• 방재와보험
• /
• s.115
• /
• pp.20-26
• /
• 2006

우리나라 제조물책임(PL)법은 소비자의 권익보호와 결합제품으로 인한 피해자의 신속한 구제를 통한 국민생활의 안전향상과 국민경제의 건전한 발전을 도모할 목적으로 2002년 7월 1일 시행되었으나, 본질적인 기능 발휘와 목적 달성은 미미한 수준에 그치고 있다. 피해자의 적극적인 구제의 수단으로서의 역할뿐만 아니라 기업의 제품안전 활동에 대한 동기 부여를 통하여 제품안전기술력 제고를 통한 기업 경쟁력 향상의 역할 수행은 법 시행 이전과 비교하여 비슷한 수준이다. 이는 우리나라 PL법 제도 자체의 한계가 원인이라고 할 수 있지만 근본적인 원인은 제도 시행에 요구되는 사회적 인프라가 충분히 구축되어 있지 않다는 점이다.

• Journal of Legislation Research
• /
• no.44
• /
• pp.103-153
• /
• 2013

This article aims at the legislation of User-Protection Act in area of ICT. In these days telecommunication and broadcasting are getting more and more convergent. The paradigm of ICT is turning over from the service provider to the end-user. User protection has been in each erea of ICT (C-P-N-D) individually regulated. In the area of telecommunication it is important to protect the interest of user, who stands in contract with the service provider. And in area of broadcasting it is important to protect the interest of viewers, who stands "gratis" with the broadcasters without any contracts. For the more efficient user-protection it is also necessary to make a dedicated organization under KCC(Korean Communications Committee). In this early year the government organization was divided into MSIP(Ministry of Science, ICT and future planing) and KCC. The user-protection act will be very important instrument of ICT regulation in the era of creative economy. It is necessary to establish a new frame act of user protection. It is also necessary to make start to establish a new system of user education in erea of ICT. It is strongly expected the new act will be a turning point of ICT development in Korea.

• Management & Information Systems Review
• /
• v.35 no.2
• /
• pp.67-81
• /
• 2016

The purpose of this study was to investigate lots of problems that the current tax appeal system has, which are becoming serious issues as tax appeal cases are recently increasing. Those problems include the unreasonable procedure and period of deliberation on tax appeal cases, permission of a same tax appeal by more than one governmental agencies and the compulsory transposition system of tax appeal cases. All of these problems should be rectified in order to ensure that the currently tax appeal system protect taxpayers' rights and interests effectively. According to the current tax appeal system, the period from the receipt of tax appeal cases to ruling on them is up to 90 days. This is unrealistic, so that period should be allowed to be extended if those cases about more complicated taxation or if they are even harder to be treated for any reason. At present, chief of Tax Tribunal has to unconditionally accept resolution from the meeting of tax judges and make a ruling accordingly because he has no right to reject that resolution. But now, it's time to establish legal grounds based on which the chief suggests the tax judges to reconsider their resolution if it is undoubtedly wrong. Currently, there's a relatively little acceptance of tax appeals from people who can't financially afford to designate a proxy for them. To solve this problem, lots of efforts to make socially recognized the necessity to relive those people's rights and interests and make widely known the Public Proxy of Tax Appeal System. The current tax appeal system allows the Board of Audit and Inspection to be an appealer. This means taxation may be deliberated on by more than one governmental agencies. It is so inefficient. Therefore, tax appeal by the board should be only about taxation that they found unacceptable by audit and inspection. Except for this, it is not allowed that the Board of Audit and Inspection file tax appeals that are, in turn, necessarily transported to the National Taxation. Esecially, the transposition should be a procedure that is occasionally taken. In sum, this study investigated problems with the current tax appeal system, and made suggestions about solutions that are not theoretical but practical.

• Journal of Korean Society of Transportation
• /
• v.20 no.3
• /
• pp.179-192
• /
• 2002

주차금지, 일방통행. 본 논문에서의 횡단보도와 같은 교통표지는 개별적 행위로서 행정행위가 아니라 불특정 다수의 행위를 추상적으로 규율하는 특성을 지닌다. 현행 도로교통법상 횡단보도의 설치여부는 지방경찰청장의 재량 사항으로 규정되어 있어 경찰이 횡단보도를 새로 설치하거나 기존의 횡단보도를 폐지하는 경우 관할 경찰청은 물론 관계 행정청에 이를 설치 혹은 폐지해달라는 민원이 매우 많아 일선 경찰공무원 등이 많은 애로를 느끼고 있으며 급기야는 본고에서 검토할 사례의 경우와 같이 행정소송을 통해 뜻을 관철하고자 하는 경우까지 생겼다. 횡단보도의 설치와 관련한 대법원 판결(대법원 2000.10.27.선고, 98두8964판결)이 이제 처음 나왔지만 시민의 권리의식의 향상에 따른 소송의 증가경향으로 미루어 앞으로 이와 유사한 문제제기는 더욱 늘어날 것으로 전망된다. 이에 본고에서는 횡단보도의 설치와 관련한 행정소송에 대한 최근 대법원판결에 대한 심층분석을 통하여 그 의미와 문제점을 지적함으로써 앞으로 이와 유사한 사례에 대한 판단에 있어 방향성을 제시하였다. 즉 횡단보도 설치행위의 적법성과 관련한 소송에서 가능한 본안심리를 통해 국민의 권익구제의 기회 내지 가능성을 열어주는 것이 바람직하다는 점과 현재 원고적격의 범위가 확대되어 가고 있는 추세에 비추어 앞으로 횡단보도의 설치와 관련한 원고적격의 범위 역시 확대되는 것이 바람직하다는 방향에서 법규정에 대한 새로운 해석을 시도하였고 이를 통해 횡단보도의 설치 및 폐지에 따른 경찰 등 관계 행정청의 관심과 신중을 촉구하였다. 또한 횡단보도 설치행위의 처분성과 관련하여 횡단보도의 설치행위와 같은 일반적인 명령을 항고소송의 대상으로 할 필요성이 존재한다면 이른바 독일에서의 일반처분이라는 개념을 무리하게 받아들여 이를 행정행위의 한 유형으로 한다거나 우리 판례와 같이 "직접적이고 구체적인 법적 효과"를 미치는 명령이라는 명확치 않은 기준에 의하여 처분성을 인정하기보다는 일반적인 명령과 개별적인 행정행위를 구분하고 명령에 대하여도 취소소송의 대상으로 삼도록 하는 보다 명확하고 일관성 있는 논의전개를 제안하였다.

• Journal of Internet Computing and Services
• /
• v.15 no.2
• /
• pp.59-71
• /
• 2014

This study applied customer perspective to find out ways how to protect customers' privacy by themselves. It does so by examining the factors which affect customer privacy protection behaviors. Based on the Privacy Act, this study developed the construct of Privacy Rights awareness and finds the law's effect on privacy awareness and behavioral change. The study finds that there exists a significant difference in privacy protection behavior according to privacy rights awareness. Independent variables are as follows: Five variables (Perceived vulnerability, Perceived severity, Perceived response effectiveness, Perceived barriers, Privacy Rights awareness) were tested as critical variables influencing Behavioral Intention in PMT model. Privacy awareness had a moderating effect on the relationship between perceived severity and privacy protection behavior. This study would contribute on theoretical expansion of Protection Motivation Theory and also provide practical implications for effective ways to promote behavioral changes.

• Journal of Legislation Research
• /
• no.44
• /
• pp.283-314
• /
• 2013

Das koreanische Verwaltungsprozessgesetz (KVwPG) wurde am 24. 8. 1951 kodifiziert. Es hat bisher mehrmals $ge{\ddot{a}}ndert$. Der Regierungsentwurf des KVwPG-${\ddot{A}}nderungsgesetzes$ vom 30. 3. 2013, ist fast $drei{\ss}ig$ jahre nach der Novellierung des KVwPGs 1984 erfolgt und auch spiegelt sich die Erfolge der $Bem{\ddot{u}}hungen$ in Literatur und Rechtsprechung wider. Aber es gibt nicht nur einige Unterschiede zwischen dem Regierungsentwurf und dem Entwurf der Kommission des Justizministeriums zur ${\ddot{A}}nderung$ des KVwPG (dem sog. Kommissionsentwurf), sondern auch der Regierungsentwurf ist theoretisch nicht problemlos. Vor allem sind Begriff und Umfang der neuen Klagebefugnis nicht klar. Des weiteren sind in ${\S}$ 12 des Regierungsentwurfs die Klagebefugnis mit dem $Rechtsschutzbed{\ddot{u}}rfnis$ identisch gesehen. Der $Rechtsschutzbed{\ddot{u}}rfnis$ nach ${\S}$ 12 Satz 2 des Regierungsentwurfs kann aus meiner Sicht relativ eng ausgelegt. Die $Einf{\ddot{u}}hrung$ der Verpflichtugnsklage in den Regierungsentwurf ist sehr gut, aber es kann trotzdem als problematisch angesehen werden dass Feststellungsklage der Rechtswidrigkeit der Unterlassung und Anfechtungsklage gegen Ablehnung bestehen noch. Der Begriff der Unterlassung ist $unn{\ddot{o}}tig$ und auch strikt. $Vorl{\ddot{a}}ugier$ Rechtsschutz des Regierungsentwurfs ist unter dem Gesichtpunkt der Rechtsschutz der $B{\ddot{u}}rger$ noch zu verbessern, aber doch das Modell des japanischen Verwaltungsprozessgesetzes darf nicht befolgt werden. Aufbau und System des $vorl{\ddot{a}}ufigen$ Rechtsschutzes sind auch nicht eindeutig. Nach Gegenstand und Klageart muss das Institut des $vorl{\ddot{a}}ufigen$ Rechtsschutzes in Ordnung gebracht werden. Es ist nicht ${\ddot{u}}berzeugend$ dass die $Einw{\ddot{a}}nde$ gegen die $Einf{\ddot{u}}hrung$ der vorbeugenden Unterlassung mit dem Gewaltenteilungsprinzip und der $Eigenst{\ddot{a}}ndigkeit$ der Verwaltung erhoben sind. $Dar{\ddot{u}}ber$ hinaus ist ADR (Alternative Dispute Resolution) zu beachten. In Bezug darauf ist Rechtgrundlage $f{\ddot{u}}r$ Mediation in der Verwaltungsgerichtsbarkeit zu stellen.