• 한국노년학
• /
• v.38 no.4
• /
• pp.1057-1081
• /
• 2018

This study analyzed the case of elderly care cluster in Gwangjin-gu to explore the possibilities of social economy as a provider of community-based social services. Community-based means the approach by which community organizations build a voluntary and collaborative network to enhance collective problem-solving abilities. Therefore, it is very likely that the social economy that emphasizes people, labor, community, and democratic principles can contribute to community-based social services. This study analyzed social economic network by using four characteristics of social economy suggested by OECD community economy and employment program as an analysis framework. The results of this study are as follows: First, it is found that social economy would hardly supply community-based social services through network cooperation because of a large variation in community identity, investment to new product, and labor protection. Second, community users are not the consumers of the social economy and the products of the social economy stay in market products only for the organizations in social economy. In order to create good services that meet the needs of residents, community development approaches are required at the same time. The importance of community space where local residents and social economy meet is derived. Third, public support such as purchasing support has weakened the ecosystem of social economy by making the distinction between public economy and social economy more obscure. On the other hand, public investment in community infrastructure is an indirect aid to social economy to communicate with residents and to promote good supply and consumption. In the end, community-based social services need a platform where the social economy and the people meet. This type of public investment can create the ecosystem of the social economy.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.21 no.1
• /
• pp.169-189
• /
• 2006

In 2007, KSLV(Korea Small Launching Vehicle) that we made at Goheung National Space Center is going to launch and promotes of our space exploration systematically and 'Space Exploration Promotion Act' was enter into force. 'Space Exploration Promotion Act' article 3, section 1, as is prescribing "Korean government keeps the space treaties contracted with other countries and international organizations and pursues after peaceful uses of outer space." The representative international treaties are Outer Space Treaty (1967) and Liability Convention (1972) etc. In Liability convention article 2, "A launching State shall be absolutely liable to pay compensation for damage caused by its space object on the surface of the earth or to aircraft in flight. The important content of the art. 2 is the responsible entity is the 'State' not the 'Company'. According by Korean Space Exploration Act art. 14, person who launches space objects according to art. 8 and art. 11 must bear the liability for damages owing to space accidents of the space objects. Could Korean government apply the Products Liability Act which is enter into force from July 1, 2002 to space launching person? And what is the contact type between Korea Aerospace Research Institute(KARl) and Russia manufacturer. Is that a Co-Development contract or Licence Product contract? And there is no exemption clause to waive the Russia manufacturer's liability which we could find it from other similar contract condition. If there is no exemption clause to the Russia manufacturer, could we apply the Korean Products Liability Act to Russia one? The most important legal point is whether we could apply the Korean Products Liability Act to the main component company. According by the art. 17 of the contract between KARl and the company, KARl already apply the Products Liability Act to the main component company. For reference, we need to examine the Appalachian Insurance co. v. McDonnell Douglas case, this case is that long distance electricity communication satellite of Western Union Telegraph company possessions fails on track entry. In Western Union's insurance company supplied to Western Union with insurance of $ 105 millions, which has the satellite regard as entirely damage. Five insurance companies -Appalachian insurance company, Commonwealth insurance company, Industrial Indemnity, Mutual Marine Office, Northbrook Excess & Surplus insurance company- went to court against McDonnell Douglases, Morton Thiokol and Hitco company to inquire for fault and strict liability of product. By the Appalachian Insurance co. v. McDonnell Douglas case, KARl should waiver the main component's product liability burden. And we could study the possibility of the adapt 'Government Contractor Defense' theory to the main component company.