• Korean Journal of Logic
• /
• v.14 no.2
• /
• pp.77-104
• /
• 2011

Professor Hasuk Song argues that every argumentum ad ignorantiam, i.e. the argument from ignorance is not fallacious, and social contexts play a crucial role to judge whether the argument is fallacious or not. I generally agree with him, but I think we cannot have help from his position without knowing what those contexts are. In this paper, I argue that the concept of burden of proof is the crucial one to judge whether ad ignorantiam is plausible or not, and then present four criterions who have the burden of proof. There is a burden of proof on one who argues first, who insists the doubtful ones, who has powers, and who thinks that a situation is not dangerous.

• Korea Trade Review
• /
• v.43 no.3
• /
• pp.101-124
• /
• 2018

After the establishment of the Korean Product Liability Act, a new clause on the burden of proof has been added and is being revised to meet the purpose of consumer protection. Article 3(2) of the new clause stipulates a provision for estimating a causal relationship when proving indirect facts to alleviate burden of proof. While consumer rights are increasing and public attention is drawn to consumer issues, problems are still emerging. In order to solve the problem, the U.S. Product Liability Act, which has strong consumer rights, was examined to describe the direction in which Korea's Product Liability Act should proceed in terms of consumer protection. The results of the comparative analysis show that the US has expanded the concept of strict liability in terms of rigorous liability, consumer dispute resolution, provable possibility, and litigation accessibility, The consumer dispute settlement system has thoroughly protected consumers by operating educational and systemic consumer ADR system. As for the possibility of proving, Korea has three provenances, and the United States has one. In the United States, where consumer lawsuits are frequent, lawsuits are more accessible than those in Korea, where the party responsible for proving is turned into a manufacturer and responsible for proving the case. This study focuses on consumer protection and provides implications for Korean product liability law.

• Journal of Korea Fair Competition Federation
• /
• no.135
• /
• pp.2-14
• /
• 2007

공정거래법은 공법으로 원칙적으로 주무부처인 공정위가 부당한 공동행위의 합의에 대한 추정을 실질적인 경쟁을 제한한다고 판단할 수 있는 정황사실을 통해서 입증해야 할 책임이 있다. 개정된 법조문 내용은 입증 책임을 법집행당국인 공정위가 맡는다는 측면에서는 긍정적으로 판단된다. 기존 독점규제법 제19조 제5항의 법률적 성격을 법률상의 추정규정으로 해석할 경우 부당한 공동행위의 경우 형사소추 대상이 되는 범죄행위로 간주되어 기존 법 제19조 제5항의 법률상의 추정규정이 형사사법체계와 부조화되거나 혹은 실질적 죄형법정주의에 반하는 문제도 금번 법 개정으로 상당히 해소될 것으로 예상된다.

• Journal of the Korean BIBLIA Society for library and Information Science
• /
• v.17 no.1
• /
• pp.47-62
• /
• 2006

The purpose of this study is to identify reading effect of e-book versus printed book. For this purpose, 8 elementary school students participated in the reading project. The participants of this project read 'A'(printed book) and 'B'(e-book) literary works and were tested reading comprehension. According to conclusion of the study, there is no difference between printed book and e-book on reading effect. It is expected that this result can be used for e-library management and reading education.

• Journal of Environmental Policy
• /
• v.8 no.4
• /
• pp.125-147
• /
• 2009

The Basic Environmental Policy Act (BEPA) (Law No. 4257 effective 1. August 1990) sets forth the basic policies and administrative framework for environmental preservation, leaving more detailed regulations, and emission controls to separate laws targeting air, water, and solid waste, etc. The BEPA Article 31 adopts an unprecedented strict liability standard for damages as an absolute liability. The BEPA Article 31 provides for liability as follows. If a company is alleged to have caused damage through pollution of the environment, it will be liable for damages unless it can show that the pollution did not cause damages, or that it did not actually cause pollution. If the company did cause pollution, and if the pollution is the cause for the damages in question, the company will be liable irrespective of whether it was negligent or otherwise at fault. If there are two or more companies involved in the pollution, but it is unclear which company caused the damages, all of the companies will be jointly and severally liable for the damages. In this paper, the author attempts to uncover the problems of BEPA Article 31 and then seeks desirable amendments by comparing it to the German Environmental Liability Act. First, it will be necessary to provide definitions of 'companies etc.'. Second, it will be necessary to enumerate the kinds of company facilities. Third, it will be necessary to provide exclusionary clauses on material damages. Fourth, it will be necessary to show 'presumption of cause and effect'. Fifth, it will be necessary to provide a clause on 'right to information'. Sixth, it will be necessary to provide a clause for force majeure. Seventh, it will be necessary to take measures to secure abundant liability for damages which can be caused by the owner of the facility, the potential polluter. Finally, it is appropriate that Korea now legislate an Environmental Liability Act akin to the German Environmental Liability Act.

• Journal of the Korea Institute of Information Security & Cryptology
• /
• v.22 no.6
• /
• pp.1283-1292
• /
• 2012

As delivery services market has grown the damage cases are also continuously increased. When using delivery services, Customers would not be compensated in any way. Perhaps worse, losing a cargo would create a great deal of trouble. Because the lack of evidence, they takes a lot of time to clarify who is responsible. To prevent these things, we must create, collect, maintain and confirm. In this paper, we introduce new delivery system with a trusted third party for non-repudiation services. Moreover, in damage case, we show that the proposed system is efficient and provide non-repudiation. Using sending and receiving codes, the proposed system identifies a responsible subject with quickness and clearness.

• Proceedings of the Korea Institute of Fire Science and Engineering Conference
• /
• 2013.11a
• /
• pp.187-188
• /
• 2013

실화책임법에 의하면, 화재 발생 시 실화자는 중대한 과실이 아닌 경우 경제적요건, 화재원인 등에 따라 손해배상액의 경감을 청구할 수 있다. 손해배상액의 경감의 여부는 실화피해자의 화재복구에 영향을 끼치게 된다. 화재발생 시 실화자가 손해배상경감청구에 책임을 입증하여야한다. 그리고 실화피해자의 원활한 화재복구를 위해 실화자의 화재보험가입의 의무와 계약자의 안전한 보호 및 보험사의 책임 일부를 분산하는 제도인 재보험의 선택적 가입을 규정하고자 한다.

• Proceedings of the Korean Institute of Industrial Safety Conference
• /
• 2003.05a
• /
• pp.43-47
• /
• 2003

현대 과학기술의 발달과 더불어 생산되는 제품들은 점차 고도화·복잡화되고, 제품의 결함 또는 제품으로 인한 사고 원인을 소비자 스스로 밝혀내는 것이 거의 불가능하게 되었다. 따라서 제조물의 안전에 대한 우선적인 입증책임을 기업에게 요구하는 제조물책임법이 선진국에서 시행되었고, 최근 소비자의 권익 보호제도 확충으로 제조물에 대한 책임이 엄격화, 광범위화 되었으며, 유럽연합과 일본의 제조물책임법을 근간으로 제정한 국내의 제조물책임법이 2002년 7월 시행되었다.(중략)

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.17 no.2
• /
• pp.3-28
• /
• 2016

While product liability has been settled as a technical term in civil law, criminal law does not commonly accept technical term for it. Not like civil law, product liability in criminal law point outs individual responsibility and disability of normative order. Meaning that causation between individual's action of violation of duty and the result of danger of legal interest or infringement of legal interest must be proved. In criminal law excluding "non-result-constituted crimes (Unternehmensdelikt)", charge of injuring, accidental infliction of injury, homicide or involuntary manslaughter is problematic in product liability. Of course, it is necessary to distinguish whether the action related to the outcome is act or ommission. Also the causal relationship between the action and the result must be proved, and the intention or negligence should be recognized. In this paper, it analyzes cases that were problematic in Korea, Germany, Spain, etc. Mainly focusing on the problems revealed in the determination of causal relationship, especially recognizing criminal liability related to products. Furthermore it is followed by the view of reviewing the cause-and-effect relationship by 2 steps, dividing natural scientific causation and the normative causal relationship. In this process, to acknowledge criminal product liability in accordance with recognizing cause-and-effect relationship, there should be general risk of specific substance causing the outcome. This only premise can be meaningful to examine the casual relationship from specific cases. As it shows in some cases and theories, it is not contradicting general law of cause and effect by determining specific causal relationship by free evaluation of evidence if a general causal relationship does not exist. Also since judge's testimony does not hold a dominant position from rule of thumb, it is possible to recognize specific causal relationship. However this paper takes position that if there is no objective and reasonably undeniable cause and effect law. If there is no objective and reasonably undeniable causal law, which is the premise for recognizing concrete causal relations, judge should sentence guilty according to "in dubio pro reo" principle. In addition, it is not allowed for the defendant to burden unproven fact by free evaluation of evidence which has an effect of shift of burden of proof.

• Environmental engineer
• /
• s.139
• /
• pp.35-43
• /
• 1998