• Journal of the Korean Society for information Management
• /
• v.28 no.3
• /
• pp.65-82
• /
• 2011

Statement of responsibility in bibliographical records plays a key role in clarifying intellectual responsibility of the work, and it also plays a role in making up access points. However, cataloging rules for the statement of responsibility mostly deal with the distinction between the principal role and minor roles. This becomes a problem because the responsibility type itself is more important than the order of the types. For this reason, in this paper I will explore improvements of the description methods of statement of responsibility by organizing the role indicators. Namely, using the role indicators more effectively than the current description methods do, we can collocate the dispersed statements of responsibilities. The role indicators can also be used for an author facet in information retrieval and can provide additional information for authority control.

• Journal of the Korean Society for Library and Information Science
• /
• v.38 no.4
• /
• pp.149-166
• /
• 2004

This study make comparative analysis of the cataloging rules on the edition area included in the KCR4, NCR(2001), AACR2R, ISBD(M), and ISBD(ER). There is a delicate difference between the cataloging rules. The main features on the edition are as the follows. (1) In the bibliography description the concept of the edition is a general application. That is to say, the edition construct the new edition and the impression. The former comes the purview of a change content, the size, and a printing type. The latter publish newly- (2) The requisite for description of the edition area consists of a edition statement, statements of responsibility relating to the edition, additional edition statement, and statements of responsibility following an additional edition statement. Voluntary rules transcribe the parallel edition statement. (3) In the case of the electronic materials special versions on content and Auction indicates as the edition, but the environment of software does not indicate as it. (4) Parallel statement of responsibility relating to the edition, parallel additional edition statements, and parallel statements of responsibility following an additional edition statement are voluntary rules or not transcribed in the edition area.

• Journal of the Korea Academia-Industrial cooperation Society
• /
• v.19 no.3
• /
• pp.180-185
• /
• 2018

The literature of unfair labeling and advertising(ULA) was reviewed, along with the requirement for establishing an obligation to compensate for damage(OCD) by it based on the Act on Fair Labeling and Advertising(FLAA). ULA covers cases of possible deception or misleading consumers and thereby undermining fair trade order, or making other business entities do so. FLAA regulates OCD by ULA, but the Civil Act should also be considered for its effective results since the Act regards ULA as unlawful and duty bound to make compensation for damages arising therein. In this context, the study analyzed qualitatively 17 supreme court precedents related to OCD by ULA among a total of 119 by advertising to find the characteristics of the judgemental principles. It is found that most principles came from FLAA and the Act focusing on the meaning of false or exaggerated advertising, which is one of the following five ULA types according to its standards of judgment: its requirement for fraudulent acts, the meaning of damage by it, the perspective of calculation of damages, the requirement of OCD, and the characteristics of claim for damages. A more effective policy is suggested based on FLAA and related research should be continually carried on.

• The Journal of the Korea Contents Association
• /
• v.19 no.8
• /
• pp.93-105
• /
• 2019

This study want to identify problems related to mobile in-app payment from the perspective of consumers and suggest ways to solve them. Three scenarios have been developed to achieve the objectives of this study. This suggests the situation of in-app payment problem that consumers often experience. Then 323 consumers in their 20s and 30s read the scenario, identified the problem in each situation and assessed who was responsible. Consumers were aware of in-app payment problems due to problems with in-app payment readability, problems with app market responsibility, problems with responsibility of game companies, and problems of consumer responsibility. And different consumers had different levels of assessment on the problem of in-app payment. According to the research, consumers have high demand for improvement of the lack of readability in related laws, including strengthening the readability of the in-app payment indicator. In addition, the company confirmed the importance of cooperative efforts by consumers, businesses, and the government due to high consumer expectations for the role of the distribution company App Market other than the content developer game company.

• Proceedings of the Safety Management and Science Conference
• /
• 2008.11a
• /
• pp.247-258
• /
• 2008

우리나라는 2000년에 제조물책임법이 제정하여 2002년 7월 1일부터 시행하였으며, 제조물의 제조, 설계, 표시등의 결함으로 인하여 발생한 손해에 대한 제조업자 등의 손해 배상책임을 규정하고 소비자의 결함 입증부담 경감과 피해자의 보호를 도모하자 하고 있다. 제조물의 표시등의 결함은 지시결함이나 경고결함에 관한 것으로 제조자는 그 위험에 의한 사고를 방지 회피할 수 있도록 소비자에게 정보를 제공하여야 하나 이를 이행하지 않아 발생된 결함이다. 본 논문에서는 A사(社)의 공기정화기 B모델 사용설명서에 나타난 정보제공사항을 주의 경고표시 가이드 등에 따라 검토하였으며, 그 결과 일부 지시 및 경고사항에서 보완해야할 사항이 발견하였다. 보완사항은 제안사항으로 기업내부 에서 처리하되 전문성이 부족한 분야는 외부의 PL전문가의 협력하에 바람직한 개선안이 도출될 수 있을 것이다.

• Agrochemical news magazine
• /
• v.22 no.10 s.173
• /
• pp.10-13
• /
• 2001

• Proceedings of KHEA Conference
• /
• 2005.04a
• /
• pp.54-54
• /
• 2005

• Proceedings of the Korean Institute of Industrial Safety Conference
• /
• 2002.05a
• /
• pp.391-394
• /
• 2002

제조물 책임법상의 결함은 설계, 제조 및 표시상의 결함으로 분류할 수 있다. 이 중 "표시상의 결함"이란 제조업자가 합리적인 설명·지시·경고 기타의 표시를 하였더라면 당해 제조물에 의하여 발생될 수 있는 피해나 위험을 줄이거나 피할 수 있었음에도 이를 하지 아니한 경우를 가리키며, 제품본체가 아무리 잘 만들어졌다 하더라도 제품의 안전과 관련된 정보나 설명이 올바로 제공되지 않았다면 제품은 결함이 있다고 간주됨을 의미한다.(중략)

• Journal of Korea Fair Competition Federation
• /
• no.135
• /
• pp.38-55
• /
• 2007

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.30 no.1
• /
• pp.151-180
• /
• 2015

South Korea is advancing the unmanned aircraft private commercial business. Unmanned aerial vehciles industry has been developing for several years also abroad. However, unmanned aerial vehciles industry, can be an accident occurs. Accident of unmanned aerial vehciles to occur material damage and casualties. Particularly if an accident because of a defect in the unmanned aerial vehciles has occurred, it is necessary to analyze the liability for this. The defect accidents unmanned aerial vehciles has been the different manufacturing and design product is intended, whether it is important how to prove to this. This is because, unmanned aerial vehciles are designed in any intent of the original, it is impossible to victims know. So imposing a responsibility to prove the design by the manufacturer intended consumer is not fair. Moreover, the consumer, it is necessary to prove only that the product is one that normally dangerous lacked safety can be expected. This is a detailed issue of judgment of defects of unmanned aerial vehciles, the manufacturer to bear the accountability. In the case where the defect on the display of the unmanned aircraft is a problem, and if it reasonable indication, it is not appropriate to be required to prove that it was possible to prevent damage to the victim.