• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제25권4호
• /
• pp.77-95
• /
• 2015

CISG provides a uniform framework for contracts of sale of goods between parties whose places of business are in different States. In 2004 South Korea became the 63th State around world to adopt CISG. Starting next year CISG goes into effect as the law that governs the contracts for international sale of goods, in respect of which CISG displaces the existing domestic civil and commercial codes of Korea. By its provision Article 1(a), CISG applies directly between Contracting States without reference to private international law. As South Korea's biggest trade partners including China, the U.S. and Japan are also parties to CISG, the number of such direct applications continuously increases. Now it is estimated, though roughly, that CISG governs about two-thirds of Korea's import and export trade of goods. The private survey of the author shows that up to now in South Korea there are 39 court cases decided by the first instance courts, 29 cases by the appellate court and six cases by the Supreme Court of South Korea. In nearly all these cases, CISG applied directly. Furthermore, currently CISG is, in several respects, influencing upon the revision of Korean civil code which is designed to modernize it: The revised draft published in 2013 adopts the rules on the revocation of offers provided in articles 15 and 16, the rule on the termination of offers provided in article 17 and the rule on the time that an acceptance takes its effect provided in article 18 of CISG. More importantly, in accordance with the rules taken by CISG, the revision draft no longer requires the existence of fault or negligence on behalf of the breaching party in order for the aggrieved party to void the contract, and the revised draft denies the right of avoidance for trivial, not fundamental, breaches of contract.

• 한국컴퓨터정보학회논문지
• /
• 제11권5호
• /
• pp.59-67
• /
• 2006

본 논문에서는 지수평활을 이용한 법원경매 정보 시스템의 낙찰가 예측 방법을 제안하였다. 이 시스템은 권리분석을 위하여 낙찰가를 예측하고, 낙찰예측가에 따라 배당 정보를 제공하도록 설계되어 있으며 이를 구현하기 위하여 물건 자료의 입력 인터페이스와 정보 제공을 위한 웹 인터페이스를 구축하였다. 자료 입력 인터페이스는 자료의 입력, 수정, 삭제 기능을 가지며, 웹 인터페이스는 법원경매 물건을 중심으로 관련 정보를 제공한다. 실시간 정보 제공에 초점을 두고 자동 권리분석이 가능하도록 하기 위하여 낙찰가를 시계열 자료로 표현하여 지수평활을 이용한 낙찰예상가를 예측하는 방법을 제안하고, 기존의 방법과 비교 실험을 통하여 제안방법의 유효성을 검증한다.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제23권1호
• /
• pp.153-175
• /
• 2013

The issue of patent validity becomes a subject of dispute under the FTA and there is a definite difference of opinion between China, Japan, and Korea. In other words, the validity of a judgment on the patent was exclusively under the jurisdiction of the administrative agency at a particular patent office. Thus, the issue arises where there is a potential judgment on patent validity. In this case, the Supreme Court rather than the patent office can offer a judgment from a judicial institution and can make a judgment in the case of a medication. In China, however, the lowest possibility of judgment on patent validity is predicted to occur in judicial institutions. Such a judgment is recognized as the Grand Bench Decision in Korea, and the court can judge the patent validation rather than the patent office. That is just the case in the Kilby case-it is invalid for reasons obvious in Japan. Therefore, there is a substantial difference between the three countries. Especially in Japan, where after the Kilby case, they revised the patent law in 2004 to introduce Article 104-3, placing the judgment of patent validity in the court, even if the "Apparentness"is not requisite. Per this law, infringers can argue for patent invalidity not only the judgment of the patent invalidation but also the infringement lawsuit. From the point of view of Japan, Korea became the judgment of trademark validation by extension and obvious cases can become directly to judge through the Supreme Court about the right that needs to examinations and registrations. In terms of the mediation, it also provides a clue about the judgment of intellectual property validation and expands the scope of the mediation in the future. From now on, in order to have active mediation procedures in the three countries, China, Japan, and Korea would need to unify regulations and application scopes for mediation in the FTA negotiation and to look forward to achieve a vigorous mediation approach.

• 건축역사연구
• /
• 제6권1호
• /
• pp.47-65
• /
• 1997

In the time of the rule of Japanese imperialism, Japanese style official residence played major role at the implantation of modern dwellings into Korea and its influences on Korean modern dwellings are distinguishable. This study focuses on the Japanese style official residence implanted into Korea before 1910. Before 1910 Japanese civilians in Korea builded just a traditional Japanese dwellings at the Japanese settlement in the ports opened. But Japanese engineers engaged in governmental organization of construction in the Old-Korean Empire builded a central corridor type Japanese dwellings as official residence. The central corridor type Japanese dwelling was an urban dwelling compromised between Japanese style and western style and distinguished by an outer-court type plan, Japanese entrance hall, central corridor and western style reception room. It is certified that the central corridor type Japanese dwelling was implanted into Korea before 1910 and this was the first time an urban dwelling to be implanted and spread through the whole Korea. The central corridor type Japanese dwelling implanted into Korea took in On-Dol and transformed to Korea-Japanese eclectic style. The central corridor type Japanese dwellings implanted into Korea in the time of the rule of Japanese imperialism makes function as a precedent of a modern urban dwelling to Korean and makes Korean dwellings transform from the rural inner court type into the urban outer court type.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제77권
• /
• pp.43-67
• /
• 2018

Arbitration is one of alternative dispute resolution systems which settle a dispute by arbitrators(private persons) based on a contract between contracting parties without a judicial litigation system involved. As a valid arbitration agreement is an essential requirement for commencement of arbitration, the first thing to be determined is whether there is a valid arbitration agreement or not when a dispute is submitted. A consumer arbitration agreement usually exists as an arbitration clause in an adhesive contract between consumers and a seller. When consumers buy a product from a seller, they are requested to agree on a general terms and conditions which are unilaterally drafted by a seller in advance. These terms and conditions are not negotiable because it is an adhesive contract and consumers are placed in "take-it-or-leave-it" position. Therefore, even though there is an arbitration agreement between consumers and a seller, it has to be carefully considered whether it has a legal effect or not. In this respect, a court will examine if an arbitration agreement has procedural unconscionability and substantive unconscionability. Therefore, as U.S is a well-advanced and arbitration-friendly country, this paper analyzes four U.S cases to find out (i) what a court considers, (ii) how a court examines and interprets procedural and substantive unconscionability and (iii) if there has been a change in regard to a court's decision. By doing so, it will provide some suggestions and guidelines for a consumer arbitration in Korea.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제16권2호
• /
• pp.51-88
• /
• 2006

The obligation on a national court to recognize and enforce arbitral awards as provided in Article III New York Convention, which both Korea and China have ratified, is subject to limited exceptions. Recognition and enforcement will be refused only if the party against whom enforcement is sought can show that one of the exclusive grounds for refusal enumerated in Article V(1) New York Convention has occurred. The court may also refuse enforcement ex officio if the award violates that state's public policy. This article explores the circumstances where arbitral awards may be refused enforcement under the Korean and Chinese arbitration laws. It first analyzes the relevant statutory provisions. In Korea and China, which have adopted the UNCITRAL Model law, the grounds of challenge are exhaustively defined within their respective arbitration laws. According to their arbitration laws, an arbitral award may be set aside if a party making the application proves that (i) a party to the arbitration agreement was under some incapacity or the agreement is not valid under the applicable law, (ii) the party making the application was not given proper notice of the appointment of an arbitrator or of the arbitral proceedings or was otherwise unable to present his case, (iii) the award deals with a dispute not contemplated by or not falling within the terms of the submission to arbitration or contains decisions on matters beyond the scope of the submission to arbitration, or (iv) the composition of the arbitral tribunal or the arbitral procedure was not in accordance with the agreement of the parties. An arbitral award may also be set aside ex officio by the court if the court finds that (i) the subject-matter of the dispute is not capable of settlement by arbitration under the applicable law or (ii) the award is in conflict with the public policy. This article then reviews relevant judicial decisions rendered in Korea and China to see how the courts in these countries have been interpreting the provisions specifying the grounds for challenging arbitral awards. It concludes that the courts in Korea and China rarely accept challenges to arbitral awards, thereby respecting the mandate of the New York Convention.

• 한국기록관리학회지
• /
• 제19권2호
• /
• pp.77-107
• /
• 2019

본 연구의 목적은 법원정보공개제도 운영 현황을 분석하여 문제점을 파악한 후, 앞으로 보다 효과적이고 실질적으로 정보공개청구가 이루어질 수 있도록 개선 방안을 제시하는데 있다. 이를 위해 "사법연감"에 공표된 데이터와 법원정보공개청구시스템에 청구된 데이터를 활용하여 2007년부터 2017년까지 법원의 정보공개청구 처리 동향을 살펴보았다. 데이터 분석 결과를 토대로 담당자에 따른 상이한 처리 결과, 높은 취하 및 민원회신 비율, 정보부존재 증가 추세 등을 문제점으로 도출하였는데, 가장 큰 문제점은 낮은 정보공개 처리비율이었다. 이를 향상시키기 위하여 각종 청구제도 안내 강화, 정보공개청구 담당자의 교육 강화, 매뉴얼 발간, 사전정보나 원문정보 제공 확대 등을 개선 방안으로 제안하였다.

• Journal of Acupuncture Research
• /
• 제29권4호
• /
• pp.71-79
• /
• 2012

Objectives : The purpose of this study is to set the explanatory duty on traditional Korean medical(TKM) treatment by analyzing the judicial precedents. Methods : The study was performed by analyzing nine cases of lawsuits related to Korean medicine doctor and explanatory duty among the medical dispute cases in Korea from 1968 through 2012. Results : Nine closed claims occurred regarding the violation of explanatory duties in the field of TKM practice. Two claims were decided by supreme court, three were decided by high court, and four were decided by district court. The causes of lawsuits were categorized as follows : bee venom pharmacopuncture, herb treatment, and an explanation for safety. Conclusions : To perform an explanatory duty has important legal implications for the protection of patients' rights and Korean Medicine doctors' autonomy on TKM treatment.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제32권2호
• /
• 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.

• 의료법학
• /
• 제15권2호
• /
• pp.435-459
• /
• 2014

Supreme Court of Korea has been mitigating the burden of proof on the malpractice and causal relation by a patient in accordance with the practical transfer of such burden of proof on causal relation as well as relieving a doctor's burden of proof on mistake in the civil damage claim suits on the malpractice. However, a prosecutor shall strictly prove the causal relation between malpractice and unfavorable results as well as a doctor's mistake in the criminal cases for making a doctor accept the professional negligence resulting in death or injury in accordance with In Dubio Pro Reo principles. Furthermore, it shall not be allowed to relieve the burden of proof on malpractice and causal relation which has been frequently applied in the civil proceedings. Nevertheless, it was widely known that the front-line courts accepted the malpractice and causal relation by quoting the legal principles on relieving the burden of proof on malpractice and causal relation applied in the civil cases even in criminal cases with no or insufficient proof on malpractice or causal relation. However, the latest precedents in Supreme Court explicitly declared the opinion that there was no reason to apply the legal principle to relieve the burden of proof on the malpractice and causal relation in the criminal cases requiring the proof 'which doesn't cause any reasonable doubt' on malpractice and causal relation in accordance with the legal principles 'favorable judgment for a defendant in case of any doubt' on the basis of the strict principle of 'nulla poena sine lege.' Accordingly, Supreme court definitely clarified that there would be no reason to relieve the burden of proof on malpractice and causal relation in criminal cases by reversing several original judgments accepting malpractice and causal relation even though there were no strict evidence.