• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제29권1호
• /
• pp.3-29
• /
• 2019

A franchise business is a business in which the owners, or "franchisors," sell the rights to their business logo, name, and model to third party retail outlets, owned by independent, third party operators, called "franchisees." There are a number of features in franchising or terms in franchise agreements that may lead to disputes between franchisors and franchisees. These disputes may arise because of underlying risks in the franchise relationship, franchise agreement, or conduct of the parties. In this case, ADR is an effective way to resolve disputes in a quicker and often less costly way than having to go to court. If an agreement cannot be reached through mediation, then arbitration becomes the next step to resolving the differences. Whereas mediation is non-binding and focused on facilitating the parties to find a resolution that is acceptable to both, arbitration is binding and may result in a decision that is not acceptable to one of the parties. These situations can be resolved through experienced arbitration as arbitration allows franchisees to settle matters promptly and outside of the public eye. In addition, franchise dispute arbitration is usually less costly than going to traditional court. Considering all of these, reaching an agreement will also have typical clauses that address the issue of dispute resolution. It is again a more efficient process than going through the legal process and courts and is often less costly. By going through arbitration, the parties agree to give up their rights to pursue the dispute in the courts. However, there is a problem that the arbitration prior to the agreement and under the terms would be contrary to the restriction of jurisdiction under the "ACT ON THE REGULATION OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS" in Korea.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제32권1호
• /
• pp.43-69
• /
• 2022

In the case of the United States, which has the same provision as Article 10 of the Federal Arbitration Act, a contract may be exceptionally validated if the parties have clearly concluded the contract to expand the grounds for vacating awards in an arbitration agreement. It is possible that the parties create the grounds for vacating that is not stipulated in the statue by clear agreement. However, it remains the issues when this contract is valid. If we investigate the grounds for setting aside as discussed in this paper, in cases ① where an arbitrator failed to apply the substantive law expressly designated by the parties without a good reason; ② where there was a serious error in the application of the substantive law; ③ where an arbitrator decided under ex aequo et bono despite the parties explicitly designated the substantive law, the parties may bring an action for annulment of arbitral awards in court according to their agreement to expand the grounds for vacating the awards. It is important enough to change the rights and obligations of the parties for them whether or not the substantive law of the arbitration was applied. With Regard to the contract to expand the grounds for setting aside the awards in arbitration agreement, there are still issues how to handle the case where the parties have not designated the substantive law, and the validity of a contract to expand the grounds for vacating on reasons other than violation of law application, and relations with Article 5 of the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, where the misapplication of the law does not stipulated as the grounds for refusal to recognize and enforce the foreign arbitral award, and so on.

• 한국콘텐츠학회논문지
• /
• 제22권10호
• /
• pp.506-514
• /
• 2022

형벌을 중심으로 처벌을 통해 재범을 억제하고자 하는 방식은 다수국가들의 형사정책 연구를 통해 그 한계가 나타나고 있다. 이에 대한 대안으로 지역사회구성원과 피해자, 가해자의 화해와 조정을 통해 범죄자가 사회의 일원으로 복귀하는 것을 목적으로 하는 회복적 사법이 범죄 및 재범방지의 패러다임으로 등장하고 있다. 스웨덴은 대표적인 복지국가이자 회복적 사법에 기반한 범죄자 교정을 통해 긍정적인 효과를 확인하고 있다. 또한, 법무보호복지제도와 관련해 안정된 체계를 갖추고 있으며, 운영프로그램의 평가와 인증 과정에서 증거기반의 원칙을 활용한 과학적이고 합리적인 운영으로 낮은 재범률과 사회보장을 유지하고 있다. 그러나 아직 국내에서는 스웨덴을 비롯한 복지 및 교정 선진국에서 시행되는 법무보호복지제도에 대한 연구가 미흡한 실정이다. 이에 본 연구는 스웨덴의 범죄정책과 법무보호복지제도에 관한 고찰을 통해 국내 법무보호복지제도가 나아갈 방향을 탐색하고 국내 제도의 미진한 영역 및 보완점을 파악하여 국내 법무보호복지제도의 개선 및 사업 확대를 위한 토대를 마련하고자 한다.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제32권4호
• /
• pp.143-164
• /
• 2022

It is not an exaggeration to say that our society is already one of disputes. Since circa 2010, the average number of lawsuits filed every year is upwards of six million cases, and resolving disputes through trials is already fully saturated. The functional roles of the court reflect that there are many lacking areas such as systems, tools, and procedures related to social integration. In addition, ADR, which is carried out in advanced capitalist nations to supplement the judicial functions, has also been implemented in our society for the past 60 years. However, for the reason why the usage rate of ADR did not increase for legal consumers, we cannot overlook government activities that did not make sufficient promotions related to the lack of awareness. In Korea, ADR is mainly composed of government-initiated types, and in particular, there is no ADR framework act that can play an integrated role. Furthermore, for the conciliation system of the court, over 80%of conciliation are conducted focusing on court of lawsuits, and legal basis and procedures between institutes are different for administrative ADR, and communication does not go smoothly, thus making it inefficient. Such examples cannot avoid being a background for criticism when considering the fundamental ideologies and beliefs of ADR. The Vinaya Pitaka of sangha related to ADR is a separate method for operating communities. This is the BDR (Buddhist Dispute Resolution) method that encompasses personal ethics, organizational ethics, harmony through various community gatherings, and adhikaranasamatha on the four issues that could occur in legal review procedures. This has become the sufficient background for succession and development for parisa sangha and gana sangha among individuals.

• 무역학회지
• /
• 제42권5호
• /
• pp.1-18
• /
• 2017

본 연구는 가맹본부의 과도한 통제로 인하여 가맹점사업자가 독립적 사업자가 아닌 피용자로 전환될 수 있음을 시사한 Williams v. Jani-king of Philadelphia Inc. 사건을 고찰하였다. 이 사건에서 법원은 가맹점사업자의 지위를 판단하기 위해 계약상 가맹본부가 행하는 통제의 성격이 유일하고 명백한 증거라고 판단하였으나 계약상 내용뿐만 아니라 실질적으로 가맹본부가 가맹점 사업자에게 행사는 통제의 정도도 함께 고려되어야 할 필요성이 있다. 또한 계약상 통제의 성격을 판단함에 있어 그 기준이 명료하지 않기 때문에 가맹점사업자의 지위 판단이 상황에 따라 달라질 수 있으므로 기존의 가맹사업상 내제된 통제와 그 이상의 일상적인 관리상 통제로 구분하여 가맹점사업자의 지위를 판단하는 것이 적절할 것이다.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제20권3호
• /
• pp.25-46
• /
• 2010

In spite of great interest and recent innovation of the legislative system in the Arbitration and other Alternative Dispute Resolution(ADR) system, In Japan there have been only a few case in which International commercial dispute was settled through the Arbitration compared to other countries. However, we can easily expect that foreign arbitral awards which need to be recognized and enforced in Japan will gradually increase and this makes it very important for us to review the Japanese legislative system regarding recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. In this paper, I focused on the relations between applicable laws(including convention) regarding recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in Japan and some issues concerning refusal of recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. Japan is a member state of several multilateral conventions concerning recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards including the New York Convention of 1958 and at least 20 bilateral agreements which include provisions in relate to the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards. Therefore there are some legal issues about the priority application between multilateral and bilateral agreements in relate to Article 7(1) of the New York Convention. In Japan, as I mentioned in this paper, there are incoherent opinions concerning this issue. To solve it substantially it would seem appropriate to build up concrete and explicit provisions concerning the application of priority between multilateral and bilateral agreements. On the other hand, in relate to the application between the New York Convention and National Law, it is necessary to take general approach regarding the priority application between Convention (Treaty) and National Law, considering the national application of conventions under the Constitutional System of each country. Among the grounds for non-recognition/enforcement, there are the ones that are decided under the law of the requested country, for instance, arbitrability and public policy. It would therefore be possible that some foreign arbitral awards would not be recognized in Japan especially relating to the arbitrability because its scope in Japan is not so large. Regarding the enforcement of awards annulled in their place of origin, some positive opinions in recent Japanese legal discussions, say that annulled awards should be enforced as a counter strategy of developed countries and judiciary discretion of the requested country would be needed. As mentioned in this paper, the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards is closely related to judicial policy of the requested country as the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgment is. Even though there existed uniform rules on recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards like the New York convention, each country has different internal legal status of conventions under its own Constitutional System and tends to interpret the provisions based in its own profit. Therefore, it is necessary to review, in the light of conflict of laws, the national legislative system including legal status of conventions of the requested countries concerning recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제20권
• /
• pp.129-150
• /
• 2003

Software license agreements, to be useful in the mass market, could not be individually negotiated, and had to be standardized and concise. The software license agreement needs to be presented to the licensee-users in a fashion that would allow for mass distribution of software, also for it to enforceable, that would draw the users' attention to the terms and conditions under which the publisher allowed the use of the software. These needs have been accomplished, with or without fail, through so called the "shrink-wrap licenses" Shrink-wrap licenses purpose to transfer computer softwares to their users by defining the terms and conditions of use of the software without implicating the "first sale doctrine" of the Copyright Act. These shrink-wrap licenses have become essential to the software industry. However, in USA, the law applicable to these licenses has been unclear and unsettled. Courts have struggled to develop a coherent framework governing their enforceability. Meanwhile, the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws ("NCCUSL") in USA promulgated the Uniform Computer Information Transaction Act ("UCITA") governing contracts for computer information transaction on July 29, 1999. One clear objective of UCITA was to settle the law governing the enforceability of shrink-wrap licenses. In these respects, this paper first introduces the various forms that shrink-wrap licenses take(at Part II. Section 1.), and explains the main advantages of them(at Part II. Section 2.) Here it shows how shrink-wrap licenses value themselves for both software publishers and users, including that shrink-wrap licenses are a valuable contracting tool because they provide vital information and rights to software users and because they permit the contracting flexibility that is essential for today's software products. Next, this paper describes the current legal framework applicable to shrink-wrap licenses in USA(at Part III). Here it shows that in USA the development of case law governing shrink-wrap licenses occurred in two distinct stages. At first stage, judicial hostility toward shrink-wrap licenses marked such that they were not enforced pursuant to Article 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code. At second stage, courts began to recognize the pervasiveness of shrink-wrap licenses, their indispensability to the rapidly expanding information technology industry, and the urgent need to enforce such licenses in order to maintain low prices for consumers of computer hardware or software, resulting in the recognition of shrink-wrap licenses. Finally, in view of the importance of UCITA, this paper examines how it will affect the enforceability of shrink-wrap licenses(at Part IV). The drafters of UCITA, as well as the scholars and practitioners who have criticized it, agree that it validates shrink-wrap licenses, provided certain procedural protections are afforded to purchasers. These procedural protections include the licensee end-user must (i) manifest his assent to the shrink-wrap license, (ii) have an opportunity to review the shrink-wrap license, (iii) have a right to return the product without costs.

• 의료법학
• /
• 제15권2호
• /
• pp.123-163
• /
• 2014

As results of analyzing judicial precedents about infection in hospitals in connection with mistakes and causality in medical litigations shows that the Mitigation of Law Principles To Prove responsibility in medical litigation has not been able to play its role compared to its intended purposes. And Major sentiment from those judgments is that a mistake can't be proved only by the fact that certain infection in hospital occurred in connection with hospital infection. Therefore, the number of indirect facts to deny estimation is overwhelmingly high. Like this, especially for hospital infection which is difficult to prove indirect facts themselves to estimate mistake, major sentiment from those judgments have a problem that impute sharing of losses caused by hospital infection to patient. In accordance with the Principles of equitable and proper sharing of losses, it's required to prepare legal interpretation and theoretical methods to largely mitigate patient's responsibility to prove medical mistakes compared to other medical litigations in connection with existing Mitigation of Law Principles To Prove responsibility and conventional theory of estimation. In connection with this, the results of review that duty of safety management in hospital infection cases can be the base of conversion of proving responsibility, the duty that prevent hospital infection, corresponding the duty of safety management in hospital infection is not conventional duty of safety management based on duty of good faith but secondary obligation of medical contract. The breach of duty preventing hospital infection is the violation of medical contract, but there is no logical necessity that convert proving responsibility from the obligation of contract itself. Therefore, the duty of preventing hospital infection from the obligation of medical contract, corresponding the duty of safety management in hospital infection cases cannot be the base of conversion of proving responsibility alone. But, it's still required to conversion of proving responsibility in hospital infection, we need further studies on cases of Germany which applies legal estimation of proving responsibilities in hospital infection.

• 기술혁신학회지
• /
• 제20권1호
• /
• pp.127-152
• /
• 2017

중국의 실용신안은 발명 특허를 보완하기 위한 것으로, 신청기한이 짧고 수권속도가 빠르며 발명 특허와 마찬가지로 독점권이 있어 기업이 빠른 속도로 시장을 선점하는데 유리하다. 그러나 중국에서의 실용신안권은 실질 심사를 하지 않기 때문에 안정성이 낮은 편이고 무효 기각된 가능성이 높기 때문에 발명특허보다 보호에 어려움이 있다. 중국은 국내 중소기업의 발명과 창조 활동을 적극 장려하고 자국의 실용신안을 보호하기 위해 실용신안에 특허권평가보고와 비슷한 특허보호정책을 제정하였고 특히 특허침해소송 시 특허권평가보고를 근거로 삼아 실용신안 특허권자와 특허권 권리분쟁의 당사자를 사법적으로 구제할 수 있는 길을 열어 주었다. 많은 전문가들은 특허권평가보고 제도를 구축함으로서 실용신안 특허권의 안정성을 높일 수 있다고 주장한다. 또한 피고가 답변기한 내에 특허권 무효심판요청 시 특허권평가보고가 실용신안 특허권에 신규성, 진보성의 근거를 제시하지 못하거나 특허권이 안정성이 없다고 기록하지 못할 상황에서 법원은 심판을 중지하지 않고 재심사위원회의 특허권 무효심판 결정의견을 기다리지 않아도 되어 사법 절차의 효율을 높이고 특허권자의 권리유지 시간을 가속화하는 데 유리하다. 그러나 실질적인 특허권 침해 분쟁에서 특허권평가보고서제도와 무효심판제도는 충돌이 일어날 수 있다. 그러므로 본문에서는 현행 중국의 실용신안제도를 분석하고 한국의 실용신안제도와의 비교를 통해 중국의 특허권평가 보고서제도의 본질과 역할을 확인하고 실용신안 특허권 침해 소송의 실제 사례를 통해 특허권평가보고의 결과로 인한 변수를 분석하여 특허권평가보고와 무효심판이 충돌하는 실질적인 원인을 규명하고 특허권 평가보고서제도의 유효성과 권리 보호를 위한 특허권평가보고서제도의 활용에 관해 연구해 보고자 한다.

• 시큐리티연구
• /
• 제34호
• /
• pp.7-32
• /
• 2013

이 연구는 '안전한 공원조성'을 위한 노력들이 공원관리주체인 지방자치단체와 경찰에 의해서만 달성되기에는 한계가 있다는 인식에서 출발하였다. 연구의 목적은 공원에서 발생가능성이 있는 다양한 형태의 범죄에 대한 예방 및 대응전략에 관한 최근의 정책동향과 그 한계를 고찰하고 보다 근본적인 공원안전관리방안을 실효적이고 지속적으로 투입할 수 있는 방안으로 민간경비의 활용방안에 대한 법률적, 실천적 방안과 기대효과를 검토하여 제시하고자 한다. 연구방법은 첫째, 자료수집의 분석을 통해 공원안전관리정책의 최근 동향을 고찰하였다. 둘째, 미국의 공원안전을 위한 정책과 관련된 사례연구를 통해 국내 공원범죄예방의 추진전략에 대한 시사점을 살펴보았다. 셋째, 서술적 방법으로 공원안전을 위한 민간경비의 역할과 활용방안을 제시하였다. 연구결과는 첫째, 공원안전을 위한 최근의 정책으로는 공원조성단계에서부터 범죄예방계획을 의무화하는 입법과 주요 공원에 대한 범죄 및 안전예방과 신속한 대응을 위한 공원 특별사법경찰제도의 도입, 서울지방경찰청에서 실시하는 안전한 공원을 시민에게 돌려주기 위한 적극적인 경찰대응 등을 확인할 수 있었다. 둘째, 사례연구를 통해 미국의 주요공원들은 공원안전의 문제점을 파악하고, 이를 개선하기 위해 구체적이고 엄격한 공원규칙을 제정하고, 공원경찰을 중심으로 인력을 통한 적극적인 예방 및 사후조치를 강화하고 있음을 확인하였다. 셋째, 민간경비의 활용방안으로는 공원관리자와 민간경비업체와의 계약을 통해 안전관리에 투입되는 자원을 선별하고, 전문적인 범죄 및 무질서 예방과 사후조치에 대한 경험과 기술을 활용하자는 것이다. 기대되는 효과로는 공원을 이용하는 시민들의 만족도 증가, 지속적이고 체계적인 범죄의 사전예방, 치안공동생산의 확산과 더불어 민간경비 활동영역의 증대 등을 들 수 있다.