• The Journal of the Korea Contents Association
• /
• v.22 no.8
• /
• pp.392-402
• /
• 2022

The purpose of this study is to examine the protection of third parties of the transactions made by the representative director without resolution adopted by the board of directors. The legal effect of a transaction conducted by a representative director without board resolution in violation of internal restriction or statutory restriction is at issue. The Supreme Court of Korea('SCK') made a new ruling that revised the prior case law(Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Da45451, Feb. 18, 2021). The SCK in the subject case proclaimed a legal doctrine that 'a third party acting in good faith' shall be protected according to Article 389(3) and 209(2) of the Korean Commercial Act, except that 'a third party with gross negligence' is considered as 'a person acting in bad faith' and thus is excluded from protection. The subject case law can be evaluated as broadening the scope of protection of the third party. In addition, the subject case is meaningful in that it is balance with the related SCK ruling, which considered a third party with gross negligence as a person acting in bad faith while protecting a third party with ordinary negligence in the case of transactions involving apparent representative directors, etc.

• Journal of the Korean Society for Railway
• /
• v.13 no.1
• /
• pp.108-118
• /
• 2010

This paper analyzes the changes in rail policy in the UK between 1948 and 2007. The UK rail system, once a nationalized industry, was privatized in 1994. Consequently it increased the role of government after 2000, which was a year of frequent rail accident. Recently the UK rail system has made solving global warming and EU interoperability in rail. This paper examines the main factors in changes in rail policy in the UK, which is through the ruling party's ideology, comprehensive transport policy, aimed at reducing global warming and rail accident. Moreover, this paper clarifies the characteristics of rail policy that is consistent with social role of rail, integrative transport policy and acknowledging the positive role of rail against global warming.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.18 no.1
• /
• pp.71-96
• /
• 2008

Arbitration is fundamentally a matter of contract, whereby contractual parties may only be required to submit a dispute to arbitration pursuant to their formal agreement. However, there are several important exceptions to this rule that have developed under common law notions of implied consent. These doctrines may serve either to benefit or to harm a nonsignatory to an arbitral agreement because either (1) the nonsignatory may compel a signatory to the agreement to arbitrate a dispute or (2) the nonsignatory may be compelled to arbitrate a dispute despite never having signed an arbitration agreement. The Court has a long-standing domestic policy of favoring arbitration, and these doctrines reflect that policy. 1. incorporation by reference An arbitration clause may apply to a party who is a nonsignatory to one agreement containing an arbitration clause but who is a signatory to a second agreement that incorporates the terms of the first agreement. 2. assumption An arbitration clause may apply to a nonsignatory who has impliedly agreed to arbitrate. Under this theory, the nonsignatory's conduct is a determinative factor. For example, a nonsignatory who voluntarily begins arbitrating the merits of a dispute before an arbitral tribunal may be bound by the arbitrator's ruling on that dispute even though the nonsignatory was not initially required to arbitrate the dispute. 3. agency A nonsignatory to an arbitration agreement may be bound to arbitrate a dispute stemming from that agreement under the traditional laws of agency. A principal may also be bound to arbitrate a claim based on an agreement containing an arbitration clause signed by the agent. The agent, however, does not generally become individually bound by executing such an agreement on behalf of a disclosed principal unless there is clear evidence that the agent intended to be bound. 4. veil piercing/alter ego In the corporate context, a nonsignatory corporation to an arbitration agreement may be bound by that agreement if the agreement is signed by its parent, subsidiary, or affiliate. 5. estoppel The doctrine of equitable estoppel is usually applied by nonsignatory defendants who wish to compel signatory plaintiffs to arbitrate a dispute. This will generally be permitted when (1) the signatory must rely on the terms of the contract in support of its claims against the nonsignatory, or (2) the signatory alleges that it and the nonsignatory engaged in interdependent misconduct that is intertwined with the obligations imposed by the contract. Therefore, this article analyzed these doctrines centering around case-law in America.