• Journal of the Korean Society for Library and Information Science
• /
• v.52 no.4
• /
• pp.111-135
• /
• 2018

A vision and a medium-to-long-term master plan are key factors for the Constitutional Court Library to improve users' access to legal information and provide better legal information services as the leading public law library in Korea in 2019. For this point, it is a priority task to set a vision and goals and to identify the core values of Constitutional Court Library. In this study, the four core values of the Constitutional Court Library identified through the analysis of the library's internal and external environment, the analysis of the core values of similar institutions. The four core values derived from the study are Expertise, Communication & Universality, Cooperation, and Innovation, and when these values are reflected in library operation, system and policy, the Constitutional Court Library is expected to further solidify its position as the nation's top law library.

• Korean Journal of Legislative Studies
• /
• v.17 no.3
• /
• pp.171-195
• /
• 2011

2007년 일본최고 재판소는 히로시마시 폭주족 추방조례사건에 대하여 헌법판단 회피의 이론에 입각한 합헌적 한정해석론에 따라 합헌결정 판결을 내렸다. 이는 기존의 판결내용을 답습한 것에 불과 하였지만 합헌적 한정해석이라는 헌법해석의 방법론에 관한 의미를 한번 되새기는 계기가 된 사건이다. 이 법리에 의한 것으로는 1980년대의 청소년보호조례사건이 유명하다. 이 두 사건은 하나는 공안사건이고 다른 하나는 풍속에 관한 사건이라는 점에서 차이가 있다. 폭주족 추방조례사건은 합헌적 한정해석의 법리가 적용될 여지가 있다고 보이지만 청소년보호조례사건과 같은 풍속에 관한 사건에서는 이 법리를 적용하는 것은 무리라고 생각된다. 왜냐하면 청소년보호조례사건에서는 음행, 난잡한 성행위라는 너무나 막연하고 애매한 개념을 사용하고 있어 형사절차에서의 대 원칙인 죄형법정주의에 위배될 소지가 있으며 성적 자기결정의 자유를 규제할 때에는 이에 따른 필연적인 이유가 존재해야 함에도 그렇지 못하다는 문제점과 일반국민에게 지나친 심리적 위축을 초래할 수 있다는 점에서 위헌논란이 제기되었다. 그럼에도 일본 최고재판소는 이를 합헌적 한정해석의 법리를 원용하여 위헌선언하기를 꺼려온 바 이는 헌법판단회피를 의도적으로 하는 것으로 지나친 사법소극주의적 태도라고 하지 않을 수 없다. 법원은 사건의 중대성이나 위헌상태의 정도 그 파급효과의 범위, 구체적 사건에서 문제가 되고 있는 권리의 성질등을 종합적으로 고려해서 충분히 이유가 있다고 판단되는 경우에는 헌법판단회피의 준칙에 따르지 않아야 하며 헌법판단을 적극적으로 할 수 있다고 해석하는 것이 타당하다고 생각된다.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.33 no.1
• /
• pp.45-79
• /
• 2018

An increase of airplanes and military aircraft operation lead to significant demanding of residential claims by people who live in nearby airports and military bases due to noise, vibration and residential damages caused by aircraft operations. In recent years, a plaintiff has filed a lawsuit against the defendant, claiming the prohibition of using claimant's possessed land as a helicopter landing route, and the Daejeon High Court was in favour of the plaintiff. Although the Supreme Court later dismissed the Appeal Court decision, it is necessary to discuss the case of setting flight prohibited zone. In Japan, the airport noise lawsuits have been filed for a long time, mainly by environmental groups. Unlike the case that admitted residential damages caused by noise, the Yokohama District Court for the first time sentenced a judgment of the prohibition of the flight. This ruling was partially changed in the appellate court and some of the plaintiffs' claims were adopted. However, the Supreme Court of Japan finally rejected such decision from appeal and district courts. Atsugi Base is an army camp jointly used by the United States and Japan, and residents, live nearby, claim that they are suffering from mental damage such as physical abnormal, insomnia, and life disturbance because of the noise from airplane taking off and landing in the base. An administrative lawsuit was therefore preceded in the Yokohama District Court. The plaintiff requested the Japan Self-Defense Forces(hereinafter 'JSDF') and US military aircraft to be prohibited operating. The court firstly held the limitation of the flight operation from 10pm to 6am, except unavoidable circumstance. The case was appealed. The Supreme Court of Japan dismissed the original judgment on the flight claim of the JSDF aircraft, canceled the first judgment, and rejected the claims of the plaintiffs. The Supreme Court ruled that the exercise of the authority of the Minister of Defense is reasonable since the JSDF aircraft is operating public flight high zone. The court agreed that noise pollution is such an issue for the residents but there are countermeasures which can be taken by concerned parties. In Korea, the residents can sue against the United States or the Republic of Korea or the Ministry of National Defense for the prohibition of the aircraft operation. However, if they claim against US government regarding to the US military flight operation, the Korean court must issue a dismissal order as its jurisdiction exemption. According to the current case law, the Korean courts do not allow a claimant to appeal for the performance of obligation or an anonymous appeal against the Minister of National Defense for prohibiting flight of military aircraft. However, if the Administrative Appeals Act is amended and obligatory performance litigation is introduced, the claim to the Minister of National Defense can be permitted. In order to judge administrative case of the military aircraft operation, trade-off between interests of the residents and difficulties of the third parties should be measured in the court, if the Act is changed and such claims are granted. In this connection, the Minister of National Defense ought to prove and illuminate the profit from the military aircraft operation and it should be significantly greater than the benefits which neighboring residents will get from the prohibiting flight of military aircraft.

• Korean journal of communication and information
• /
• v.55
• /
• pp.5-32
• /
• 2011

This paper is a comparative analysis of constitutional decisions in which the Korea Consitutional Court and the United States Supreme Court applied the void for vagueness doctrine into free expression issues. Common aspects are: both courts applied the void for vagueness doctrine on the grounds that vague laws bring chilling effect on freedom of expression. Acknowledging inevitable uncertainties in lawmaking and legal jargons, however, both courts required minimum standards in the void for vagueness doctrine. In the cases where unclear legal meanings resulted in constitutional challenges, both courts adopted the "narrowing construction" by the courts or judges based on average/ordinary person's understanding. The biggest differences between the two constitutional courts are their approach to the degrees of vagueness allowed in free expression cases. The U.S. Supreme Court underscored the necessity of narrowly drawn, reasonable and definite standards. Meanwhile, the Korea Constitutional Court relaxed its standards in some cases such as the National Security Law cases, even though it admitted the possibility of curtailing the right to free expression. The Court reasoned that those laws, though vague, brought with bigger social interests and are necessary tools in dealing with changing world.

• Journal of Legislation Research
• /
• no.41
• /
• pp.337-366
• /
• 2011

In this article, I intend to analyze the definition of an employee under the Trade Union Act in Japan. Recently, the Supreme Court of Japan held that not only opera singer but also customer engineer is an employee under the Act. Conclusions are as follows:First, it is noteworthy that the Supreme Court reaffirmed the principle of all circumstances established by CBC case. The case focused on deciding that who is an employee under the Act. Notwithstanding this holding of the Supreme Court, district courts and courts of appeals, in deciding this kind of question, have emphasized especially on the side of a legal right and obligation on a contract between an employer and a potential employee. Therefore an independent contractor has not been generally recognized as an employee under the Act. However, even though he or she was, as an independent contractor in name, offering its work to his or her putative employer, the Supreme Court applied the principle of all circumstances to both cases and held in favor on the workers on April, in 2011. Second, the Supreme Court failed to make a general legal principle for deciding that who is an employee under the Act. According to the above holdings of the Supreme Court, nobody can anticipate wether he or she is an employee or not in a concrete case. Finally, the Supreme Court did not also make its opinion clearly about the relations between an employee of the Section 3 of the Act and an employee whom an employer employs under the Section 7(2) of the Act. In conclusion, it can be said that the Supreme Court has narrowly and strictly interpreted an employee of the Section 3. That is to say, only where an employee is recognized as an employee of the Section 7(2), the employee will be also an employee of the Section 3. In Japan, however, the majority interprets that an employee by the Section 3 should be distinguished from the employee whom an employer employs by the Section 7(2). Consequently, according to the majority opinions, unemployed persons, students and citizens will be also included in the definition of an employee by the Section 3.

• The Journal of Korean Philosophical History
• /
• no.56
• /
• pp.47-80
• /
• 2018

The traditional laws of Korea have undergone various stages of development over time. This includes the voluntary standards of the clean society. Korea's traditional legal systems, ranging from those of the Goryeo(高麗) to those of the Republic of Korea, have taken Confucian Phiosophy as their major ideological bases. At the center of these Confucian ideals, particularly in regards to pre-Qin Confucian Philosophy(先秦儒家思想) from where these ideals originated, lie the core ideals which emphasize the responsibility of each individual regardless of the social status(正名), the needs for a democracy in which people are empower and guide the state(民本), the importance of reigning with benevolence, moral excellence, and rite (仁義), and the differential love centered on kinship and humanity(親親愛人). These were the ideas as set forth by Confucius(孔子), Mencius(孟子) and Xun Zi(荀子). The current laws of Korea, especially in regards to the Constitution and the Civil and Criminal Laws, include a number of provisions that contain the Confucian Ideas of Law. The Constitution, in particular, which is also supported by the judgement of the Constitution Court, reflects several core Confucian ideals including filial duty (孝) and respect for ascendants and the traditional culture. The Court also suggested the two important standards of the constitutional legitimacy of the Traditional Culture. One is 'Age Compatibility (時代 適合性)', the other is 'Manifested Universally Validity(現在的 普遍妥當性)'. So we have burdened with the reestablishment of the Universal Ethics of the Confucian Ideology.

• The Journal of the Korea Contents Association
• /
• v.13 no.1
• /
• pp.175-185
• /
• 2013

The judgement which is subject of research has denied legal rescission of division of the inherited property by agreement based on (1) the fact that the division of inherited property terminated at the time of concluding mutual agreement in its nature while only the relationship of claim and obligation between the inheritor who has paid for such obligation and the inheritor who has acquired such obligation in the mutual agreement remains (2) and the fact that the legal stability is considerably hindered as the re-partition of inherited property having retroactive effect becomes unavoidable in case of approving the legal rescission of the division of the inherited property by agreement. But it is reasonable to also approve legal rescission on the division of the inherited property by agreement in case the division by agreement actually has the nature such as conditional donation between joint heirs (1) from the fact that the division of the inherited property by agreement gets the nature of disposal equivalent to exchange, transfer and abandonment of share between joint heirs in actuality, (2) and the fact that there are no other theories in approving the validity of mutually agreed rescission despite the fact that the re-partition of inherited property having retroactive effect is unavoidable even in case of the mutually agreed rescission of the division by agreement among all joint heirs. However, as the division of the inherited property by agreement is a contract that gets concluded only if all joint heirs participate, even the legal rescission for the reason of not fulfilling the obligations paid by one party of the heirs during the division by agreement must be considered as possible only by expression of intentions from all other joint heirs excluding this one party.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.28 no.2
• /
• pp.217-248
• /
• 2018

This paper reviews the Supreme Court of Japan in Decision of December 12, 2017, 2016 (Kyo) 43 (2011) concerning arbitrator's duty of disclosure and reasonable investigation under the Japan Arbitration Act (Arbitration Act). The Supreme Court of Japan recently issued a precedential decision interpreting, for the first time, the arbitrator disclosure requirements of the Arbitration Act. Under Article 18(4) of the Arbitration Act, arbitrators have an ongoing obligation to disclose circumstances which may give rise to justifiable doubts as to their impartiality or independence. The Supreme Court held that Article 18(4) of the Arbitration Act - requiring arbitrators to disclose all "facts likely to give rise to doubts as to his/her impartiality or independence" - (1) is not satisfied by blanket disclosures or advance waivers of potential future conflicts, and (2) requires disclosure of facts both known to an arbitrator or "that can be normally ascertained by an investigation that is reasonably possible${\cdots}$" This new standard presents opportunities and challenges for enforcing arbitration awards in Japan, and suggests measures that both arbitrators and parties can use to protect their awards. Also, the Supreme Court's new standards for evaluating arbitrator conflict disclosures suggest some measures that both arbitrators and parties to arbitration in Japan can take to protect the enforceability of their awards. The key factual question posed by the Supreme Court's ruling was whether an arbitrator's conflicts check was reasonable. Maintaining records regarding a review of potential conflicts or any investigation provides a ready source of proof in case of a future challenge. The Supreme Court has spoken clearly that so-called advance waivers of potential conflicts are not effective under Japanese law. Instead, to the extent that potential conflicts arise during the course of arbitration, they should be specifically disclosed.