• Journal of Software Assessment and Valuation
• /
• v.15 no.1
• /
• pp.25-35
• /
• 2019

In Korea, the calculation of quantitative similarity is commonly used to gauge the substantial similarity of computer programs. Substantial similarity should be assessed by considering the quantity and quality of areas that show similarity, but in practice, qualitative aspects are reflected by multiplying the weighted value in the calculation of quantitative similarity. However, such a practical method cannot be deemed adequate, considering the fundamental characteristic of the judgment on substantial similarity, which holds that the quantitative and qualitative aspects of similar areas should be considered on an equal footing. Thus, this study pointed out the issue regarding the use of weighted value and sought appropriate ways to take into account qualitative aspects when assessing the substantial similarity of computer programs.

• New & Renewable Energy
• /
• v.20 no.1
• /
• pp.145-174
• /
• 2024

Addressing climate change necessitates evidence-based policies grounded in science. The use of forest biomass for energy production is based on a broad scientific consensus at the international level. However, some environmental groups in South Korea are opposing this system of energy production. Through this study, the authors aim to reduce unnecessary confusion and foster an atmosphere conducive to meaningful evidence-based policies. We have classified the issue into eight categories: biological carbon cycle, carbon debt, nature-based solutions, air emissions, cascading principles and sustainability certification, forest environmental impacts, climate change litigation, and the behavior of environmental groups and public perception. Consequently, the following key points were derived: (1) the actions of some environmental groups seem to follow a similar pattern to denialist behavior that denies climate change and climate science; (2) the quality of evidence for campaigns that oppose the use of forest biomass for energy production is low, with a tendency to overgeneralize information, high uncertainty, and difficulty in finding new claims.; (3) most of the public believes that forest biomass energy is necessary, and the governments of major countries are aware of its importance. Significantly, Forest biomass for energy is based on an overwhelming level of scientific consensus recognized internationally.

• 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.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.9 no.2
• /
• pp.181-207
• /
• 2008

With recent emphasis on evidence based medicine, clinical practice guidelines are seen as a potential mechanism by which unify various managerial and professional approaches to improving the quality of care. The development process of guidelines has been the subject of much research. and it is need translating the medical evidence of research into a clinical practice guidelines. the gathered evidence needs to be interpreted into a clinical, public health, policy, or payment context. The term 'clinical practice guidelines' can evoke a diverse range of responses from healthcare personnel. Clinical practice guidelines are increasingly used in patient management but some clinicians are not familiar with their origin or appropriate applications. Understanding the limitations as well as benefits of CPG could enable clinicians to have clearer view of the place of guidelines in every practice. In the context of increasing complaints and litigation in healthcare, the legal implications of clinical practice guidelines are of increasing importance. Clinical practice guidelines could, in theory, influence the manner in which the courts establish negligence by suggesting the doctor breached the duty of care by failing to provide the required standard of medical care. In several studies, the CPGs were relevent to and played a pivotal role in the proof of negligence. Much depends on the quality of guidelines and the tools developed and the authoritativeness of a guideline. Recently, there are several opinions the court also should review the validity and reliability of expert testimony including medical evidence. and widespread use of guidelines in malpractice lawsuit could lead the physicians to greater compliance with guidelines in the long term. In conclusion, Health care reformers, physicians as well as guidelines developers should understand that guidelines have both medical and legal aspects as a double-edges sword. so clinicians, legal representatives and decision-makers should not defer unduly to guidelines.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.15 no.2
• /
• pp.61-91
• /
• 2005

It is well recognized that the availability of prompt, effective and economical means of dispute resolution is an important element in the orderly growth and encouragement of international trade and investment. Increasingly, ADR(Alternative Dispute Resolution) including arbitration and mediation, instead of litigation in national courts, has become the preferred means of resolving private international commercial disputes. Under the situation, efforts for settlement of trade and investment disputes by ADR have been made between Korea and China through trade and investment agreements and arbitration agreement. Judging from the importance of economic exchange between Korea and Qingdao including Shandong Province, The Korean Commercial Arbitration Board(KCAB) and The Qingdao Arbitration Commission(QAC) should strengthen mutual cooperation to develop efficient methods of resolving commercial disputes arising between the two countries and to assist parties in solving those disputes through conclusion of arbitral agreement. Recently, efforts for conclusion of a Korea-China-Japan Free Trade Agreement(FTA) received strong support at Korea-Japan and Korea-China Summit Meeting held on June and July, 2003 respectively. If the conclusion of FTA among the three countries would be realized, it would promote regional trade and investment, contributing to economic growth in the Northeast Asian region. Under the circumstances, the key arbitral institutions including KCAB and QAC should consider to take the initiative in setting up tentatively called ${\ulcorner}$Joint Arbitration Center for Northeast Asia${\lrcorner}$ for which the CAMCA of NAFTA will be the good example.

• Journal of Technology Innovation
• /
• v.14 no.1
• /
• pp.147-175
• /
• 2006

One of the biggest problems of Korean economy is polarization of firms for export and domestic demand and that of conglomerates and SME's achievement. One of the culprits lies weakness of intermediate industry such as machine tool. Since intermediate industry is important path where export performance affects domestic demand and whose actor usually is SMEs with high spill over effect in labor market. Especially, intermediate industry Is vulnerable because of industrial policy biased In backward linkage effect. However if a country fails to develop intermediate industry above some critical point, that country would fall in low-tech equilibrium without growth. In case of benign circle where final goods industry growth leads growth of intermediate industry and again it leads that of final goods industry, it can reach high-tech equilibrium. By contrast, in opposite case where in industrialization latecomer fails to link industries likewise above some critical point that country would fall in low-tech equilibrium without growth. Moreover, for several reasons, machine tool firms of Korea have difficulty in catching up technology above critical point. Firstly. Conglomerate demander neglects their product. Secondly, even after success of development overcoming difficulties they fail to get market share for response of dumping of foreign competitors. And the last one is patent litigation of foreign competitors that incapacitate the technology development. For these, Korean machine tool firms fell in 'middle-income country trap' itself, since they stuck in some extent when they technologically catch up. Consequently, for latecomer country in machine tool industry to leapfrog meaningfully policy support is necessary, Weak intermediate industry does not Induce domestic firms and remained fragile. Therefore, localization, policy should reflect condition of technological catch up more than before, in order to be effective and fruitful. There should be turning point over relationship between conglomerates, major demander of machine tool and SME's, for only with active purchasing of conglomerate Korean machine industry can grow.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.20 no.3
• /
• pp.121-145
• /
• 2010

In the past, ADR has not been used as frequently in Japan as it has in other parts of the industrialized world. However, though litigation is still the most utilized vehicle of dispute resolution by Japanese financial institutions, this will be changing. The New Financial ADR system, which was created by a June 2009 amendment to the Financial Instruments and Exchange Act, is meant to deal with every stage of financial-related disputes and, as such, strives to resolve disputes before they become significant and acts to ameliorate any post-ADR issues that may remain, thereby completing the FIEA's purpose to protect investors. Since the foundation of the New Financial ADR system applies to all related industries, new provisions were set out in 16 business related acts, such as the Banking Act, the Insurance Business Act, and FIEA itself. October 2010 will mark the formal introduction of a new system of financial ADR in Japan. New Financial ADR in Japan will be modeled on the Financial Ombudsman Service in the United Kingdom, but will not feature one comprehensive dispute resolution system in which one dispute resolution institution covers all disputes in the financial field. The New Financial ADR system is merely one step towards a foundation of comprehensive financial ADR such as FOS. It must be noted, however, that this all important first step was over seven years in the making, involving a great deal of discussion, debate, and compromise amongst many parts of Japanese government, business, and society. The New Financial ADR system grants participating parties the ability to stop the clock on any statute of limitations which may correspond to any future possible court cases related to the dispute,13 and further grants the ability to suspend related court proceedings while the parties are utilizing the New Financial ADR system. In addition, where financial institutions have not accepted dispute resolution proceedings or have not accepted a special conciliation proposal, the Ministry of Finance may issue an order compelling compliance if it is found that certain actions are necessary to ensure the appropriate operations of a financial institution's business. In Japan, as best practices have not yet been created.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.20 no.3
• /
• pp.3-24
• /
• 2010

In the approaching 21th century, the outstanding development in international trade and commerce has established arbitration as the preferred form of dispute resolution on international business transaction. Because the form of commercial dispute becomes more complicated and varied with the quantitative increase of them, the reasonable and rapid settlement of them must be the important problem simultaneously. In this article, the author discusses various issues on the recognition and enforcement of an foreign arbitral awards under Korean Arbitration Act, which is modeled after the Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration of the UNCITRAL of 1985. The Dec. 31, 1999 amendment to the Korean Arbitration Act admits the basis for enforcement of foreign arbitral awards rendered under United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards of 1958(commonly known as the New York Convention). 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 anther 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 provision relating to the enforcement of arbitral awards falling under the New York Convention consists of Article III, IV, V. In particular, Article V of the New York Convention enumerates the grounds for refusal of recognition foreign arbitral awards. The grounds are separated into two categories : One that abides by procedures and the others are based on national legal sovereignty. In Korea, a holder of a foreign arbitral award is obliged to request from the court a judgment ordering enforcement of awards. Because Korea requires enforcement to be based on a judgement, the result is that arbitral of award holders are forced to institute domestic litigation.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.14 no.2
• /
• pp.135-172
• /
• 2004

While doing business in China foreign companies occasionally find themselves embroiled in disputes with Chinese individuals, companies or the Chinese Government. There are three primary ways to resolve a commercial dispute in China are negotiation, arbitration and litigation. The best way of dispute resolution is negotiation as it is the least expensive method and the working relationship of both parties concerned in dispute. But negotiations do not always give rise to resolution. Arbitration is the next choice. Unless the parties concerned can agree to resort to arbitration after the dispute has arisen, the underlying contract namely, sales contract or separate agreement must show that disputes will be resolved by arbitration. Agreements to arbitration specify arbitration body and governing law. There are two Chinese government -sponsored arbitration bodies for handling cases involving at least one foreign party: China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission(CIETAC) and China Maritime Arbitration Commission(CMAC) for maritime disputes. Contracts regarding foreign companies doing business in China often designate CIETAC arbitration. CIETAC distinguishes between two kinds of dispute resolutions, foreign-related arbitration and domestic arbitration. For a dispute to be classified as foreign-related arbitration, one of the companies must be a foreign entity without a major production facility or investment in China. CIETAC has published rules which govern the selection of a panel if the contract does not specify how the choice of arbitration will be handled. CIETAC's list of arbitrators for foreign-related disputes, from which CIETAC's arbitrators must en chosen, includes may non-Chines arbitrators. But many foreign experts believe that some aspects of CIETAC needs to be improved. The purpose of this paper is to improve the understanding of arbitration in China, CIETAC by way of studying the current situation and improvement of international commercial arbitration in China.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.17 no.1
• /
• pp.33-55
• /
• 2007

Parties to national or international disputes use arbitration because they think it is faster than litigation or affords privacy. But it is very important for the parties that the decision of arbitrators is made impartially and independently. For the parties to accept the outcome of an arbitration, it is essential that the final outcome be the result of an impartial process, especially because arbitration is a form of adjudication, albeit a private one. The success of arbitration resides in the conduct of arbitrators. The more independent and impartial arbitrators are, the more trustworthy arbitration will be. Just as court procedures allow for the recusal of judges under certain circumstances, the arbitral process provides means to remove arbitrators from a tribunal if arbitrator can no longer be considered impartial or independent. This is blown as the disqualification or challenge of arbitrators. An arbitrator can also be challenged when he or she does not fulfill the contactually agreed and stipulated qualifications required by the arbitral agreement. An arbitrator's inability to act impartially could give rise to a challenge to the arbitrator, and even to the award. However, deciding whether an interest or relationship could give rise to an apprehension of bias is a difficult issue for every arbitrator. The standard of arbitrator's impartiality and independence is not commensurable to that of judge, because the parties are permitted considerable autonomy in selecting arbitrators. Particularly it may be expected for the party-appointed arbitrator to act as the advocate of the party in the deliberations of the tribunal. Doubts that could give rise to a challenge to the arbitrator should be justifiable. That is the case if a reasonable, informed third party would conclude that the arbitrator's decision making might be influenced by factors other than evidence presented by the parties. Consequently, for example, the mere fact that an arbitrator was to work in the same firm as one of the parties' counsel, this could not automatically be considered as grounds for challenge for lack of impartiality.