• The Journal of Korean Physical Therapy
• /
• v.10 no.1
• /
• pp.253-263
• /
• 1998

To provide physical therapy service of good quality keeping people healthy and obstain structural reformation coping with the demands of in medical service market to foreign intercourse on 21C, we should make legal system fer the physical therapy practice. Thus we suggest the Ministry of Health and Health and the authorities should, 1. Exclude the provision of physical therapist from the classfication of medical technician on the Medical Technician Law Article 2. and establish the independent Physical Therapist Law 2. Eliminate the provision of physician or dentist's guide the Medical Technician Law Article 1. or reform it to physician or dentist's request so that physical therapists may have a independent practice, or 3. Add the provision of the physical therapy center to the Medical Technician Law, the enforcement ordinances and enforcement regulations, such as the provision of optometrist or dental technician.

• Asian Journal of Innovation and Policy
• /
• v.4 no.1
• /
• pp.19-34
• /
• 2015

Silicon Valley's legal foundation in recent years has surfaced on the radar of policy planners who model Silicon Valley's information and communication technologies (ICT) industry. Precisely, the prohibition of covenants not to compete (CNCs) is linked to firm-to-firm knowledge spillovers by way of mobile workers positioned as nodes in a system of innovation. Meanwhile, traditional frameworks support enforcement of CNCs as a way to encourage R&D activities to the worker and to prevent the worker's tacit knowledge and know-how from fleeing. Amidst the battle for the restraint or release of human capital, we present an industrial approach to reconcile the ostensible strife between enforcement and prohibition frameworks. Theoretically, we contend an industrial approach can maximize the policy tools of discorded planners. Moreover, this article newly compares the ICT industries of Silicon Valley and Route 128 to argue that California's law is a unique factor in the greater success of Silicon Valley firms.

• Proceedings of KOSOMES biannual meeting
• /
• 2006.05a
• /
• pp.159-166
• /
• 2006

1994년 "유엔해양법협약"의 발효로 새로운 국제해양법제도가 확립되면서 세계 각국은 통일적인 해상집법체제를 구축함으로써 관할해역에 대한 종합적인 관리를 강화하고 있다. 그러나 중국은 아직 전통적인 분산형 산엽관리체제를 유지하고 있어 기존의 해상집법역량은 날로 확대되는 국가주권과 해양권익의 수호요구를 충족시키지 못하고 있다. 따라서 본 연구에서는 한 중 일 3국의 해상집법체제를 비교 고찰하고 중국해상집법체제의 주요 문제점을 분석한 후, 해경을 중심으로 한 통일적인 해상집법체제의 개선방안을 제시하였다.

• Journal of Environmental Impact Assessment
• /
• v.10 no.3
• /
• pp.195-209
• /
• 2001

The objective of this study is intended to propose plans for reforming environmental impact assessment(EIA) systems by reviewing the current legal systems of EIA related laws and their implementation status in Korea, and by comparing the Korean situation to EIA systems in several foreign countries. This study tried to integrate all EIA related systems scattered over several laws into one comprehensive EIA law, and also to develop legal procedures necessary to accomplish the legislative purpose of the integrated EIA law. Therefore, I propose four reforms (1) All EIA systems should be integrated into one comprehensive EIA act. (2) Administrative plans and policies, though environmentally harmful, which are not currently subject to any prior consultation system, should be covered by the prior consultation system. (3) A screening or scoping should be adopted. (4) Widen civil participation should be encouraged and the administrative control enforcement and introduction of group litigation or citizen suits would be considered.

• Journal of the Korean Society of Marine Environment & Safety
• /
• v.12 no.2 s.25
• /
• pp.125-132
• /
• 2006

1994년 "유엔해양법협약" 의 발효로 새로운 국제해양법제도가 확립되면서 세계 각국은 통일적인 해상집법체제를 구축함으로써 관할해역에 대한 종합적인 관리를 강화하고 있다. 그러나 중국은 아직 전통적인 분산형 산업관리체제를 유지하고 있어 기존의 해상집법역량은 날로 확대되는 국가주권과 해양권익의 수호요구를 충족시키지 못하고 있다. 따라서 본 연구에서는 한 중 일 3국의 해상집법체제를 비교 고찰하고 중국해상집법체제의 주요 문제점을 분석한 후, 해경을 중심으로 한 통일적인 해상집법체제의 개선방안을 제시하였다.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.15 no.3
• /
• pp.113-137
• /
• 2005

In the provisions of 'the Arbitration Law of China, there are special provisions for international arbitration. When a court refuses the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards or cancel the domestic awards relating to international arbitration, they have to adopt the provisions of 'Chinese Civil Procedure Law'. These provisions are the same as the provisions of Korean Civil Procedure Law concerning the reasons of renewal. In the Korean Arbitration Act, those provisions disappeared when it was revised on December 31, 1999. Among the characteristics of the Chinese arbitration system, a serious question is that it provides only institutional arbitration and there is no ad-hoc arbitration in the Chinese Arbitration Law. On the other hand, when the parties appoint three arbitrators according to their agreement, the parties appoint the third arbitrator by mutual agreement and when they fail to agree, the Arbitration Committee appoints the third arbitrator. In practice, as the parties hardly agree on the third arbitrator or sole arbitrator, the Committee usually appoints them. And appointing an arbitrator from out of their panel of arbitrators is permitted these days only under examination by the Arbitration Committee in accordance with the arbitration rules of the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission, Other arbitration committees except the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission are still prohibited from making appointments from out of their panel of arbitrators. Accordingly, arbitration in China cannot be predicted and poses a question about legal stability as party autonomy is restricted in the appointment of arbitrators and arbitral procedure. Such being the case it is strongly recommended to select Korea as the place of arbitration in transactions with China. However it is better to arbitrate than to file a law suit in China.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.30
• /
• pp.91-120
• /
• 2006

An Arbitration agreement is one kind of contracts between two or more contracting parties; any possible disputes that arise concerning a contract will be settled by arbitration. Contracting parties who have made a valid arbitration agreement will submit a dispute for settlement to private persons(arbitrators) instead of to a court. Arbitration may depend upon the agreement of the private parties, but it is also a system which has been built on the law and which relies upon that law in order to make it effective both nationally and internationally. That is to say, arbitration is wholly dependent on the underlying support of the court. The complementarity of the courts and of the arbitrators is a well-established fact; they seek for the common purpose, the efficacy of international commercial arbitration. Most states' laws contain the provisions which have been set for the supportive role of the courts relating to arbitration; (1) the enforcement of the arbitration agreement(rulings on validity of the arbitration agreement), and the establishment of the tribunal at the beginning of the arbitration, (2) challenge of arbitrators, interim measures, and intervention during evidence in the middle of the arbitral proceedings, (3) filing of the award, challenge of the arbitral award, and recognition and enforcement of the arbitral award at the end of the arbitration. Most international instruments and national laws concerning arbitration believe that authoritative courts should play their power not to control and supervise arbitration but to support and develop the merits of arbitration at most. 1985 UNCITRAL Model Law also expressly limit the scope of court's intervention to assist arbitration, not to control it.

• KIEAE Journal
• /
• v.17 no.1
• /
• pp.55-61
• /
• 2017

Purpose : As the necessity of reinforcement of infections management in medical facilities after MERS increased, Ministry of Health and Welfare promulgated the enforcement regulations of medical law on February 3, 2017. Its main objective is to improve patients' safety and medical-care quality through the establishment of isolation facilities from infectious diseases and the set-up of standards for In-patient and ICU facilities. The purpose of this study is necessarily to propose a standardized spatial composition model for ward modules by analyzing changing environments of in-patient facilities according to the strengthened medical law. Method: Theoretical studies will be undergone of Evidence-based Designs to improve patients' safety, medical quality, and domestic/overseas in-patient room guidelines. With reference to the status of 24 general hospitals over 500 beds, the spatial compositions of the in-patient rooms and the types of multi/single bed room modules will be analyzed. The directions of future in-patient room module changes through the study of the minimum ward module types and various ward types will be presented. Result: This paper will hopefully provide guidelines for hospitalization rooms that can be applied to the revised rules of medical law enforcement and provide a basis for a comprehensive study of patients' safety and efficient infection control as well.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.32 no.2
• /
• pp.3-30
• /
• 2022

On 27 October the Supreme Court of UK handed down its much anticipated decision in Kabab-Ji SAL (Lebanon) v Kout Food Group (Kuwait) [2021] UKSC 48. The issues for the Supreme Court to decide were as follows: (1) which law governed the validity of the arbitration agreement; (2) if English law applied, whether, as a matter of English law, there was any real prospect that a court might find that KFG became a party to the arbitration agreement, and (3) whether, procedurally, the Court of Appeal was correct in giving summary judgment refusing recognition and enforcement the award, or whether there should have been a full rehearing of whether there was a valid and binding arbitration agreement for the purposes of the New York Convention and the AA 1996 (the 'procedural' issue) The decision in Kabab-Ji provides further reassuring clarity on how the governing law of the arbitration agreement is to be determined under English law where the governing law is not expressly stated in the arbitration agreement itself. The Supreme Court's reasoning is consistent with its earlier decision on the same issue, albeit in the context of enforcement pursuant to the New York Convention, rather than considering the arbitration agreement before an award is rendered. This paper presents some implications of Kabab-Ji case. Also, it seeks to provide a meaningful discussion and theories on the arbitration system in Korea.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.17 no.3
• /
• pp.3-30
• /
• 2007

The New York Convention(formally called "United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards") done in New York on June 10, 1958 has been adhered to by more than 140 States at the time of this writing, including almost all important trading nations from the Capitalist and Socialist World as well as many developing countries. The Convention can be considered as the most important Convention in the field of arbitration and as the cornerstone of current international commercial arbitration. Korea has acceded to the New York Convention since 1973. When acceding to the Convention, Korea declared that it will apply the Convention to the recognition and enforcement of awards made only in the territory of another Contracting State on the basis of reciprocity. Also, Korea declared that it will apply the Convention only to differences arising out of legal relationships, whether contractual or not, which are considered as commercial under the national law of Korea. The provisions relating to the enforcement of arbitral awards falling under the New York Convention begin at Article III. The Article III contains the general obligation for the Contracting States to recognize Convention awards as binding and to enforce them in accordance with their rules of procedure. The Convention requires a minimum of conditions to be fulfilled by the party seeking enforcement. According to Article IV(1), that party has only to supply (1) the duly authenticated original award or a duly certified copy thereof, and (2) the original arbitration agreement or a duly certified copy thereof. In fulfilling these conditions, the party seeking enforcement produces prima facie evidence entitling it to obtain enforcement of the award. It is then up to the other party to prove that enforcement should not be granted on the basis of the grounds for refusal of enforcement enumerated in the subsequent Article V(1). Grounds for refusal of enforcement are stipulated in Article V is divided into two parts. Firstly, listed in the first Para. of Article V are the grounds for refusal of enforcement which are to be asserted and proven by the respondent. Secondly, listed in Para. 2 of Article V, are the grounds on which a court may refuse enforcement on its own motion. These grounds are non-arbitrability of the subject matter and violation of the public policy of the enforcement country. The three main features of the grounds for refusal of enforcement of an award under Article V, which are almost unanimously affirmed by the courts, are the following. Firstly, The grounds for refusal of enforcement mentioned in Article V are exhaustive. No other grounds can be invoked. Secondly, and this feature follows from the first one, the court before which enforcement of the award is sought may not review the merits of the award because a mistake in fact or law by the arbitrators is not included in the list of grounds for refusal of enforcement set forth in Article V. Thirdly, the party against whom enforcement is sought has the burden of proving the existence of one or more of the grounds for refusal of enforcement. The grounds for refusal of enforcement by a court on its own motion, listed in the second Para. of Article V, are non-arbitrability of the subject matter and public policy of the enforcement country. From the court decisions reported so far at home and abroad, it appears that courts accept a violation of public policy in extreme cases only, and frequently justify their decision by distinguishing between domestic and international public policy. The Dec. 31, 1999 amendment to the Arbitration Act of Korea admits the basis for enforcement of foreign arbitral awards rendered under the New York Convention. In Korea, a holder of a foreign arbitral award is obliged to request from the court a judgment ordering enforcement of the award.