• Journal of Technology Innovation
• /
• v.21 no.2
• /
• pp.319-354
• /
• 2013

As creative economy gets attention, the capabilities of transforming creative ideas into intellectual property and utilizing it commercially have become important than ever before. Korea is lack of the capabilities of utilizing intellectual property compared to those of accumulating it. This paper focuses on the strategic implication of an injunctive relief, which has a far-reaching impact on firms' business strategies as well as national industrial competitiveness because losers in lawsuits are expelled from markets. It analyzes the Samsung-Apple global IP lawsuits about smartphones and tablet PCs, which have expanded into 9 countries since 2011 when the Apple filed the IP lawsuit against Samsung in the US for the first time. In particular, this paper analyzes the requirements to get the permanent injunctive relief in the lawsuits of intellectual property from reviewing the ruling in the court of the US in 2012 and draws some implications from the perspective of business/industrial strategies. This paper has some limitations in that the lawsuit are still ongoing and it is the first attempt to find out the clue that connects legal and strategic issues in the rulings. Regardless of the limitations, however, this paper expects to contribute to raising the issues as to the importance of harmonizing the capabilities of managing technology with law, in order to survive under the era of creative economy.

• Journal of Korean Society of Transportation
• /
• v.20 no.3
• /
• pp.179-192
• /
• 2002

주차금지, 일방통행. 본 논문에서의 횡단보도와 같은 교통표지는 개별적 행위로서 행정행위가 아니라 불특정 다수의 행위를 추상적으로 규율하는 특성을 지닌다. 현행 도로교통법상 횡단보도의 설치여부는 지방경찰청장의 재량 사항으로 규정되어 있어 경찰이 횡단보도를 새로 설치하거나 기존의 횡단보도를 폐지하는 경우 관할 경찰청은 물론 관계 행정청에 이를 설치 혹은 폐지해달라는 민원이 매우 많아 일선 경찰공무원 등이 많은 애로를 느끼고 있으며 급기야는 본고에서 검토할 사례의 경우와 같이 행정소송을 통해 뜻을 관철하고자 하는 경우까지 생겼다. 횡단보도의 설치와 관련한 대법원 판결(대법원 2000.10.27.선고, 98두8964판결)이 이제 처음 나왔지만 시민의 권리의식의 향상에 따른 소송의 증가경향으로 미루어 앞으로 이와 유사한 문제제기는 더욱 늘어날 것으로 전망된다. 이에 본고에서는 횡단보도의 설치와 관련한 행정소송에 대한 최근 대법원판결에 대한 심층분석을 통하여 그 의미와 문제점을 지적함으로써 앞으로 이와 유사한 사례에 대한 판단에 있어 방향성을 제시하였다. 즉 횡단보도 설치행위의 적법성과 관련한 소송에서 가능한 본안심리를 통해 국민의 권익구제의 기회 내지 가능성을 열어주는 것이 바람직하다는 점과 현재 원고적격의 범위가 확대되어 가고 있는 추세에 비추어 앞으로 횡단보도의 설치와 관련한 원고적격의 범위 역시 확대되는 것이 바람직하다는 방향에서 법규정에 대한 새로운 해석을 시도하였고 이를 통해 횡단보도의 설치 및 폐지에 따른 경찰 등 관계 행정청의 관심과 신중을 촉구하였다. 또한 횡단보도 설치행위의 처분성과 관련하여 횡단보도의 설치행위와 같은 일반적인 명령을 항고소송의 대상으로 할 필요성이 존재한다면 이른바 독일에서의 일반처분이라는 개념을 무리하게 받아들여 이를 행정행위의 한 유형으로 한다거나 우리 판례와 같이 "직접적이고 구체적인 법적 효과"를 미치는 명령이라는 명확치 않은 기준에 의하여 처분성을 인정하기보다는 일반적인 명령과 개별적인 행정행위를 구분하고 명령에 대하여도 취소소송의 대상으로 삼도록 하는 보다 명확하고 일관성 있는 논의전개를 제안하였다.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.33 no.1
• /
• pp.45-79
• /
• 2018

An increase of airplanes and military aircraft operation lead to significant demanding of residential claims by people who live in nearby airports and military bases due to noise, vibration and residential damages caused by aircraft operations. In recent years, a plaintiff has filed a lawsuit against the defendant, claiming the prohibition of using claimant's possessed land as a helicopter landing route, and the Daejeon High Court was in favour of the plaintiff. Although the Supreme Court later dismissed the Appeal Court decision, it is necessary to discuss the case of setting flight prohibited zone. In Japan, the airport noise lawsuits have been filed for a long time, mainly by environmental groups. Unlike the case that admitted residential damages caused by noise, the Yokohama District Court for the first time sentenced a judgment of the prohibition of the flight. This ruling was partially changed in the appellate court and some of the plaintiffs' claims were adopted. However, the Supreme Court of Japan finally rejected such decision from appeal and district courts. Atsugi Base is an army camp jointly used by the United States and Japan, and residents, live nearby, claim that they are suffering from mental damage such as physical abnormal, insomnia, and life disturbance because of the noise from airplane taking off and landing in the base. An administrative lawsuit was therefore preceded in the Yokohama District Court. The plaintiff requested the Japan Self-Defense Forces(hereinafter 'JSDF') and US military aircraft to be prohibited operating. The court firstly held the limitation of the flight operation from 10pm to 6am, except unavoidable circumstance. The case was appealed. The Supreme Court of Japan dismissed the original judgment on the flight claim of the JSDF aircraft, canceled the first judgment, and rejected the claims of the plaintiffs. The Supreme Court ruled that the exercise of the authority of the Minister of Defense is reasonable since the JSDF aircraft is operating public flight high zone. The court agreed that noise pollution is such an issue for the residents but there are countermeasures which can be taken by concerned parties. In Korea, the residents can sue against the United States or the Republic of Korea or the Ministry of National Defense for the prohibition of the aircraft operation. However, if they claim against US government regarding to the US military flight operation, the Korean court must issue a dismissal order as its jurisdiction exemption. According to the current case law, the Korean courts do not allow a claimant to appeal for the performance of obligation or an anonymous appeal against the Minister of National Defense for prohibiting flight of military aircraft. However, if the Administrative Appeals Act is amended and obligatory performance litigation is introduced, the claim to the Minister of National Defense can be permitted. In order to judge administrative case of the military aircraft operation, trade-off between interests of the residents and difficulties of the third parties should be measured in the court, if the Act is changed and such claims are granted. In this connection, the Minister of National Defense ought to prove and illuminate the profit from the military aircraft operation and it should be significantly greater than the benefits which neighboring residents will get from the prohibiting flight of military aircraft.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.27 no.1
• /
• pp.85-106
• /
• 2017

This article deals with the relationship between arbitration and state court in each procedural stage. As most legal systems over the world respect arbitration agreement, the relationship between arbitration and state courts puts emphasis on party autonomy and provides the independent power of arbitration agreement tribunal (Kompetenz-Kompetenz). Most institutional arbitration rules the arbitral tribunal to rule on its own jurisdiction. Modern national laws have similar provisions based on Art. 16 UNCITRAL Model Law. In this regards the author throws a question in Chapter II, whether the doctrine of Kompetenz-Kompetenz, namely the ability of the tribunal to decide upon its own jurisdiction is worth while persisting, and whether the Kompetenz-Kompetenz-agreement should be regarded as valid, with the conclusion, that this doctrine should concede to the power of state court and that Kompetenz-Kompetenz-Klausel is invalid. In Chapter III the author discusses the issue of whether the breach of an arbitration agreement could lead to the compensation of damage. Although the author stands for the procedural character of arbitration agreement, he offers a proposal that the breach of an arbitration agreement bring about the compensation of damage. The issue of anti-suit injunction is discussed also in this Chapter. He is against the approval of anti-suit injunction based on an arbitration agreement resisting the other party from pursuing a lawsuit in a foreign country.