• Journal of Korean Society of Forest Science
• /
• v.87 no.3
• /
• pp.372-382
• /
• 1998

This study aims to reveal the dissolving process around the customary common right to forest utilization through a series of policies consolidating the modern forest ownerships in Korea under the rule of Japanese Imperialism. The existence of the customary common right to forest utilization has been widely recognized since the old time. Common profitable actions in a certain area have been given to village residents to gain useful materials such as forage, timber, fuelwood, wild animals, soil, grazing, and quarry in forest, which were necessarily required for their own daily life as customary commodities. This right was divided into the right around common forests and special easement in forests. Therefore, the common forests applicable of these rights were classified into village common forests and special easement forests. Especially, General-Government granted the national forests in pre-emption to a private(88.6%, 2,463,555chungbo) or public(12.1%, 299,050chungbo). After all, most of the common forests were transferred into national forests in earlier stage and then later into public ar private forests by Japanese Imperialism.

• The Magazine for Energy Service Companies
• /
• s.32
• /
• pp.38-51
• /
• 2005

ESCO는 매우 특수한 제도이므로 팩토링 및 회계처리의 근거자료를 확보해 놓을 필요가 있다. 특히 관공서와 ESCO사업을 실시할 경우, 계약서에 에너지절약시설의 소유권 이전을 대금상환 완료시까지 회사에 유보하는 것을 명시하여 관공서 ESCO사업은 ''장기할부거래''로, 일반 ESCO사업은 ''일반원칙거래''로 개념을 정리, 회계에 적용해야 한다. 또한 ESCO사업을 ''용역거래''가 아닌 ''건설공사''로 인식하고 있는 세무공무원이 있다는 점을 감안, 회사매출액을 ''용역매출'' 또는 ''엔지니어링매출''로 표현하여 건설공사로 볼 소지를 차단해야 한다.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.11 no.1
• /
• pp.199-239
• /
• 2010

In 2008, the Korean Supreme Court came across a plaintiff's claim to return his deceased father who had left family more than four decades ago and lived with another spouse(de facto) in the meantime to be buried after death in a cemetery of his own choice. The major opinion decided to approve the claim, on the ground that the first legitimate son should be the "head worshiper" prescribed in the article 1008-3 of the Korean Civil Code and that the corpse belong to the head woshiper, i. e. the head woshiper has a special "limited ownership" over the corpse for the purpose of its burial and worship, adding that a deceased's disposition inter vivos, if any, be only ethically but by no means legally binding others, including the head worshiper of course. Here scrutinized are the historical developments starting from the Roman criminal law of sepulchri violatio(trespass to grave) through the Canon law of the Middle Age and the doctrinal reactions to the challenges of anatomy and surgery to the formation of the "supporting the deceased" theory in Germany as well as the similarities in other european continental countries(Switzerland, Austria and France). The comparative review shows that the right of remaining family could neither be identified as limited "ownership" nor that the controversy over a corpse be solved by exclusively attributing/distributing it to one/some of the descendants. In principle, the question should be approached in the extension of family support.

• Journal of Cadastre & Land InformatiX
• /
• v.44 no.1
• /
• pp.17-35
• /
• 2014

There is no provision regarding the 'litigation on land boundary' under the Korean laws. Therefore, there are disputes in theory with respect to its nature, requirements for litigation, criteria for determination, etc., and it is necessary to establish the provisions of the law on this issue in the future. For this legislation, it is necessary to conduct a comparative consideration on laws of other countries which have completed the relevant provisions. This study, as a first step, researches a history of litigation for determination of boundary under the Roman law and medieval law, and furthermore introduces the German law which has relatively completed legal provisions on litigation for determination of boundary. In addition to common ownership litigation, the German law has established a provision on litigation for boundary as a judicial procedure considering a special place, called as a dispute on ownership of adjacent land, on the assumption that it is difficult or impossible to prove the boundary. The primary purpose of this litigation is to clarify a true boundary, and if such clarification is impossible, a boundary is discretionally created in accordance with the statutory standards under Article 920 of the German Civil Act (BGB). It means creation of the scope of land ownership by operation of decision, not only by the 'discovery of original boundary'. Both cases are different from each other in the aspect of judicial decision, but embracing them into one is a lawsuit for determination of boundary under the German law. Under the Korean legislation, it is necessary to make a theory containing two different criteria for determination into a single type of litigation, considering such aspects.