• Electric Engineers Magazine
• /
• s.294
• /
• pp.42-42
• /
• 2007

• Asia-Pacific Journal of Business
• /
• v.9 no.2
• /
• pp.75-103
• /
• 2018

The tax system in Korea is the so-called one-item-one-tax law which has separate tax law for each taxation according to tax law. The common and procedural aspects of these tax laws are the same or similar, but they are separately prescribed by the National Tax Basic Act and the Local Tax Act. These legal systems complicate the tax law and increase the cost of tax cooperation, resulting in tax inefficiency. In this study, the National Tax Act and the laws of the Local Tax Act are integrated and presented. It is proposed that the common provisions should be integrated into a single law and the unique matters should be defined in each of the National Tax Basic Act and Local Tax Basic Act, by comparing and analyzing the provisions of the National Tax Basic Act and the Local Tax Basic Act. The integration of the common elements of the National Tax Basic Act and the Local Tax Act is expected to improve tax efficiency by reducing tax complexity and tax cooperation costs. In addition, the National Tax Act and the Local Tax Act are expected to maintain the characteristics of the National Tax Basic Act and the Local Tax Act when they are specified in the National Tax Basic Act and the Local Tax Basic Act. This study is expected to be a research that can reduce tax inefficiency and help convenience of taxpayer and tax administration.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.23 no.4
• /
• pp.77-96
• /
• 2013

International Arbitration has distinguished itself as a method for dispute resolution that pleases both common and civil law practitioners. It, however, is not free of criticism, especially when fact-finding and evidentiary issues are at play. Perhaps because fact-finding is very closely linked to the culture in which they lie, perhaps because of the lack of a clear evidentiary rules governing international arbitration, a theory of evidence in international arbitration is still far fetched. Through the analysis of the distinctions between dispute resolution systems and the search for truth paradigm, this paper aims to develop and present an outline for the development of a theory of evidence in international arbitration.

• 발명특허
• /
• v.36 no.11
• /
• pp.14-18
• /
• 2011

미국은 관습법(시민사회의 자생적 발전에 기초한 풀뿌리 민주주의를 토대)으로서 아래로부터(Bottom-up) 상거래 관행이 상표법에 조문화된 보통법 (common law) 체계인 반면, 한국은 시민사회의 기반 없이 정부주도로 바람직한 현상(1천년이 넘는 오랜 권위주의 체제를 토대)으로서의 법규범을 형성하기 위해 상표법을 제정한 대륙법(Continental law) 체계라는 법철학적 차이점이 있다.

• Korean Journal of Culture and Social Issue
• /
• v.9 no.1
• /
• pp.67-79
• /
• 2003

Why, in general, don't Korean people follow the law? Possible one of the answers to this question is based on lay people's emotional evaluation to the law in which common people's evaluation to the guilty according to their private logics comparing to public logics of facts and sentence of illegal behavior. Futhermore, in psychological field, there have been some researches concerning on differences in morality such as moral judgement and evaluation including moral inference among cultures. Therefore, the reason why Korean people tend to be not law observance and law break is that Korean people are not immoral such as telling a lie and not keeping promises, but rather they have a tendency of appling their private and personal logics based on Cheong(interpersonal affection) relationships and logics to public and legal affairs.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.14 no.1
• /
• pp.3-28
• /
• 2004

The implementation of electronic transaction raises some new legal and institutional problem so it is necessary for us to prepare alternatives. As the development of electronic transaction is difficult without smooth settlement of dispute the pursue of smooth settlement of dispute is very important menu. while the most common method relating to the settlement of dispute is litigation. them relating to the litigation, the subject of governing law so jurisdiction and the subject of governing laws should be resolved above all. Further more in addition, the old act prior act was regarded as insufficient in that it lacked rules on international governing law to adjudicate, or international adjudicatory governing law, where as the expectation of the public was that the private international law should function as the basic law of the legal relational encompassing rules on governing law given the increase of It international disputes. for the move the private international law has also attracted more attention from the korean. Therefore, governing law to application concerned about electronic transaction should be prepared and the environment to keep electronic transaction secure and stable be guaranteed. And we should make plans to protect companies and consumers and should make efforts to expand electronic transaction infrastructure .

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.33 no.3
• /
• pp.69-93
• /
• 2023

For many people, the digital domain is becoming as important as the real world. The virtual environment is no longer just a place for entertainment and leisure. Blockchain transactions are serious business. Digital assets are seen as investments, with as much real value as physical assets. Does the law protect rights in digital assets, such as cryptocurrencies and NFTs? This article discusses recent case law that expands the common law concept of property to digital assets.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.21 no.1
• /
• pp.131-155
• /
• 2011

PICC executes its role as a useful lex mercatoria in the continuously increasing international trade to be adopted as the standard criterion of prevention or dispute resolution. When considering the fact that GISG has not presented results beyond expectation in the past due to hard laws and legal deficiency, PICC, which possesses interpretation and supplementation function, is considered undoubtedly useful particularly in international commercial arbitration. As observed in the previously mentioned analysis on cases accumulated in UNILEX, PICC application and Arbitral tribunal in international contract between parties possess considerably large claim possibility and the number of actual application cases is continuously increasing. The fact that PICC has been composed as maximum common measures of continental and common law systems by traditional comparative legal scholars familiar with international trade can function as the fundamental principle in future global trade activity and can also act as the model law for uniting contract laws of nations. In this aspect, PICC can be evaluated to have considerably achieved enactment purpose of previous intention. However, additional topics that had not been accepted in the revised edition of PICC remain as assignments requiring solution, such as analysis and acceptance problem of comparative law, PR of PICC unfamiliar even to the relative parties of international trade and application in international contract, and absorption problem as model law in various domestic laws.

• Journal of Environmental Policy
• /
• v.6 no.4
• /
• pp.1-28
• /
• 2007

Because the result of environmental pollution of one state is not limited to the national border but spills over into neighboring countries or global environment either directly or indirectly, international discussions on environment are crucial in domestic environmental law and policy. International environmental law demands differential obligation between developed and developing countries in the principle of 'common but differentiated responsibility'. The common but differentiated responsibility is the principle that draws distinction between developed and developing countries about global environmental issues, while recognizing the common responsibility of environmental protection for all nations. Environmental technology transfer or financial support from developed countries to developing countries, for example, has been discussed. The problem is the status of Korea. Korea's international environmental policy will be different by the distinction of responsibility for international environmental protection according to the status of developed and developing countries. International communities have never established a clear standard distinguishing developed from developing countries in any international laws. The WTO entrusts each country to decide whether it is a developing country or not. In the international environmental law, the status of a country is determined by the ability to negotiate. The status of Korea, thus, cannot be fixed in general international law. Rather, the Korean government is able to choose its own status strategically, It can be a policy choice to insist that Korea's developing country so as to reduce the burden of international responsibility. But, considering an economic indicator and environmental pollution indicator at which Korea ranks about 10th, the reality of Korea is much closer to a developed country. Positive policies such as development of environment-friendly technologies and products should be preferred to defensive assertion of developing country.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.24 no.2
• /
• pp.187-210
• /
• 2009

Space law(or outer space law) and the law of the sea are branches of international law dealing with activities in geographical ares which do not or do only in part come under national sovereignty. Legal rules pertaining to the outer space and sea began to develop once activities emerged in those areas: amongst others, activities dealing with transportation, research, exploration, defense and exploitation. Naturally the law of the sea developed first, followed, early in the twentieth century, by air law, and later in the century by space law. Obviously the law of the sea, of the air and of outer space influence each other. Ideas have been borrowed from one field and applied to another. This article examines some analogies and differences between the outer space law and the law of the sea, especially from the perspective of the legal status, the exploration and exploitation of the natural resources and environment. As far as the comparisons of the legal status between the outer space and high seas are concerned the two areas are res extra commercium. The latter is res extra commercium based on both the customary international law and treaty, however, the former is different respectively according to the customary law and treaty. Under international customary law, whilst outer space constitutes res extra commercium, celestial bodies are res nullius. However as among contracting States of the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, both outer space and celestial bodies are declared res extra commercium. As for the comparisons of the exploration and exploitation of natural resources between the Moon including other celestial bodies in 1979 Moon Agreement and the deep sea bed in the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, the both areas are the common heritage of mankind. The latter gives us very systematic models such as International Sea-bed Authority, however, the international regime for the former will be established as the exploitation of the natural resources of the celestial bodies other than the Earth is about to become feasible. Thus Moon Agreement could not impose a moratorium, but would merely permit orderly attempts to establish that such exploitation was in fact feasible and practicable, by allowing experimental beginnings and thereafter pilot operations. As Professor Carl Christol said until the parties of the Moon Agreement were able to put into operation the legal regime for the equitable sharing of benefits, they would remain free to disregard the Common Heritage of Mankind principle. Parties to one or both of the agreements would retain jurisdiction over national space activities. In so far as the comparisons of the protection of the environment between the outer space and sea is concerned the legal instruments for the latter are more systematically developed than the former. In the case of the former there are growing tendencies of concerning the environmental threats arising from space activities these days. There is no separate legal instrument to deal with those problems.