• Bulletin of Korea Environmental Preservation Association
• /
• s.412
• /
• pp.49-52
• /
• 2014

• Journal of the Korean Professional Engineers Association
• /
• v.44 no.2
• /
• pp.14-16
• /
• 2011

지난 2월 10일 기술사법 관련 고시 중 ‘국제기술사 자격 요건 및 심사기준 고시’ 등 3개 고시가 아래와 같이 개정되었습니다.

• Journal of Korea Fair Competition Federation
• /
• no.97
• /
• pp.12-25
• /
• 2003

공정거래법의 실효적 집행을 위해서는 무엇보다도 공적집행을 개선하는 것이 중요하다. 이를 위하여 무엇보다 합리적이고 투명한 절차운영과 이해관계인의 절차상 권리 강화, 경쟁보호라는 목적에 충실하기 위한 공정위의 독립성과 전문성 확보, 그리고 사법심사를 통한 공정위의 재량권 남용 통제의 강화 등이 이루어질 필요가 있다. 아울러 공정거래법의 실효적 집행은 절차법만의 문제가 아니라, 실체법의 문제이기도 하다는 점을 간과해서는 안 된다. 따라서 집행의 개선논의는 금지기준의 명확성, 타당성 및 목적적합성이라는 실체법적 차원에서도 아울러 접근하여야 한다. 그리고 이러한 실체법의 발전과 합리적인 법 적용이란 공정위의 준 사법 기관성에 걸맞는 경쟁법 전문가의 적극적인 활용에 크게 좌우되는 것임은 물론이다.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.20 no.1
• /
• pp.3-24
• /
• 2019

This research examines the constitutional meaning of the right to health through reviewing the decisions of the Constitutional Court and proposed amendment of the Constitution issued by the President. This article further discusses the relationship between the right to a humane livelihood and the right to health. Health is a fundamental freedom and inalienable human right which is a prerequisite to accomplish individual's independent activity and realization of value. Thus, the government is obligated to protect and uphold the right. Article 36(3) of the Constitution delineates the government's duty to protect and fulfill the right to health. Through the interpretation of both Article 36(3) and Article 34 of the Constitution, I suggest that the right to health implies 'the right to social security for health'. The Constitutional Court has narrowly interpreted the scope of the right to a humane livelihood by defining the term as "minimum material living standards". However, it should be interpreted as 'the right to enjoy a healthy and cultural life for human dignity' and setting the level of protection is solely on the discretion of the legislative branch. Ultimately, the judicial review on the right to a humane livelihood connects with the issue of rational control for legislative discretion.

• Korean Architects
• /
• s.636
• /
• pp.24-27
• /
• 2022

월간 <건축사>가 지난 3월 21일 함인선 광주광역시 총괄건축가를 만났다. 그는 인터뷰를 통해 의무가입 시대를 맞아 건축사 윤리 확립을 위한 윤리강령 제정, 신뢰 기반의 공공건축 설계공모 심사 도입 및 건축 인허가 제도에 대한 평소 생각을 전했다. 또 건축계가 의무가입 건축사법 시행과 새 정부 출범 등 변화의 시기를 겪는 상황에서 좋은 건축을 위해서는 건축사에 대한 사회적 신뢰를 더욱 두텁게 해야 한다는 뜻을 전했으며, 공공건축 설계공모에 대해선 명목적 공정성에 집착하기보다 심사위원 재량을 강화하고 문제가 생길 경우 책임을 확실히 묻는 '신뢰 기반 심사제도' 도입 필요성을 강조했다. 또한 현행 건축심의 관련 건축물의 성능과 디자인에 관련된 사항은 건축사 재량에 맡기고 공공성에 대한 것을 심의 대상으로 삼는 방향으로 제도가 개선돼야 한다는 생각도 밝혔다. 함인선 총괄건축가의 저서로는 '구조의 구조', '정의와 비용 그리고 도시와 건축', '건물이 무너지는 21가지 이유' 등이 있다.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.20 no.2
• /
• pp.91-130
• /
• 2010

This thesis, which mainly focuses on judicial supervision of commercial arbitration in China, will deal with the developing process of arbitration system and analyze the actual condition of judicial supervision in commercial arbitration. And it also focuses on the underlying problems attributed to the excessive judicial intervention and an effort that the related academic world, arbitration industry and legal circles in China start to make in order to improve the system, resolving them. About the time China became a member of the WTO and about the 10th anniversary of the enforcement of Arbitration Law, powerful demands to solve the problems started to exist intensively. Academic field in China integrated these demands into the form of "proposed amendment of arbitration law", which enhanced the independence of arbitration and the autonomy of the involved parties drastically, as it accepted major contents of UNCITRAL Model Law while preserving of original tool of Chinese arbitration system. Separately from the movement in academic field, Supreme People's Court starts to exert itself for the, improvement of arbitration system, by announcing a series of proposed judicial interpretation so that it could collect the public opinion continuously and reflect the gathered opinion in judicial interpretation efficiently. Notwithstanding, there still remains to be ameliorated that the Arbitration Law of the PRC won't be able to overcome original limit when valuating judicial intervention on arbitration in some ways.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.32 no.1
• /
• pp.43-69
• /
• 2022

In the case of the United States, which has the same provision as Article 10 of the Federal Arbitration Act, a contract may be exceptionally validated if the parties have clearly concluded the contract to expand the grounds for vacating awards in an arbitration agreement. It is possible that the parties create the grounds for vacating that is not stipulated in the statue by clear agreement. However, it remains the issues when this contract is valid. If we investigate the grounds for setting aside as discussed in this paper, in cases ① where an arbitrator failed to apply the substantive law expressly designated by the parties without a good reason; ② where there was a serious error in the application of the substantive law; ③ where an arbitrator decided under ex aequo et bono despite the parties explicitly designated the substantive law, the parties may bring an action for annulment of arbitral awards in court according to their agreement to expand the grounds for vacating the awards. It is important enough to change the rights and obligations of the parties for them whether or not the substantive law of the arbitration was applied. With Regard to the contract to expand the grounds for setting aside the awards in arbitration agreement, there are still issues how to handle the case where the parties have not designated the substantive law, and the validity of a contract to expand the grounds for vacating on reasons other than violation of law application, and relations with Article 5 of the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, where the misapplication of the law does not stipulated as the grounds for refusal to recognize and enforce the foreign arbitral award, and so on.

• Journal of Korea Technology Innovation Society
• /
• v.20 no.1
• /
• pp.127-152
• /
• 2017

China's utility model as a supplement to the invention patent, has short application duration, fast authorized speed, and has the same exclusive rights with patents, so companies can quickly dominate the market. But the utility model does not need to carry out substantive examination, so has lower stability, high frequency of invalid to accepted, so compare with the invention patent, difficult to be protected. In order to actively encourage the small and medium-sized enterprises to promote their inventions, and protect domestic patents, China established a protection policy of patent evaluation report for the utility model rights, especially the patent evaluation report can be used as evidence in a patent infringement trial, to provide judicial remedies for utility model patentee and the party of patent disputes. Many experts believe that the establishment of patent evaluation report system can improve the stability of the utility model patent right, and when the defendant request for invalidation of the patent right in the defense period, if there is no novelty, creativity lost or no other reason has not led to the stability of patent right given in a patent evaluation report of the utility model patents, the court may not suspend the trial, without having to wait for the Patent Reexamination Board makes the patent invalid declaration decisions, can improve the efficiency of the judicial process, accelerate the patentee's time. However, in practical patent infringement, the patent evaluation report system and invalidation system are in conflict. In this paper, through the analysis of the current China utility model system and compared with the South Korean utility model system, review the role and character of the patent evaluation report system, and through the actual cases of the utility model patent infringement litigation, analysis possible variates from the decision of patent evaluation report, to find out the reason of the patent evaluation report system being in conflict with the invalidation system, and research on the effectiveness for protecting Utility Model with China's Patent Evaluation Report.