• 한국항만경제학회:학술대회논문집
• /
• 한국항만경제학회 2003년도 정기학술대회지
• /
• pp.271-294
• /
• 2003

In this article, 1'd like to analyse the principal distinctions between the duty of disclosure and warranty which are based on the same legal principles, utmost good faith(uberrima fides). Although the duty of disclosure and warranty have a same legal principle to protect insurance contract, they have several difference in appliance actually. Through these comparative analysis, I want to reveal the character of warranty which is unfamiliar to us under our commercial law. Warranty has some peculiarity, these are (a)A warranty does not have to be material to the risk, (b)A warranty must be exactly complied with, (c)It is impossible to defence for a breach of warranty, the breach of warranty is irremediable, and A casual connection between breach and loss needs not be shone, (d)A breach of a warranty may be waived by insurer. Sometimes in Korea like those stringent principles of warranty make Korean's small fishing or shipping company suffer from difficult because of insistence of discharge from liability by insurer. So I expect that all of them acknowledge the character of warranty and can make them protect their insurance money by themselves.

• 기록학연구
• /
• 제57호
• /
• pp.35-73
• /
• 2018

본 연구는 공공기관 회의의 공개를 원칙으로 삼고 있는 미국 50개 주의 회의공개법에 대한 내용분석을 통해, 정보공개법 제정 20년을 맞는 우리에게 요구되는 시사점을 도출하고자 한다. 이를 위해, 첫째, 50개 주 회의공개법의 일반적인 개요, 둘째, 회의의 사전 공지 요건 및 절차, 셋째, 회의공개법 위반에 대한 이의 및 소송제기 절차 및 벌칙을 살펴보았다. 분석결과 50개 주마다 회의공개법의 내용은 다양하였으나, 공통적으로 사전에 회의 일정과 의제 등이 공표되도록 하며, 회의록과 회의를 녹화한 자료는 시민이 접근가능하도록 규정하고 있다. 또한 회의공개법 위반에 대해 벌금부터 징역형까지로 책임을 물었다. 이를 통해 도출한 우리나라 회의공개법 제정을 위한 시사점은 다음과 같다. 첫째, 회의공개제도는 회의 개최에 대한 사전 공지의 올바른 방식과 충분한 기간으로부터 시작된다. 둘째, 회의 관련 시간, 날짜, 의제 등에 관한 사전공지의 충실한 내용은 회의공개제도의 실효성을 담보한다. 셋째, 사전 공지의 방식과 대상은 가능한 폭넓고 다양해야 한다. 넷째, 회의공개법을 위반한 회의의 모든 결정은 무효다. 다섯째, 시민 누구나가 회의공개법 위반에 대한 이의를 손쉽게 제기할 수 있는 제도가 마련되어야 한다. 여섯째, 회의공개법을 위반한 자에게 책임을 물어야 한다. 마지막으로 참석자, 논의주제, 투표 내용 등을 포함한 충실한 회의록 작성과 회의록, 녹음기록에 대한 시민 접근을 담보해야 한다.

• 한국산학기술학회논문지
• /
• 제21권12호
• /
• pp.752-758
• /
• 2020

교수는 대학의 구성원으로 종업원이다. 교수의 연구활동을 통해 창출된 발명은 원칙적으로 직무발명에 해당되고, 소속 대학의 산학협력단으로 승계되어 특허출원 된다. 한편, 교수는 자신의 발명이 대학의 산학협력단으로 이전되어 특허출원 되기에 앞서, 발명의 내용을 논문이나 학술대회에서 자기 공개를 하는 경우가 종종 있다. 본 연구에서는 교수들의 자기 공개된 특허출원 건수와, 비밀유지 의무와 관련하여 제기된 특허무효심판의 건수를 분석하였다. 그리고 판례를 통해서 자기 공개 시기를 대학의 승계결정 이전과 이후로 나누어서 비밀유지 의무의 위반 여부를 분석하였다. 이와 함께, 독점 배타적인 특허권의 확보 측면에서 교수의 자기 공개로 인해 발생될 수 있는 부정적 효과들도 조사하였다. 교수가 자기 공개하는 경우에, 대학 소유의 발명은 권리화에 실패하거나 권리를 확보하더라도 포괄적인 권리의 확보가 어렵게 된다. 권리 확보에 성공하더라도 권리가 무효될 가능성이 존재하게 된다. 또한, 교수는 발명진흥법에서 정의한 종업원의 비밀유지 의무를 위반하게 될 수 있고, 직무발명의 승계가 확정된 이후라면 부정경쟁방지법에서 정의한 비밀유지 의무도 위반하게 될 수 있다. 따라서 대학은 교수의 직무발명에 대한 자기 공개를 보다 적극적으로 관리 할 필요가 있다.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제18권2호
• /
• pp.103-127
• /
• 2008

This paper is to research the powers and interim measures of the arbitral tribunal in the arbitral proceedings of the international commercial arbitration under arbitration legislation and arbitration rules including the UNCITRAL Model Law and Arbitration Rules. The powers of the arbitral tribunal may be found within the arbitration agreement or any arbitration rules chosen by the parties, or the chosen procedural law. The power of the arbitral tribunal to decide its own jurisdiction is one of the fundamental principles of international commercial arbitration. It is a power which is now found in nearly all modern arbitration and rules of arbitration. Where an arbitral tribunal has been appointed then it will usually have the power to proceed with the arbitration in the event that a party fails to appear. It cannot force a party to attend but it may sanction the failure. While the arbitral tribunal can direct the parties to attend and give evidence the arbitral tribunal has no power to compel a party to give evidence. The arbitral tribunal may continue the arbitration in the absence of the party or its failure to submit evidence and make an award on the evidence before it. Under most of arbitration legislation and arbitration rules, the arbitral tribunal has the power to appoint experts and obtain expert evidence. The power to order a party to disclose documents in its possession is a power given to the arbitral tribunal by many national laws and by most arbitration rules. The arbitral tribunal cannot, however, compel disclosure and in the case where a party refuses to disclosure documents then the sanctions that the arbitral tribunal can impose must be ascertained from the applicable rules or the relevant procedural law. A number of arbitration rules and national laws allow for the arbitral tribunal to correct errors within the award. Most of arbitration legislation and arbitration rules permit the arbitral tribunal to grant orders for interim measure of protection. Article 17(1) of the Revised UNCITRAL Model Law of 2006 states: Unless otherwise agreed by the parties, the arbitral tribunal may, at the request of a party, grant interim measures. Interim measures of protection usually take such forms as (1) conservatory measures intended to prevent irreparable damage and maintain the status quo; (2) conservatory measures intended to preserve evidence or assets. Orders for interim measures by the arbitral tribunal are not self-enforcing. However, the arbitral tribunal must have the powers necessary to make interim measures effective. The Article 17 B of the Revised UNCITRAL Model Law of 2006 provides applications for preliminary orders and conditions for granting preliminary orders. And the Article 17 H provides recognition of enforcement of interim measures. In conclusion, the revised articles with regard to interim measures of the UNCITRAL Model Law of 2006 would contribute significantly to the security of the effectiveness of interim measures in international commercial arbitration. Therefore, Korean Arbitration Law and Arbitration Rules would be desirable to admit such revised articles with regard interim measures.

• 정보관리학회지
• /
• 제33권4호
• /
• pp.293-312
• /
• 2016

이 연구는 지자체의 자치법규에서 정보공개제도와 기록물관리의 상관성을 규명하기 위한 것이다. 이를 위해 자치법규정보시스템(ELIS)과 국가법령정보센터를 통해 지자체의 정보공개와 관련된 자치법규를 전수 조사하여, 337개의 자치법규를 분석하였다. 그 결과, '기록 유지(회의록 작성)', '이관된 기록물에 대한 정보공개 절차'와 '청구 접수부서'의 측면에서 '공공기록물법'과의 상관성을 찾을 수 있었다. '기록물유지(회의록 작성)'는 자치법규와 공공기록물법의 항목이 유사했으며, '청구 접수부서'는 '기록관리부서'로 기술되었다. 그러나 '청구 접수부서'는 부서명만 보면 민원부서의 성격이 강했으며, '회의록 작성'의 측면에서는 '공공기록물법'의 조항이 명시되지 않았고, '다른 법령과의 관계'에서는 '정보공개의 비대상'만 기술하고 있다.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제69권
• /
• pp.407-426
• /
• 2016

The Marine Insurance Act 1906 (MIA 1906) has been a successful piece of legislation, having rarely been amended and having established, or served as an influence in the development of, the basis of marine insurance legislation in several countries. However, it has been recognised that some parts of the MIA 1906 have begun to show their antiquated nature, especially where established principles which were once thought to reflect undoubted propositions of law are now being openly criticised. Since 2006, the Law Commission and Scottish Law Commission (the 'Law Commissions') have been engaged in a major review of insurance contract law, finally leading to the Insurance Act 2015. The Insurance Act 2015 received Royal Assent on 12 February 2015, and was based primarily on the joint recommendations of the Law Commissions. The 2015 Act made substantial changes to several main areas of marine insurance law & practice: (i) the replacement of the pre-contractual duty of disclosure with a duty to make a "fair presentation of the risk"; (ii) the abolition of the "insurance warranty" under the Marine Insurance Act 1906, s.33, and provision of a new default remedy of suspension of liability until the breach is cured; (iii) partial codification of the fraudulent claims rule in insurance contract law, etc. The Act did not provide for any new statutory duty for insurers to investigate or pay claims in a timely fashion, although this may be revisited in the next Parliament. Moreover, the Law Commissions have reopened their consideration of the doctrine of insurable interest. The 2015Actmay not then signal the end of the legislative programme in this area.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제28권2호
• /
• 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.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제21권3호
• /
• pp.3-20
• /
• 2011

An arbitrator is an impartial person chosen to decide the issue between parties engaged in a dispute. But the arbitrator appointed by a party or arbitration institution shall be impartial or independent and should disclose to the administrator any circumstances likely to give rise to justifiable doubts as to his impartiality or independence. If, at any stage during the arbitration, new circumstances arise that may give rise to such doubts, the arbitrator shall promptly disclose such circumstances to the parties and to the administrator. Upon receipt of such information from an arbitrator or a party, an party must challenge any arbitrator whenever circumstances exist that give rise to justifiable doubts as to arbitrator's impartiality or independence. Under these circumstance, there were two cases declared by the Korean Supreme Court in relation to the cancellation of the arbitration award. One arbitral case was cancelled for the reason of the having been arbitral procedure without disclosure arbitrator's impartiality, and the other case was refused to cancel the ward for the reason of the having been arbitral procedure without challenge an arbitrator. There are not, however, the standard to decide what is definitely the arbitrator's impartiality or independence and the difference on qualification between arbitrator chosen by an party and neutral arbitrator in korean arbitration law and rules. Nevertheless, korean court require arbitrator to be impartial and independent and the arbitration parties to challenge arbitrator' impartiality or independence.

• 한국컴퓨터정보학회논문지
• /
• 제22권10호
• /
• pp.151-157
• /
• 2017

In the case of uploading privacy information of an information owner in the Internet, the information owner may want to deliver the privacy information itself or remove such information from the search list in order to prevent third parties from accessing the privacy information of the information owner. Such a right to be forgotten may collide with the freedom of expression of a third party. The right to be forgotten, which originates from the self-determination right on privacy information based on Article 10 and 17 of the Constitution and the freedom of expression, which is based on Article 21 thereof are all relative basic rights and are both limited by Item 2 under Article 37 of the same law, which is the general limitation provision for the basic rights. Therefore, when the right to be forgotten and the freedom of expression collides, it is not possible to give priority to one of the those unilaterally. It depends on the nature of the case at hand to find a natural balance for the harmonious solution for both parties. The criteria can be the sensitivity to the privacy of the information owner caused by the disclose of the privacy information, the public benefits such information may serve, the social common good that could be expected by the disclosure of the privacy information and the damages suffered in terms of the personal interest caused by the disclosure of the information, in a comprehensive manner.

• 한국산업보건학회지
• /
• 제32권2호
• /
• pp.89-101
• /
• 2022

Objectives: By comparing and examining how important issues concerning industrial health information for workers are viewed in other advanced countries, it is intended to ascertain problems in the approach found in Korean legislation and obtain legal and policy implications. Methods: The results of a survey were introduced and analyzed through a comparative method for each case after investigating in detail what and how important issues surrounding workers' right to know industrial health information are reflected in the legislation of Germany, the U.S., the U.K., and Japan. Based on the results of this comparative analysis, theoretical and policy implications and legal policy improvement tasks were drawn to strengthen workers' right to industrial health information for each case in Korea. Results: For access to industrial health information, most of the other advanced countries clearly stipulate a right to access for current and past workers and/or their representatives. As a result, workers or their representatives do not need to use the Information Disclosure Act to access exposure records, and there is no debate over the Information Disclosure Act. In other words, industrial health information is focused on ensuring free access to workers or their representatives and is not interested in reporting it to the government. Conclusions: In order to strengthen workers' right to know about industrial health, it is most important to address the legal issues related to this right, which is considered insufficient by comparative law. This should start with a concrete and effective definition of what and how to guarantee workers' rights to industrial health, such as the right to freely access industrial health information, including for retired workers and bereaved families of deceased workers.