• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제38권
• /
• pp.47-68
• /
• 2008

I have observed the validity of open-offer from a point of European contract law in comparison with International Trade Law in this paper. Generally we know that an offer is an expression of willingness bo be bound to the contract. In English law if there are no intention it will be considered such as circulation of price lists or catalogues. As for French law these activities could be considered as an offer. However German law is closer to English law as to an offer. A contract which does not ascertained price is open-price terms and it can be applied not only for general commercial contracts but also for franchise or for distributorship agreements especially in Europe. When open-price terms applied to reserve a exclusive right to the contract the validity of contract can be a serious matter between principals. In English law an offer must be sufficiently complete to be capable of acceptaqnce. English law does not require that price terms should be indicated on offer. English law allow a open-price terms in the contract. In French law a contract will be valid in the absense of a price which is either determined or objectively determinable. A price by the market price of similar products is not enough to be valid offer. It should be recognized and accepted objectively by third parties. French law require that price terms should be indicated on offer. Open-price terms are not enough to be an effective offer. However German law shows more flexible than French law. In German law if the price is not fixed in the contract there are four ways to determine it. The seller may determine the price by the time of deliver. By reason of thess backgrounds I have made comparison with European contract law and International trade law on the validity of open-price offer in this paper. It seems that we are not familiar with open-price terms although franchise contract or special terms of contract have been increased in these days. So I hope this paper will be helpful to show a new point of view.

• 한국언어정보학회지:언어와정보
• /
• 제7권2호
• /
• pp.31-58
• /
• 2003

The main goal of this paper is to describe and analyse intensifiers, especially non-head-bound-intensifiers (NHBIs), which can be included in the discussion and analysis of these elements as focus particles. In doing so, NHBIs such as Korean susulo, casin/cache, English x-self and German selbst are dealt with in a rather cross-linguistical perspective. The pure and strict comparison between Korean, English and German is not intended. This paper is mainly concerned with the semantic domain where the respective contributions of the expressions in question overlap, which offers the common base for the discussion regarding Korean, one of the non-European languages and English and German, two European languages. They share the semantic domain ‘intensification’ regarding relevant subject-NP. They introduce an ordering distinguishing center and periphery. In contrast to head-bound-intensifiers (HBIs), however, NHBIs add self-involvement (directness of involvement) of subject-NP to the meaning of the relevant sentence. I adopt the proposals of Konig (1991), Primus (1992) and Siemund (2000) in the treatment of intensifiers as focus particles. However, I reject Konig (1991) that just NHBIs talre scope over a whole clause, Primus (1992) that NHBIs focus VPs, not NPs, and Siemund (2000) that NHBIs can be further devided into two groups, viz. NHBIs with exclusive readings and NHBIs with inclusive readings. Evidence for my position is presented mainly in the course of describing and analysing some syntactic properties and the meaning and use of NHBIs. I come to the conclusion that both the common meaning of intensifiers as focus particles and the common meaning of NHBIs of three languages can be represented by a simple logical formalism.

• 한국의류학회지
• /
• 제19권3호
• /
• pp.483-503
• /
• 1995

The purpose of this study was to clarify the origin which have misused terms, analyze Its meanings and suggest the unified terms. The content of this study are as follows. The origin of the terms in western dress is different with the areas of cultural influence. Japanese occupied much more than other languages in the apparel industry after the civilization. and English has dominated in the educational filed since 1945 the Liberalization. French, German, Portuguese, Spanish, Dutch are added. These languages came to the clothing field via Japanese and English or directly from the countries. 망토(manteau프), 메리야스(medias스), 러닝셔츠(일) 라사(raxa네), 오트 쿠튀르(Haute Couture 프), 비로드(veludo 포), etc. However the words of foreign origin have misused or corrupted until now a days. 마이 (재킷, 상의), 노 슬립, 소데나시 (슬리브리스, 민소매) 넌라쟈(브래지어), 노타이, 노타이샤쓰(오픈칼라 셔츠, 넥타이를 매지 않은 셔츠) 와이샤쓰(드레스 ttu츠), etc. And also these terms are confused in using because of the word's diversity, the different nationality, change of the marking rules, and the difference between the education and production field terms. On the others hand, this study explained the differences between western costume and Korean costume as the clothing manufacture terms were translated to Korean. bodice-길, collar, neckline-깃, belt, sash-(허리)띠 And then the untied terms were suggested through the comparison production field and educational area (including schools and institutes). lapel, 라펠(학교용어) (학원용어), 가에리 (일) (의류산업 현장용어), 아랫깃(통일어) By the way, this study involved the origin of and misused teams in sewing and presented the unified terms. 미까시 (X)-미 카에시(일) - 안단($\bigcirc$), 이새(X)―홈줄임 ($\bigcirc$) As the above , the characteristics of clothing terms which have misused are Japans,;e, corrupt Japanese, false reports foreign words via Korean, Japanese, compound words of Korean and Japanese, compound words of English and Japanese. And also the words of foreign origin in clothing had the following tendency in the marking system. There are ellipsis of form, sex, timber, grammatical case '-ing', '-ed' in adjective and long vowels express to short vowels. We can see this phenomena as the rule of curtailment labor.

• 디자인학연구
• /
• 제16권4호
• /
• pp.413-422
• /
• 2003

20세기 초 영, 독일의 미술과 공예협회인 독일 베르크분트(Deutcher Werkbund)로부터 산업제품을 위한 디자인 표준화의 제기와 기능주의의 새로운 미를 적용하려는 노력은 시작되었다. 같은 맥락에서 1919년 독일의 바우하우스(Bauhaus)에 의해 굿디자인은 기술과 예술의 혼합에 의해 이루어진다는 현대적 개념의 디자인이 그 뒤를 이었다. 1950-1955년, 뉴욕 MOMA(Museum of Modem Art)에 의해 행해진 소비자 교육프로그램인 굿디자인(Good Design) 전시회에 의해 그 용어는 현대적으로 사용되었으며, 굿디자인의 임무는 모던디자인을 일반대중에게 인식시키는 것이었다. 20세기 후반 이후 많은 전문가들은 각기 독특한 입장에서 굿디자인을 다양하게 정의하기 시작하였다. 그 정의는 디자이너, 기술자, 생산자, 비즈니스맨, 소비자들에게 이르기까지 각 영역의 특성에 맞게 해석되어 적용될 수 있었기 때문이었다. 디자인 학자인 람스(Rams)와 노만(Norman)은 물리적, 심리적인 관점으로부터 굿디자인을 해석하고 있으며, 기능, 미, 테크놀로지, 등에 관련해 구체적으로 굿디자인의 표준과 올바른 접근방향을 언급하고 있다. 따라서 본 연구는 굿디자인의 역사적 고찰과 정의 및 람스와 노만의 주장을 비교와 분석을 통해 굿디자인의 세부적인 기준과 정의의 관계를 정립하였으며, 최종적으로 그들이 주장하는 물리적, 심리적으로 접근한 사용자 중심의 디자인이 굿디자인임을 찾고자 하였다.