• The Korean Journal of Archival Studies
• /
• no.17
• /
• pp.85-114
• /
• 2008

One of the features of record management during the Gabo Reform is that the documents office controled producing and distribution of records. The records completed the operations were sent the record office and classified and arranged. previous researches understood this record management system during Gabo Reform were introduced from Japan. This article clarifies that new record management system settled through Meiji Restoration were introduced from German(Prussian) registry system at the time. However, German registry system managed current records and this system was based on modern record management system which open the records to the public with archives. Japan accepted only registry system, current record management system of German, and didn't established archives at Meiji regime. It is same with Joseon Dynasty during the Gabo Reform regime. Therefore, the record related regulation at the Gabo Reform regime could not be judged to be a modern system. The regulations on records at Gabo Reform regime had no terms about people's right or open the records to the public which decides modern record regulations. The meaning of record system during Gabo Reform regime is that the value of records and name of organizations coincides with record life cycle. The documents office managed current records and record office classified and filed closed records. Concept of "current record=document=documents office, non-current record=record= record office" didn't succeed to today. The term 'record' is used as current record or non-current record without difference.

• The Journal of the Korea Contents Association
• /
• v.15 no.9
• /
• pp.126-133
• /
• 2015

According to the traditional precedent, if a beneficiary who completed a provisional registration as a result of reservation of trade which is a fraudulent act, then assigned the right acquired by the provisional registration to the third party who has no information of the process, and let the third party complete an additional registration transfer the provisional registration, and if the third party completed the main registration on the foundation of the provisional registration, the beneficiary cannot be the other party of the litigation requesting for the cancellation of registration of the provisional registration. As the result, an apprehension that the duty to recovery of the beneficiary could easily be acquitted of a charge has existed. But, it is considered as desirable that the judicial decision judged that the court recognized the qualification of the defendant as appropriate at this case, with a different view from the precedent, and then the defendant can file the litigation against the beneficiary, requesting for cancellation of the reservation of trade which is a fraudulent act.