• International Commerce and Information Review
• /
• v.8 no.1
• /
• pp.205-223
• /
• 2006

File sharing through P2P was decided as illegal according to Supreme Court of the U.S. and the Highest Court of Korea in 2005. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. et al. v. Grokster, LTD., et al. and Soribada v. Korea Association for Music Providers have the same ground for decision. P2P service company has vicarious liability for illegal file sharing of its customers. Balance between copyright protection and development of technology was considered in that decision. Programmer who will develop new program for free download and copyright holders who will exploit every measures to protect their right may compromise for their mutual benefits.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.21 no.1
• /
• pp.187-220
• /
• 2020

Today, administrative legislation is becoming more and more important in that it not only sets the legal life relationship of the people in great detail and detail, but is closely related to the occurrence, extinction, and alteration of rights and obligations held by prisoners. In the United States, the types of administrative legislation are divided into substantive and interpretative regulations, so-called substantive regulations, which give prior notice and opportunity to comment on interested parties through formal or informal administrative procedures in accordance with Article 553 of the Federal Administrative Procedures Act. On the other hand, the interpretation regulation, which is "the regulation established by the Administration for the simple interpretation of statutes," does not require prior notice or comment because it does not affect the people's rights obligations. The Azar v. Allina Health Service, 587 U.S. 1804, 2019 ruling by the U.S. Constitutional Court, subject to this research paper, is about a dispute over a new decision to require Medicare to determine the amount of compensation for care providers that provide medical services for the poor, and should the regulations be regarded as substantive under the Administrative Procedures Act and should not be given a hearing or a simple internal process for processing. Given that the current administrative procedure law of our country stipulates the procedures for administrative pre-announcement through Articles 42.1 and 44.1, but that our courts have not judged violations of legislative pre-announcement procedures under the Administrative Procedures Act so far as to judge the illegality of administrative legislation, the dispute of the U.S. Constitutional Court will provide new implications for controlling legal orders beyond simple legal interpretation and has great significance in terms of readjustment of relevant regulations under future administrative procedures.

• Journal of the Korean Geographical Society
• /
• v.47 no.2
• /
• pp.245-267
• /
• 2012

This paper analyzes the discrimination of private property right protection in urban regeneration projects that is implemented by eminent domain based on public use in the United States. In spite of urban regeneration projects which depends on property condemnation for public use as a coercive power, it is executed on the discrimination of property right and sacrifice of the social disadvantages that transfer property from these private party to another big capitals and private developers. At first this paper investigates research trends in urban regeneration within the framework of multidisciplinary approach and suggests legal geographical perspective as a new research field. Next I figure out current state, types and numbers of brownfields site with the EPA and GAO data, and define these sites as results of deindustrialization and suburbanization process. Finally this paper uncover that the discrimination process of private property right is due to complex actions of expansion of public use concept in the U.S. Supreme Court from public ownership to economic public use, privatization of eminent domain, growth coalition regime and business friendly policy focused on economic development, class and racial bias, neoliberal movements of property right reform.

• Korean journal of communication and information
• /
• v.21
• /
• pp.147-175
• /
• 2003

This study is primarily concerned with the criteria for choosing a legitimate state plaintiff in cases involving a states request to media for a right of reply. Interpretation of the right of reply itself is different from country to country because of different constitutional views and systems in each state. Unlike the United States, the constitution of the Republic of Korea does not expressly prohibit the making of laws adversely affecting freedom of the press. Accordingly, in Korea freedom of the press may be restricted through legislation within certain limits and the right of reply is not incompatible with the spirit of the constitution. An analysis of relevant law makes it clear that the particular agency aggrieved should initiate the suit rather than the Justice Minister. The idea that the Justice Minister should assume the role of plaintiff in all state cases seems to stem from flawed interpretations of provisions in the Law Governing Registration of Periodicals and the Law Governing Litigation Involving the State. Even though each state agency has the right of reply, it should be cautioned not to abuse it as the states frequent involvement in litigation may bring on unnecessary misunderstanding and have a chilling effect on the media. The right of reply does not always imply that a certain media report in question is wrong and the media should be sanctioned for it. The right of reply is basically intended to help the general public make an informed judgment on issues presented in the media and insure fairness and balance.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.16 no.1
• /
• pp.3-82
• /
• 2015

This paper is concerned in the theme of the liability for the breach of duty to inform(Haftungszurechnung der $Aufkl{\ddot{a}}rungspflichtverletzung$) and the malpractice of cosmetic surgery. Here, the terms, treatments for healing purposes and purely medical-technical cosmetic operations are well integrated in the category of "medical conduct(medizinische Handlung)" within the meaning of the public and administrative 'Medical Law'. In the judgment of 6. 13. 2013 Az. 2012DA94865 provides the KHGH(Korean Highest Court of Justice) to inform the patient about the prospects and risks of cosmetic surgery(Infrabrow Excision Blepharoplasty) stringent requirements, similar to the judicature of BGH(cf. BGH, Urt. v. 6. 11. 1990, Az.: VI ZR 8/90). Even in the judgment of 5. 12. 2014 Az. 2013GASO865646 the SZLG(Seoul Central Regional Court) recognizes the physician contract for 'cosmetic septoplasty' as a sort of contract for work. The medical treatment(${\ddot{a}}rztliche$ Heilbehandlung) is still regarded as a prototype of the medical activity, therefore in the meaning of the 'Civil Law(KBGB)', its term needs to be used immediately for healing purposes. The cosmetic operation, desired by a patient, differs from the healing treatment by the element of "indication" and the fact that the "healing purpose(Heilzweck)" itself is missing. In comparative context - methodically fully aware that the unreflective term transfer between different laws might contradict their legal purposes - a series of judgments BSG(BSGE 63, 83, BSGE 72, 96, BSGE, 82, 158, BSGE 93, 252 etc.) and some judgments of LSG are reviewed. In addition, also the dogmatic topic for the "legal natur of a medical treatment contract" is to reconsider by comparative introducing BGHZ 63, 306. Now in view of the current state of greater popularity of artificial cosmetic surgery still indeed is the sentences: The doctor is minister naturae, a helper of nature. A doctor promises regularly only the proper treatment of the patient, but the contractual liability for work should not be excluded in medical conditions for cosmetic surgeries altogether. "With cosmetic operations, seeking to eliminate the external deformities, the doctor may miss the medical profession entirely." - A. Laufs, Medical Law, 5th ed. P. 18.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.35 no.2
• /
• pp.3-40
• /
• 2020

The term "accident" in the Warsaw Convention of 1929 and the Montreal Convention of 1999, which govern carrier liability in international air transport, is an important criterion for determining carrier liability. However, because there is no explicit definition of the term in the treaty provisions, the term is largely subjected to the judgment and interpretation of the courts. Although there have been numerous changes in purpose and circumstance in the transition from the Warsaw regime to the conclusion of the Montreal Convention, there was no discussion on the concept of "accident" therefore, even after the adoption of the Montreal Convention, there is no doubt that the term is to be interpreted in the same manner as before. On this point, the United States Supreme Court's Air France v. Saks clarified the concept of "accident" and is still cited as an important precedent. Recently, the CJEU, in GN v. ZU, presented a new concept of "accident" introduced in the Montreal Convention: that "reference must be made to the ordinary meaning" in interpreting "accident" and that the term "covers all situations occurring on aboard an aircraft." Furthermore, the CJEU ruled that the term does not include the applicability of "hazards typically associated with aviation," which was controversial in previous cases. Such an interpretation can be reasonably seen as the court's expansion of the concept of "accident," with a focus on "protecting consumer interests," a core tenet of both the Montreal convention and the European Union Regulations(EC: No 889/2002). The CJEU's independent interpretation of "accident" is a departure from the Warsaw Convention and the Saks case, with their focus on "carrier protection," and instead focuses on the "passenger protection" standard of the Montreal Convention. Consequently, this expands both the court's discretion and the carrier's risk management liability. Such an interpretation by the CJEU can be said to be in line with the purpose of the Montreal Convention in terms of "passenger protection." However, there are problems to be considered in tandem with an expanded interpretation of "accident." First, there may be controversy concerning "balance" in that it focused on "passenger protection" in relation to the "equitable balance of interests" between air carriers and passengers, which is the basic purpose of the agreement. Second, huge losses are expected as many airlines fly to countries within the European Union. Third, there is now a gap in the interpretation of "accident" in Europe and the United States, which raises a question on the "unity of rules," another basic tenet of the Convention. Fourth, this interpretation of "accident" by the CJEU raises questions regarding its scope of application, as it only refers to the "hazards typically associated with aviation" and "situations occurring aboard an aircraft." In this case, the CJEU newly proposed a novel criterion for the interpretation of "accident" under the Montreal Convention. As this presents food for thought on the interpretation of "accident," it is necessary to pay close attention to any changes in court rulings in the future. In addition, it suggests that active measures be taken for passenger safety by recognizing air carriers' unlimited liability and conducting systematic reforms.