• Journal of Software Assessment and Valuation
• /
• v.16 no.1
• /
• pp.1-11
• /
• 2020

The March 29, 2016, amendment to the Civil Procedure Act introduced changes to the appraisal procedures, including new obligations for appraisers, changes in the modes of appraiser testimony, and questioning of appraisers through video conferencing, with all seemingly aimed at procedurally addressing the issues with appraisal in the context of court proceedings. The changes introduced by the amendment also affect the appraisal procedures for copyrights. In light of the above, this article examines how the amendment to the Civil Procedure Act affects the appraisal procedures for copyrights. Specific issues covered by this paper include: appointment of additional appraisers, prohibition of delegated appraisal, operation of the multiple appraisal system, disclosure of participating experts, proximity of the appraiser system, and congruence of areas of expertise.

• Journal of the Korea Society of Computer and Information
• /
• v.26 no.10
• /
• pp.147-155
• /
• 2021

If one wants to file a lawsuit against the administrative office, he or she should decide whether to file a civil lawsuit or an administrative lawsuit. The type of lawsuit must be determined to determine which court to file the lawsuit with. Korea seems to have a clear distinction between administrative and judicial legal relationships, but it is not easy to distinguish between public and judicial cases unless the public and judicial discrimination are maintained. The practice or precedent of litigation is always difficult to distinguish because the litigation is based on the discrimination of whether the litigation belongs to a legal relationship in public law or judicial law. I believe that if the administrative litigation law establishes a provision related to the designation of a duty and stipulates that "if a litigation case is questioned whether it is an administrative or civil lawsuit, the Supreme Court-related court shall designate the competent court at the request of the parties," the lower court will be guaranteed the right to swift a trial, and the legal representatives will be freed from the exhaustive agony.

• Korean Journal of Social Welfare
• /
• v.66 no.2
• /
• pp.31-49
• /
• 2014

The purpose of this study is to analyze precedents related with child abuse for protection of the rights of the child. There should be the law related with 'punishment for child abuse,' which is the grounds of punishment, to make a precedent in the law punishing for 'child abuse,' but there is the concept only for 'child abuse' in the Child Welfare Law, the fundamental law; therefore, for a direct judgment for punishment, only precedents of 'child abuse' related with loss of parental rights and judgements for criminal cases, civil cases and laws covering special cases have been made. For that reason, 'the special law related with punishment for child abuse cases' is desperately required (On last December 23, 2013, the special law related with punishment for child abuse cases passed the National Assembly). Hence, precedent analysis had performed by grouping precedent from 2000 to 2013 which were not judged as child abuse in trial but can be regarded as child abuse. When analyzing each precedent according to the contents of analysis and judgment by fact relevance in this study, problems which the current legislative system has were deducted through an implication of each case by diagnosing using diagraming after classifying lower instance terminated cases, which precedents of the Supreme Court and judgments sent to the Supreme Court were excluded, while excluding cases settled in the civil level and classifying analysis of civil case precedents which did not become a criminal case and completed as a civil case, analysis of criminal case precedents, classification of precedents of loss of the parental rights (regarding child abuse) and precedents of any other special laws. And compensatory tasks for special laws regarding punishment of child abuse were presented while suggesting compensatory tasks for the legislation regarding deducted problems.

• Journal of Legislation Research
• /
• no.44
• /
• pp.435-464
• /
• 2013

의료민사소송은 그동안 의료행위가 지니고 있는 전문성, 밀실성, 폐쇄성 등의 여러 가지의 특수성으로 인하여 소송이 장기화되고 경제적 비용이 상당하게 소모되었다. 또한 법원의 판결이 이루어지더라도 당사자들이 이를 신뢰하지 못하는 등의 이유로 신속성과 공정성에 문제점이 지적되었다. 이 때문에 소송 대체적 분쟁해결제도로서 의료사고 피해구제 및 의료분쟁 조정 등에 관한 법률상의 의료분쟁조정 및 중재 절차가 탄생하게 되었다. 그러나 의료분쟁조정법 제27조 제8항에서 피신청인이 14일 동안 의사를 표명하지 않는 경우 거부의사로 간주되고, 이 경우 한국의료분쟁조정중재원장이 각하결정을 하여야 한다고 규율함으로써, 조정의 개시 조차 순탄치 않은 것이 현실이다. 본고에서는 우리나라 의료분쟁의 최근 현황을 확인해 본 후, 의료분쟁조정법상 조정의 신청에 관한 조문인 제27조에 대한 입법안을 비교 점검한 후 다른 ADR 관련 법률이나 민사소송법상의 조문과 비교하여 불합리한 점이 있는지를 검토하고, 동조의 개선방안을 제시하고자 한다. 또한 2013. 4. 8.부터 시행이 되고 있는 불가항력적 산과 사고에 대한 무과실보상제도와 관련하여 동조가 미치는 영향 등에 대해서도 논의하고자 한다.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.3 no.1
• /
• pp.158-181
• /
• 2002

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.4 no.2
• /
• pp.53-79
• /
• 2003

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.6 no.2
• /
• pp.187-234
• /
• 2005

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.6 no.2
• /
• pp.170-186
• /
• 2005

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.6 no.2
• /
• pp.263-290
• /
• 2005

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.5 no.2
• /
• pp.391-412
• /
• 2004