• The Korean Journal of Archival Studies
• /
• no.43
• /
• pp.103-145
• /
• 2015

This study is intended to examine the present condition and management of Korean civil litigation between 1895 and 1905, during which the traditional korean legal system had undergone a significant reform until it was finally incorporated into the Japanese colonial counterpart. Civil litigation is important in historical archiving, in that we can understand archiving over time, the governing structure and our national identity. However at times we are not able to use them practically. The ultimate goal of preserving and maintaining the archives is to use them practically. The effective use of archives should be supported by their systematic management and access to a high standard. Therefore, the second main theme of this study is to propose to unveil civil litigation to the public for professional studies. Firstly, we should make a list of civil judgments from a management perspective. Secondly, we should inform people of the civil justice rulings through publicity activities such as contents creation, exhibition, documentary creation, education and so on. Thirdly, the historical archives of the civil litigations should be preserved apart form records. Fourthly, I should propose that we offer curriculum about interpreting and understanding history archives for strengthening of our expertise. Civil judgment of Guhanmal-Japanese is invaluable as it explains the history of our culture. Results of Conservation and utilization will be a valuable resource and invaluable to study.

• Electric Engineers Magazine
• /
• v.174 no.2
• /
• pp.59-59
• /
• 1997

• Proceedings of the Korean Institute of Navigation and Port Research Conference
• /
• 2012.06a
• /
• pp.180-182
• /
• 2012

선박충돌사고 원인의 제공 정도를 밝혀 해양사고를 재발방지를 목적으로 1999년 2월 "선박충돌사고 원인제공비율 산정제도"를 마련하였으며, 2007년 1월 원인제공비율 산정지침을 제정하여 시행해 오고 있다. 이 제도의 또 다른 도입목적은 해양안전심판원의 원인제공비율을 민사재판에서 사법부가 적극 인용함으로써 해양사고관련자들 간의 신속한 분쟁해결과 경제적 부담 감송 등에 기여함에 있다. 그러나 민사소송에 있어 제공된 원인제공비율이 과실비율로 인정되는 등의 이유로 원인제공비율 산정제도가 사법권의 침해하고 있다는 문제점도 지적되고 있다. 따라서 본 연구에서는 원인제공비율 산정제도의 시행 이후 이 제도의 시행자 및 사용자 등 전문가 집단을 대상으로 설문조사를 실시하여 제도의 효과 및 문제점 등을 분석하였다. 전문가 집단 응답자의 대부분이 제도의 필요성 (94.3%), 유용성 (88.6%) 및 신뢰성 (73%)을 피력하고 있는 것으로 나타났다. 그리고 이 제도가 필요한 이유로는 "손해배상분쟁의 신속한 해결", "충돌사고 재발방지", 그리고 "이해당사자의 편의제공" 때문임을 알 수 있었다. 그러나 제도의 개선을 위해서는 원인제공 비율의 표시에 있어 보다 객관적인 기준과 정량성 및 전문성의 확보가 필요하다는 지적도 확인하였다. 따라서 원인제공비율 산정제도의 개선방안으로 원인제공비율산정에 대한 신뢰성 및 공정성의 확보, 심판관에 대한 법률적 지식과 법적 소양강화 및 전문법조인의 심판관으로의 영입 등이 필요하다고 판단된다.

• Journal of Korean Institute of Fire Investigation
• /
• v.11 no.1
• /
• pp.145-153
• /
• 2007

화재발생시 경찰, 소방 등 행정관서는 현장통제 초동조치, 응급구조 진화작업, 화재조사 및 수사, 화재증명 발급 및 통계작성, 피의자(원인 제공자) 입건 및 송치를 담당하고 있고, 검찰청은 수사보완 및 기소, 법원은 형사 및 민사재판을 진행하게 됨으로써 책임과 보상관계를 판가름하게 된다. 물론 이재관계자의 합의, 화재보험 등으로 피해보상을 받기도 하나 모든 것이 국민으로부터 나온 것이고, 국민을 볼모로 하여서는 않되므로 화재원인의 명쾌한 규명으로 유사사고의 재발방지를 위한 연구가 필요하다.

• Journal of Korean Society of Archives and Records Management
• /
• v.10 no.1
• /
• pp.31-53
• /
• 2010

This paper historically examines how the management system of administrative records and court records generated in court were established, and what it's features are. Because the court exercises jurisdictional rights such as confirming the legal rights and responsibilities of Korean nationals, the court records have a unique characteristic compared to general administrative records. In particular, court records are not composed only of rulings generated in courts, but also of various records such as civil case records and criminal case records. In order to understand the legal records management system, we must first identify the method of preservation and management after these records, which have different provenance, pass the court procedures.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.17 no.2
• /
• pp.189-219
• /
• 2007

Mediation is type of intervention in which the disputing parties accept the offer of the judge or a third party to recommend a solution for their controversy. Mediation differs from arbitration in being a voluntary resolution rather than a judicial procedure. Thus, the parties to the dispute are not bound to accept the mediator's recommendation. Resort to mediation has become increasingly frequent for civil disputes. Mediation has been successful in many cases of civil conflict. Mediation has become increasingly important for monetary disputes as well, particularly in damage cases. While most people consider mediation a far superior experience to court, everything I tell you a mediator should not do is something that at least one mediator I have dealt with has done to a client. In theory, a mediator should never share anything you tell him or her without your permission. In theory a mediator should not "spring" evaluations on anyone in a mediation without your permission (e.g. a mediator should never say "your case is worth \OOOO and I just told the other side that). In theory a mediator should not browbeat or threaten you. At the end, usually about 55% of the time with a good mediator in Kwangju Appellate Court in 2003, the parties reach an agreement that is in their best interests. If they decide to sign off on a signed agreement, the signed agreement is binding. I obviously feel mediation is a very good thing and the numbers and surveys bear me out. This article is written about how mediation is proceeded, what is the realities, what is the problem and what is the activating way. For this study, I research with legal sociological approach using Korean Judicial Year Boot judicial document and my experience as meditator in Kwangju District Court.

• 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.

• Proceedings of the Korea Technology Innovation Society Conference
• /
• 2017.11a
• /
• pp.547-566
• /
• 2017

연구비의 부정은 연구부정행위(Research misconduct)와 연구비부정집행(Research grant fraud)으로 나눌 수 있다. 미국의 경우 연구비와 관련이 있는 이 두 행위에 대해 "부정청구방지법"을 적용시켜 강한 법집행을 하고 있다. 반면 한국의 경우는 부정적발사례는 수천 건에 달하나 사법처리까지 가는 경우는 매우 드물며, 처벌 수위가 솜방망이라 연구자들이 이에 대한 경각심이 부족하다. 미국의 대표적인 민사사례의 연구비 부정 집행 사례는 예일대학의 연구비 부정 집행이다. 예일 대학은 정부에 연구비를 부정하게 청구한 혐의로 760만 달러의 벌금을 냈다. 대표적인 형사사례는 최근에 발생한 Haifang Wen 연구비 횡령사건으로 현재 재판이 진행 중이며 최대 징역30년과 벌금 100만달러가 예상되고 있다. 반면 한국의 경우 대표적인 형사 사건으로는 xx대학의 연구 조작으로 인한 연구비 집행으로 징역2년에 집행유예3년으로 처리되었다. 미국의 사례를 바탕으로 한국의 연구비 부정사용을 효율적으로 방지하기 위해 다음과 같은 3가지 개혁이 필요하다. 첫째, 내부 고발자를 보호하고 고발자에게 강력한 인센티브를 제공하는 방향으로 법체계를 개혁해야 한다. 둘째, 연구비 부정사용에 대해서는 민 형사 상 가중처벌을 할 수 있도록 관련법을 개정해야 한다. 셋째, 연구비 부정이 발생하였을 경우 대학 산학 협력단 등 주관연구기관도 민사부문에 한해서는 연대책임을 지도록 관련법을 정비해야 한다.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.19 no.2
• /
• pp.9-53
• /
• 2004

This paper described the contents of theme entitled "Domestic Legislative Problems on the Civil Liability of Air Carrier in Korea" including the current example of fourteen countries' legislation ((1) Great Britain, (2) United States of America, (3) Canada, (4)European Union), (5) Germany, (6) France, (7) Italy, (8) Spain, (9) Swiss, (10) Australia, (11) Japan, (12) People's Republic of China, (13) Taiwan, (14) North Korea) relating to the aviation law or air transport law. Though the Korean and Japanese aviation act has provided only the public items such as (1) registration of aircraft, (2) persons engaged in aviation, (3) operation of aircraft, (4) aviation facilities including airport, (5) air transport business, (6) investigate of aircraft accidents etc., but they could not regulated the private items such as the legal relations of the air transport contract (1) air passenger ticket, (2) air luggage ticket, (3) airway bill, (4) liability of air carrier, (5) amount of compensation for damage caused by aircraft accidents, (6)jurisdiction, (7) arbitration, (8) limitation of action, (9) combined carriage, (10) carriage by air performed by an actual carrier other than contracting carrier, damage caused by aircraft to the third parties etc. in their aviation act until now. In order to solve speedily the legal problems on the limitation of air carrier's liability and long law suit and disputes between wrongdoers and survivors etc, it is necessary and desirable for us to enact a new "Draft for the Air Transport Act" including the abovementioned private items. I would like to propose personally and strongly the legislation of "Draft for the Air Transport Act" in Korea in emphasizing the importance of ensuring protection of the interests of consumers air passengers and shippers in carriage by air and the need for equitable compensation between air carriers and survivors caused by the aircraft accidents such as the German Air Transport Act (Luftverkerhrsgesetz).

• International Commerce and Information Review
• /
• v.13 no.3
• /
• pp.3-29
• /
• 2011

The Internet has become a medium through which people engage in increasingly sophisticated transactions. Businesses and consumers now use the Internet to communicate and engage in commercial transactions creating a virtual worldwide marketplace. They fear that the determination of Internet jurisdiction could be uncertain because electronic commerce is not executed in one particular place. Until now, there are no specific rules in the model laws and conventions dealing with international jurisdiction in electronic commerce. Due to the fact that U.S. companies are at the forefront of Internet technology, litigation regarding electronic commerce in the U.S. is more advanced than anywhere else in the world This paper analysis the basic framework for personal jurisdiction and approach for determining international jurisdiction in electronic commerce cases and explain the differences of several approaches involving interactions over the Internet. According to jurisdiction approach test, the U.S. employs sliding scale, effects and targeting test in electronic commerce. In recent many research views the targeting test as a global standard for determining international electronic commerce jurisdiction. However, there is still no clear indication of conclusive test of jurisdiction determination for electronic commerce. Therefore, it is a changing and process of jurisdiction test in the U.S. cases. In Korea, there is jurisdiction related clause in Private International Law, but it may be asked whether applicable in electronic commerce. Accordingly, analysis of the precedents changing related to electronic commerce jurisdiction of U.s. is full of suggestions in Korean companies, consumers and helps an enactment of code of civil procedure that containing many group's demands.