• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.18 no.1
• /
• pp.37-60
• /
• 2017

Ownership is the bundle of rights that allow a person or institute to use and control an object. As the biomedical science is advanced, we should consider whether human biological material should be recognized as property. Whether separated parts of the human body can be objects of ownership is a different issue. Many thought that separated parts of the human body could not be objects of ownership. This idea is primarily based on this thought: even if a piece of human biological material is separated from a person, it still relates to that person, and if treated as a thing, human dignity may be harmed. However, some commentators have admitted separated parts of the human body into the realm of property. Though a person owns his/her body or body parts, this does not mean that he/she can do anything he/she desires. There are many natural and social limitations to exercise the ownership of human biological material as discussed above. Human dignity is the core consideration whether or not we recognize that ownership of human biological material biomedical research and knowledge.

• Journal of Science and Technology Studies
• /
• v.11 no.2
• /
• pp.31-66
• /
• 2011

The main issue in Korean debates over genetically modified (GM) foods have been government's responsibility to guarantee consumers' right-to-know and make informed choice. Counter-experts' critique over the current regulatory processes based upon substantial equivalence have not been widely publicized. Through interviews and textual analysis, this paper explored three groups' performances in Korean GM food controversies-regulatory scientists, civil society organizations, and counter-experts. Analytic focus was made upon how each of the groups interact with current GM food regulations. While making conflicts with regulatory scientists and their 'discourse of compliance with global standards,' counter-experts were excluded from regulatory processes. This article suggests that the processes and contexts in which counter-experts failed to form strong alliance with other groups need to be examined in order to further understand the specific contours of Korean GM food controversies.

• Journal of Convergence for Information Technology
• /
• v.9 no.5
• /
• pp.228-235
• /
• 2019

The purpose of this study is to explore the experiences and challenges of public guardianship services project for the mental disabled as a system of supporting the decision-making and the rights advocacy. For this purpose, interviews with 11 social workers who act as public guardians were conducted and a model of practice was suggested through analysis using the grounded theory of Strauss and Corbin(1998). As a results, the possibility of rights advocacy through public guardian services for the mentally disabled, the positive change of attitude of the facilities and the establishment of direction for the restoration of rights for the mentally disabled were derived. Public guardians experienced excessive empowerment of their guardians or difficulties in the process of their duties, but were also able to defend the rights of the mental disabled and support self-determination right. Through this study, expansion of budgets and expansion of beneficiaries for public guardianship services, establishment of infrastructure for integration in the community, set-up a support organization for public guardian services and Raising awareness of the mental disabled and public guardian services were suggested.

• Maritime Security
• /
• v.3 no.1
• /
• pp.1-44
• /
• 2021

China's new Maritime Policy Law (MPL) purports to regulate the duties of China's maritime police agencies, including the China Coast Guard, and safeguard China's sovereignty, security, and rights and interest. The MPL has potentially far-reaching application, as China claims extensive maritime areas off its mainland and in the South China Sea. This expansive application of maritime law enforcement jurisdiction is problematic given that most of China's maritime claims are inconsistent with international law. To the extent that the MPL purports to assert jurisdiction over foreign flagged vessels in disputed areas or on the high seas, it contravenes international law. Numerous provisions of the MPL regarding the use of force are also inconsistent with international rules and standards governing the use of maritime law enforcement jurisdiction, as well as the UN Charter's prohibition on the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. China could use the MPL as a subterfuge to advance its illegal territorial and maritime claims in the South and East China Seas and interfere with coastal State resource rights in their respective exclusive economic zone.

• Journal of Convergence for Information Technology
• /
• v.12 no.5
• /
• pp.150-158
• /
• 2022

The purpose of this study is to confirm the effectiveness of the evaluation of long-term care insurance visiting care service institutions for the elderly from the user's point of view. To this end, data from a survey of 266 users collected through allocation sampling by region(14 cities and counties) in Jeollabuk-do and public data from 47 institutions were combined and analyzed using a multi-layered model. The main research results are as follows. First, among the five evaluation areas, the higher the score in the 'Rights·Responsibility' area, which is to give users a sense of rights and respect users, the higher the service quality and satisfaction. Second, among the five evaluation areas, the 'Rights·Responsibility' area had an effect on loyalty. In addition, it was found that the 'Outcome' area for satisfaction with institutions and employees and changes in users had an effect on loyalty. Third, it was found that 'Institutional Management', 'Environment·Safety', 'Process' did not affect service quality, satisfaction, and loyalty. Based on these results, it is proposed to reorganize the evaluation scale that users can recognize and that is faithful to the purpose.

• Electronics and Telecommunications Trends
• /
• v.12 no.6 s.48
• /
• pp.136-149
• /
• 1997

본고에서는 발명명세서의 질적향상을 도모하고 진보성에 대한 거절을 명세서 작성시부터 극복함을 통해 권리획득 기간을 줄이기 위하여 특허의 요건인 진보성에 대하여 그 개념파악과 특허청 심사실무를 검토하고 그 대책을 강구하였다. 결국, 출원 명세서의 내용이 목적, 구성, 효과 측면에서 목적의 특이성과 구성의 곤란성, 효과의 현저성이 진보성 있는 발명임을 고려하여 해당기술분야 통상의 지식을 가진 제3자가 용이하게 알 수 있도록 해야 하며, 선행기술을 조사 분석하여 인용예가 발생하지 않도록 주의를 기울여야 할 것이다.

• Journal of Information Management
• /
• v.35 no.2
• /
• pp.107-130
• /
• 2004

MPEG-21 is an open standard framework for creation, delivery and consumption of digital content in interoperable and rights-managed and protected way. Focusing on DRM technologies, this paper covers with concept and ongoing activities of MPEG-21's parts - Digital Item Declaration which is the base unit of trade and delivery, Digital Item Identification, Intellectual Property Management & Protection, Rights Data Dictionary, Rights Expression Language, Persistent Association Technology, Event Reporting, and so on.

• Proceedings of the Korea Contents Association Conference
• /
• 2019.05a
• /
• pp.351-352
• /
• 2019

우리 저작권법은 저작권자에게 저작인격권을 통하여 성명표시권을 부여하고 있다. 저작권법 제12조에 의한 성명표시권은 저작권자가 자신의 저작물에 대하여 실명 또는 이명을 표시할 권리를 뜻한다. 우리 사회에는 대필작가, 소위 고스트라이터를 통해 저작물을 창작하고 최종 저작물(위탁저작물)에는 대필작가의 이름이 빠지는 경우가 관행적으로 이루어지고 있다. 그러나 법적 관점에서 볼 때 위탁저작물을 창작한 자는 대필작가이고, 대필작가의 이름이 저작물에 표시되지 않는 것은 성명표시권 침해에 해당한다. 또한 성명표시권과 같은 저작인격권은 일신전속성을 지닌 권리로 양도, 포기, 불행사가 불가능하다. 그렇기에 법적으로는 대필작가의 성명을 위탁저작물에 무조건 표시해야 하지만 현실은 그렇지 못하다. 그렇기에 본고에서는 이에 대하여 간략하게 살펴보겠다.

• Proceedings of the Korea Water Resources Association Conference
• /
• 2022.05a
• /
• pp.377-377
• /
• 2022

수리권은 물을 소유할 수 있는 권리가 아닌 지속적이고 배타적으로 물을 사용할 수 있는 권리를 의미한다. 국내 수리권은 공유하천용수권, 관행수리권, 허가수리권, 댐사용권 및 농어촌용수 수리권으로 구분되어 있다. 미국의 경우 연안주의 수리권 (Riparian Rights), 유용한 사용의 원칙 (Beneficial Use Doctorin)에 근거한 우선전용 수리권 (Prior Appropriation Rights)으로 구분되어 있으며 물 분쟁이 발생할 경우 동등배분원칙에 따라 해결방안을 제시하고 있다. 일본 수리권의 경우 댐 건설할 경우 건설 주체 및 비용 분담이 명확하게 규정되어 있어 별도의 수리권 규정 절차가 없으며 농업용수에 대한 관행수리권 또는 기득수리권이 존재할뿐 그 외의 생활용수 등에 대한 수리권은 존재하지 않는다. 이렇듯 본 연구에서 검토된 국내외 수리권 법률 및 해결 방안에 대한 비교 및 검토 결과는 향후 국내의 수리권 법률 규정에 기초 자료로 활용 될 수 있을 것이다.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.17 no.2
• /
• pp.145-173
• /
• 2016

A patient's Right to Self-Determination or his/her Right of Autonomy in the Republic of Korea has traditionally been understood as being composed of two elements. The first, is the patient's Right to Know as it pertains to the physician's Duty to Report [the Medical Situation] to the patient; the second, is the patient's Right to Consent and Right of Refusal as it pertains to the physician's Duty to Inform [for Patient's Consent]. The legal and ethical positions pertaining to the patient's autonomous decision, particularly those in the interest of the patient's not wanting to know about his/her own body or medical condition, were therefore acknowledged as passively expressed entities borne from the patient's forfeiture of the Right to Know and Right to Consent, and exempting the physician from the Duty to Inform. The potential risk of adverse effects rising as a result of applying the Informed Consent Dogma to situations described above were only passively recognized, seen merely as a preclusion of the Informed Consent Dogma or a denial of liability on part of the physician. In short, the legal measures that guarantee a patient's 'Wish for Ignorance' are not currently being understood and acknowledged under the active positions of the patient's 'Right Not to Know' and the physician's 'Duty to Consideration' (such as the duty not to inform). Practical and theoretical issues arise absent the recognition of these active positions of the involved parties. The question of normative evaluation of cases where a sizable amount of harm has come up on the patient as a result of the physician explaining to or informing the patient of his/her medical condition despite the patient previously waiving the Right to Consent or exempting the physician from the Duty to Inform, is one that is yet to be addressed; that of ascertaining direct evidence/legal basis that can cement legality to situations where the physician foregoes the informing process under consideration that doing so may cause harm to the patient, is another. Therefore it is the position of this paper that the Right [Not to Know] and the Duty [to Consideration] play critical roles both in meeting the legal normative requirements pertaining to the enrichment of the patient's Right to Self-Determination and the prevention of adverse effects as it pertains to the provision of [unwanted] medical information.