• The Journal of the Korea Contents Association
• /
• v.11 no.5
• /
• pp.302-307
• /
• 2011

The current criminal procedure law stipulates that dismissal cause this has to be true when the dismissal judgement. These regulations should be considered as limited by regulations or rules should be considered as exemplary is the problem. Depends on how you look at the difference in the range of dismissal judgement is encountered to. Therefore, this should be reviewed. Encountered to study the reason for the results referred to in Article 326 are valid reasons to limit. Appeals rejected the verdict abuse the rights of appeals, etc. are encountered to dismissal cause is because the restrictive rules. Therefore, the dismissal causes set forth in Article 326 as a guide only view limited because of regulatory reasons the rights of appeals encountered to abuse, etc. should not be included.

• Journal of Korean Physical Therapy Science
• /
• v.7 no.2
• /
• pp.407-414
• /
• 2000

The constitutional court decide a negative expression in their judgement. It is a dismissal. In the dismissal, they suggest that the legislative body can resolve it and Parliament can an enactment or not for the physical therapist. Therefore, dismissal of constitutional court is not only dismissal but also it is a suggestion for legislation. Another suggestion of the constitutional court that study about curriculums of physical therapy department, duration of education, relation of between medical doctor and physical therapist, work contents of physical therapy and effect on national health.

• 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.