dispute case; and (3) the quality of judicial proceedings ¡Ü 2016 Evaluation on Korea
2016 Evaluation on Korea
Enforcing contracts(rank) |
2 |
DTF score for enforcing contracts(0-100) |
84.84 |
Time(days) |
230 |
Cost(% of claim) |
10.3 |
Quality of judicial processes index(0-18) |
13.5 |
¡Ü Survey items to evaluate the Quality of Judicial Processes (0-18 point measure):
- Court structure and proceedings index (0-5)
¢¹ Availability of specialized commercial court, division or section
¢¹ Availability of small claims court or simplified procedure for small claims
¢¹ Availability of pretrial attachment of assets
¢¹ Criteria used to assign cases to judges
- Case management index (0-6)
¢¹ Regulations setting time standards for key court events
¢¹ Regulations on adjournments and continuances
¢¹ Availability of performance measurement mechanisms
¢¹ Use of pretrial conference
¢¹ Availability of electronic case management system
- Court automation index (0-4)
¢¹ Ability to file initial complaint electronically
¢¹ Ability to serve process electronically
¢¹ Ability to pay court fees electronically
¢¹ Publication of judgments
- Alternative dispute resolution index (0-3)
¢¹ Arbitration ¢¹ Voluntary mediation or conciliation
¡Ü Overall Evaluation Analysis
- The Republic of Korea endeavored to improve trial systems in recent years, contributing to the rise in the ranking to settle within the top five since 2010
- Korea maintained the second-rank position for three consecutive years since 2012 and dropped to the fourth rank with the evaluation methodology change in 2015
- Korea climbed again to the second place with the addition of a set of criteria that measures the qualitative aspects of judicial processes
¢¹ Each of the criterion in the Quality of Judicial Processes measured by the report were the strongly focused areas that the Korean Judiciary aimed to improve; and the success of the Judiciary’s endeavor contributed to the global recognition on the excellence of the Korean judicial and trial systems
|