• International Commerce and Information Review
• /
• v.8 no.4
• /
• pp.105-121
• /
• 2006

This study is related with the judgements of our country's supremcourt against the transaction of Letter of Credit which is beneficiary's fraudulent trade deal. In this case I think to analyse the judgements and to present the basic grounds on which the judgements were established. In Letter of Credit transaction, there are the major parties, such as, beneficiary, issuing bank, or confirming bank and the other parties such as applicant, negotiating bank, advising bank and paying bank. Therefore, in this cases, the beneficiary, the French Weapons' Supplier who did not shipped the commodities, created the false Bill of Lading, let his dealing bank make payment against the documents presented by him and received the proceeds from the negotiating bank or collecting bank, thereafter was bankrupted and escaped. For the first time, even though the issuing bank conceived that the presented documents were inconsistent with the terms of L/C. it did not received the payment approval from the applicant against all the discrepancies, made the negotiating bank pay the proceeds to exporter and thereafter, delivered the documents to the applicant long after the time of the issuing bank's examination of documents. The applicant who received the documents from the issuing bank, instantly did not examine the documents and inform to the issuing bank whether he accepted the documents or not. Long time after, applicant tried to clear the goods through custom when he knew the bill of ladings were false and founded out the documents had the other discrepancies which he did not approved. As the results, the applicant, Korea Army Transportation Command claimed, that the issuing bank must refund his paid amount because issuing bank examined the documents unreasonably according to u.c.p 500 Act 13th, 14th. In spite of the applicant's claim, the issuing bank argued that it paid the proceeds of L/C reasonably after receiving the applicant's approval of an discrepancy of document, the delayed shipment, but for concerning the other discrepancies, the trivial ones, the applicant did not examined the document and noticed the discrepancies in reasonable time. Therefore the applicant sued the issuing bank for refunding it's paid proceeds of L/C. Originally, this cases were risen between Korea Exchange Bank and Korea Army Transportation Command. As result of analysing the case, the contents of the case case have had same procedure actually, but the lower courts, the district and high courts all judged the issuing bank was reasonable and did not make an error. As analysing these supreme court's judgements, the problem is that whether there are the applicant's liability of examining the documents and informing its discrepancies to the issuing bank or not, and if the applicant broke such a liabilities, it lost the right of claiming the repayment from issuing bank. Finally to say, such applicant's liabilities only must be existed in case the documents arrived to the issuing bank was delivered to the applicant within the time of the documents examination according to u.c.p 500 Act 14, d. i. But if any the documents were delivered to applicant after time of the documents examination, the applicant had not such liabilities because eventhough after those time the applicant would have informed to the issuing bank the discrepancies of documents, the issuing bank couldn't receive repayment of its paid proceeds of document from the negotiating bank. In the result after time of issuing bank's examination of documents, it is considered that there's no actual benefit to ask the applicant practice it's liability. Therefore finally to say. I concluded that the Suprem Court's judgement was much more reasonable. In the following, the judgements of the supreme court would be analysed more concretely, the basic reasons of the results be explained and the way of protecting such L/C transaction would be presented.

• Korea journal of population studies
• /
• v.31 no.2
• /
• pp.101-132
• /
• 2008

This paper discusses transformation of the US population census since 1990 and its future prospects by mentioning the 2000 census experience and the 2010 census plans. First, it examines the recommendations written for the 2000 census by the Committee on National Statistics, National Research Council, such as introduction of statistical estimation, response rate improvement, long form improvement, adjustment in differential undercount by race/ethnicity, alternative census methods, collection of small-area statistics in non-census years, and census frame enhancement, and describes how the US Supreme Court decision of 1998 led the Census Bureau to fail in conducting the US version of One Number Census which uses statistical estimation by matching actual enumerations from the Census main survey and post-enumeration survey. Second, it examines one key element of the 2010 U. S. census, say, the separation of long form from short form and describes the main features of American Community Survey, a rolling census which replaces long-form component of the traditional US "Decennial Census" Another element is MAF/TIGER Enhancement Program which aims to improve enumeration accuracy in the traditional short-form census and help the Census Bureau introduce a mobile computer system as part of high-tech census operation. In this paper, it is pointed out that the separation of long form from short form is not an accidental one which results from the US Supreme Court decision, but the Census Bureau at this time in 2008 worries about the accuracy of enumeration because it has failed to develop a mobile computer system and will have to canvass 115 million households by paper and pencil by hiring 600 thousand temporary census workers.

• Journal of Science and Technology Studies
• /
• v.15 no.1
• /
• pp.215-244
• /
• 2015

The 1993 U.S. Supreme Court decision on Daubert v. Merrel Dow Chemical, Inc. has changed the ways in which scientific evidence is evaluated for legal purposes. A new set of guidelines, called thereafter the Daubert Standard, that was intended to increase the judge's authority in determining the admissibility of scientific evidence in the court, turns out to have increased the burden of proof on the part of plaintiffs and have also considerably influenced the outcome of policy decisions in the regulatory areas. This paper analyzes the changes made in the relationship between science and law after the introduction of the Daubert Standard, examining the epistemological differences between its proponents and opponents. The judge's dilemma as a gatekeeper, this paper argues, is not simply that of an 'amateur scientist' seeking to learn and practice scientific knowledge per se. Rather, the dilemma ought to be that of an 'legal expert,' faithful to ethos of social justice without succumbing to the practical convenience of the Daubert Standard. This paper also suggests that there is much room for STS scholars to make contributions to the use of science in legal settings by conducting in-depth studies on court cases in the broad social and political context.

• Korean journal of communication and information
• /
• v.34
• /
• pp.161-195
• /
• 2006

Standing to sue has become one of the most important and controversial issues in suits between the press and the victims injured by the press reports. Even thought Korean law was patterned after the European legal system, there is no denying that the Korean Constitution was influenced by that of the United States. The judicial system was also influenced by its counterpart in the United States. The doctrine of standing to sue has plagued the U.S. Supreme Court for several decades. The traditional test of standing in the federal courts was, at the beginning of the century, whether the interest asserted by the plaintiff amounted to a 'legal right', entitled to the protection of the common law. In recent years, the Supreme Court seems to have settled on a two-tiered method for determining whether a plaintiff has standing to sue in federal court. The first level of inquiry is the constitutional core, and the second is the judicially imposed prudential limitations. The purpose of this study is to find out the doctrine of standing in the legal proceedings caused by the press reports. The press needs to internally transform as well to prevent legal dispute, enforcing confirmation when collecting news materials and building up the device for pre-examining the news. The press is also requested to help sincerely the victim recover, realizing that they waste their reputation and credit not to mention a lot of time and monet during the legal dispute.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.12 no.1
• /
• pp.11-39
• /
• 2011

[ ${\S}27$ ]Abs. 3 das Gesuntheitsdienstgesetz (the Medical Service Act) in Korea lautet: Niemand in der Absicht, sich oder einem Dritten einen $Verm{\ddot{o}}gensvorteil$ zu verschaffen, der Medizininstitut bzw. dem Mediziner (die Medizinerin) den Patienten vorstellen, ${\ddot{u}}bweweisen$, verleiten oder einen anderen zu dieser Handlung anstiften darf, wie z.B. die Selbstbeteiligung des Patienten nach dem Krankenkassengesetz (the National Health Insurance Act) oder dem Gesetz ${\ddot{u}}ber$ Beistand der ${\ddot{a}}rztlicher$ Betreuung (the Medical Care Assistance Act) skontieren oder befreien, Geld offerieren oder dem Allgemeinheit das Verkehrswesen anbieten usw. Nach dem Wortlaut ist jedoch unklar, ob unter diese Vorschriften der Fall subsumiert werden kann, wenn eine Medizininstitut bzw. ein(e) Mediziner(in) in der Absicht, sich einen $Verm{\ddot{o}}gensvorteil$ zu verschaffen, sich den Patienten verleitet. Nach dem Korean Supreme Court ist eine Medizininstitut bzw. ein(e) Mediziner(in) nur dann das Subjekt der Verleitungshandlung, wenn sie bzw. er ein Mittel gegen fairen oder $ordungsm{\ddot{a}}{\beta}ien$ Medizinmarkt verwendet oder dem Patienten eine ${\ddot{a}}rztlich$ rechtswidrige Behandlung (z.B. einen rechtswidrigen Schwangerschaftsabbruch) verspricht. In diesem Beitrag wird dagegen die Auffassung mittels der teleologischen Reduktion vertritt und argumentiert, dass ein ${\ddot{a}}rztlich$ rechtswidriges Behandlung nach dem Rechtsgut und dem Normzweck unter ${\S}27$ Abs. 3 das Gesuntheitsdienstgesetz nicht subsumiert werden, sondern allein nach eigenem Unrecht bestraft werden kann.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.8 no.1
• /
• pp.35-54
• /
• 1998

In recent years, there has been a significant increase in the number of large-scale projects involving construction, public works and the installation of industrial plants. These projects usually require the participation of a number of public and private entities and involve more than one contract. When disputes arising in connection with these projects are to be submitted to commercial arbitration, the parties often wish to have all disputes decided by one arbitral tribunal, in a single comprehensive proceeding. It has become apparent that the resolution of all major disputes which may arise in connection with such a project in a single comprehensive arbitration proceeding presents a number of advantages. The arbitral institution can provide for a multiparty arbitration proceeding only where all of the parties have agreed to it either at the time the disputes arise or at the time the parties enter into their various contractual arrangement. The discussion about multiparty arbitration centers on the question whether courts should have the power to order the consolidation of arbitration proceedings absent the consent of the parties. As the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly denied certiorari to cases presenting the consolidation-question, the conflict between the Court of Appeals' positions remains. The common method of selection in a bilaterial proceeding is the formula by which each party appoints one arbitrator and the two party-chosen arbitrators then mutually agree on a third, neutral arbitrator. This popular method poses, however, both a policy and practical problems In a 3-party-proceeding. It seems that the better solution is to have courts or arbitral institutions appoint all arbitrators for a multiparty proceeding. American courts have employed a variety of methods to appoint arbitrators for multiparty disputes in cases in which the parties had not provided for or could not agree upon a method themselves.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.21 no.1
• /
• pp.187-220
• /
• 2020

Today, administrative legislation is becoming more and more important in that it not only sets the legal life relationship of the people in great detail and detail, but is closely related to the occurrence, extinction, and alteration of rights and obligations held by prisoners. In the United States, the types of administrative legislation are divided into substantive and interpretative regulations, so-called substantive regulations, which give prior notice and opportunity to comment on interested parties through formal or informal administrative procedures in accordance with Article 553 of the Federal Administrative Procedures Act. On the other hand, the interpretation regulation, which is "the regulation established by the Administration for the simple interpretation of statutes," does not require prior notice or comment because it does not affect the people's rights obligations. The Azar v. Allina Health Service, 587 U.S. 1804, 2019 ruling by the U.S. Constitutional Court, subject to this research paper, is about a dispute over a new decision to require Medicare to determine the amount of compensation for care providers that provide medical services for the poor, and should the regulations be regarded as substantive under the Administrative Procedures Act and should not be given a hearing or a simple internal process for processing. Given that the current administrative procedure law of our country stipulates the procedures for administrative pre-announcement through Articles 42.1 and 44.1, but that our courts have not judged violations of legislative pre-announcement procedures under the Administrative Procedures Act so far as to judge the illegality of administrative legislation, the dispute of the U.S. Constitutional Court will provide new implications for controlling legal orders beyond simple legal interpretation and has great significance in terms of readjustment of relevant regulations under future administrative procedures.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.12 no.1
• /
• pp.271-321
• /
• 2002

Every year, many million of business transactions take place. Ocassionally, disagreements develop over these business transactions. Many of these disputes are resolved by mediation, arbitration and out-of-court settlement options. The American Arbitration Association(AAA) helps resolve a wide range of disputes through mediation, arbitration, elections and other out-of-court settlement procedures. The AAA offers a broad range of dispute resolution services to business executives, attorneys, individuals, trade associations, unions, management, consumers, families, communities, and all level of governments. The 198,491 cases composed of the 194,303 arbitration cases and the 4,188 mediation cases, were filed with the AAA in 2000. These case filings represent a full range of matters, including commercial finance, construction, labor and employment, environmental, health care, insurance, real state, securities, and technology disputes. The Korean Commercial Arbitration Board (KCAB) does more than render arbitration services. It helps facilitate settlements and guarantee implementation thereof between trading partners at home and abroad involving disputes related to such areas as the sale of commodities, construction, joint venture agreements, technical assistance, agency agreements, and maritime transport. The 643 cases composed of the the 197 arbitration cases and the 446 mediation cases, were filed with the KCAB in 2001. There are some differences between the AAA and the KCAB regarding the number and the area of mediation and arbitration case filings, the breath of service offerings, the scope of alternative dispute resolution, and the education and training. In order to apply to the proceedings of the commercial mediation and arbitration, the AAA has the Commercial Mediation Rules, the Commercial Arbitration Rules, the Expedited Procedures, the Optional Procedures for Large, Complex Commerical Dispute, and the Optional Rules for Emergency Measures of Protection as amended and effective on September 1, 2000. In order to apply to the proceedings of commercial arbitration, the KCAB has the Arbitration Rules as amended by the Supreme Court on April 27, 2000, which have been changed to incorporate the revisions of the Arbitration Act that went into effect on December 31, 1999. There are some differences between the AAA's commercial Arbitration Rules and the KCAB's Arbitration Rules regarding the clauses of jurisdiction and administrative conference, number of arbitrators, communication with arbitrator, vacancies, preliminary hearing, exchange of information, oaths, evidence by affidavit and posthearing filing of documents or others, interim measures, serving of notice, form of award, scope of award, delivery of award to parties, modification of award, release of liability, administrative fees, neutral arbitrator's compensation, and expedited procedures. In conclusion, for the vitalization of KCAB and its ADR system, the following measures should be taken : the effective case management, the development of on0-line ADR, the establishment of ADR system of electronic commerce disputes, and the variety of dispute resolution rules in each expert field.

• Journal of the Korean Geographical Society
• /
• v.47 no.2
• /
• pp.245-267
• /
• 2012

This paper analyzes the discrimination of private property right protection in urban regeneration projects that is implemented by eminent domain based on public use in the United States. In spite of urban regeneration projects which depends on property condemnation for public use as a coercive power, it is executed on the discrimination of property right and sacrifice of the social disadvantages that transfer property from these private party to another big capitals and private developers. At first this paper investigates research trends in urban regeneration within the framework of multidisciplinary approach and suggests legal geographical perspective as a new research field. Next I figure out current state, types and numbers of brownfields site with the EPA and GAO data, and define these sites as results of deindustrialization and suburbanization process. Finally this paper uncover that the discrimination process of private property right is due to complex actions of expansion of public use concept in the U.S. Supreme Court from public ownership to economic public use, privatization of eminent domain, growth coalition regime and business friendly policy focused on economic development, class and racial bias, neoliberal movements of property right reform.

• Korean Journal of Comparative Education
• /
• v.22 no.4
• /
• pp.149-178
• /
• 2012

The initial purpose of Affirmative Action(AA) in the U. S. was to increase access to, and ensure the equitable distribution of, opportunities for racial minority groups in order to redress past discrimination. Over the last several decades, support for AA has grown and waned as structural, political and social currents have shifted. Most recently, AA in university admissions policy was once again tested as The University of Texas at Austin successfully defended its use of AA in admissions and now faces Supreme Court review concerning the lawsuit. Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin. The purpose of this study is to illustrate the evolution of AA in university admissions reflected on major legal cases for and against it. AA is analyzed from the integrative approach based on the historical institutionalism. l.e., influenced by structure, political dynamics, institutions and critical actors.