• 발명특허
• /
• v.36 no.9
• /
• pp.20-25
• /
• 2011

무권리자의 특허출원에 대해서는 특허법상 특허심판원에 특허심판 청구를 하여 특허권을 등록무효시키는 것이 종래의 방법이나, 특허심판원을 거치지 않고 일반 법원에 직접 청구하는 것이 가능한지, 가능하다면 말소청구와 이전등록청구 중 어느 방법에 의하여야 하는지에 관해 알아보자.

• 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.

• Management & Information Systems Review
• /
• v.38 no.4
• /
• pp.61-78
• /
• 2019

When calculating gains from transfers of assets inherited or donated, the value recognized at the market price as of the date of inheritance or acquisition is recognized as the actual transaction value at the time of acquisition. However, Precedents for the appeal for review by the NTS, the request for adjudgment by the Tax Tribunal(TT) and the request of examination by the Board of Audit and Inspection of Korea(BAI) and the cases of the lawsuit have not shown a consistent results on how much such a the actual transaction value will be measured. This study investigates the operating state of the current tax appeal system using the statistical data of the TT, NTS, and BAI and cases of the lawsuit from 2008 to 2017, and suggests the Improvement of Capital Gains Tax Act on the transfer of inherited and donated property. As a result, total number of requested cases has diminished because cases of the pre-assessment review and the reconsideration appeal by the NTS have decreased steadily over the past decade, while the cases of the lawsuit and the administrative trials(the request for adjudgment by the TT, the appeal for review by the NTS, and the request of examination by the BAI) have been steadily increasing. Also This study found that more than 40% of the complainants proceeded with the cases of the lawsuit proceedings in disagreement with the disposition of tax dissatisfaction under the administrative trials. In addition, Even though the retrospective appraisal price is not recognized as the market price due to the strict interpretation of the tax regulations, it can be seen that it is interpreted as a more expanded concept in the application of the market price than the government office or the tax judge. Therefore, according to the precedents of the cases lawsuit, it is necessary to establish a regulation on the recognition of retroactive appraisal value.

• 발명특허
• /
• v.6 no.8 s.66
• /
• pp.57-57
• /
• 1981

• 발명특허
• /
• v.6 no.6 s.64
• /
• pp.55-55
• /
• 1981

• 발명특허
• /
• v.17 no.2 s.192
• /
• pp.45-48
• /
• 1992

• 발명특허
• /
• v.17 no.1 s.191
• /
• pp.34-37
• /
• 1992

• 발명특허
• /
• v.12 no.3 s.133
• /
• pp.60-65
• /
• 1987

• The Inventors News
• /
• no.14
• /
• pp.4-4
• /
• 2003

제2회 전국 대학발명동아리 경진대화 개최 - 나노분말 관련된 특허 출원 급증 - 특허청, 첨단기술유출 강력 규제한다 - 특허심판원 심판청구건수 급증 - 하동만 특허청장 발명교사 대상으로 특강

• Proceedings of the Korean Institute of Navigation and Port Research Conference
• /
• 2013.06a
• /
• pp.288-290
• /
• 2013

해양안전심판제도는 해양사고의 원인을 밝혀 해양안전에 이바지함을 목적으로 하고 있음에도, 실질적으로 원인조사보다는 징계를 주목적으로 하는 것처럼 보일 수 있다. 해양사고가 발생하였을 경우, 지방해양안전심판원은 원인재결 및 징계재결을 하는데, 해기사나 도선사에게 징계재결을 하면 이는 침익적인 행정처분에 해당된다. 이러한 행정처분에 다툼이 있을 경우 중앙해양안전심판원에 구제를 요청하면 행정심판이 된다. 행정심판의 재결에 대하여 다시 대법원에서 다투는 것이 행정소송이 된다. 일반적으로, 행정심판의 재결은 3심제의 재판을 받을 수 있으나, 해양안전심판제도에서 중앙해양안전심판원의 재결에 대한 행정소송은 대법원 전속관할 단심제로 운영되고 있어 헌법의 기본권 중의 하나인 재판청구권에 대한 위헌 논란이 계속되고 있으므로, 이 논문에서는 해양안전심판제도의 본래의 목적인 해양사고 원인규명을 통한 해상안전의 확보 및 징계재결로 인한 침해된 국민의 권리를 구제하기 위한 개선방안을 제안하고자 한다.