• Title/Summary/Keyword: 증명 부담의 원칙

Search Result 5, Processing Time 0.02 seconds

Analysis on Factors Determining Reliability of FTA Origin Certificate : Focusing on Characteristics of Firm, Product and Country (FTA 원산지 증명 신뢰성 결정 요인 분석 : 수출기업, 물품, 수출국가 특성을 중심으로)

  • AN, Yong-soon;CHO, Hyuk-soo
    • The Journal of shipping and logistics
    • /
    • v.35 no.2
    • /
    • pp.245-264
    • /
    • 2019
  • With the first agrement in 2004, Korea(ROK) has been one of the most active countries participating in FTA. Companies should meet some requirements to use preferential tariff benefits of FTA. For example, it is required for firms to fulfil the origin criteria and direct transportation principles. This study is designed to provide important factors determining reliability of FTA Origin Certificate. In specific, characteries of firm(trade experience, professional expertise), country (FTA participation, economic development) and product(processing level, value pricing) are investigated as determinants of how trust FTA origin certificate. According to the theoretical foundation and previous studies, this study made 6 hypotheses. SEM(Structural Equation Modeling) was used to test empirically the hypothesized relationships among variables. The empirical findings show that trade experience, professional expertise and FTA participation are important determinants. In other words, firms can trust more FTA Origin Certificate by trading partners with more trading experiences and professional expertises located in countries where participate actively in FTA.

Is Every Argument from Ignorance Fallacious? (무지로부터의 논증, 모두 오류인가?)

  • Song, Ha-Suk
    • Korean Journal of Logic
    • /
    • v.13 no.2
    • /
    • pp.61-82
    • /
    • 2010
  • The argument from ignorance that knowledge conclusion is derived from ignorance premises is claimed to be fallacious by many logicians such as I. Copi. According to them, some arguments from ignorance which seem to be acceptable are not really the arguments from ignorance. They say that such arguments have implicitly conditional knowledge premise. Against them, I argue that every argument from ignorance can be interpreted as having a hidden conditional premise, and that every argument from ignorance is not fallacious. I propose the criterion to judge which argument from ignorance is fallacious and which is persuasive. In particular, I argue that social contexts play a crucial role to judge whether a practical argument is fallacious or not.

  • PDF

Water Right Allocation for Equitable Water Use in Shared Rivers by North and South Koreas (남북공유하천의 공평한 물 이용을 위한 수리권 배분)

  • Ahn, Jong-Seo;Jung, Kwan-Sue;Lee, Gwang-Man
    • Proceedings of the Korea Water Resources Association Conference
    • /
    • 2011.05a
    • /
    • pp.101-105
    • /
    • 2011
  • 공유하천의 물 배분문제는 이해당사자간 입장차이가 뚜렷하여 일관된 해결책을 찾기가 어려운 과제이다. 따라서 문제해결을 위한 접근방법이나 적용하고자 하는 논리와 원칙이 일방적일 수 있으며, 연안국가간 서로 상반되는 논리를 주장하는 것이 대부분이다. 즉 어떤 국가든 자기에게 가장 유리한 입장을 취하게 되며 상대방의 주장에 동조하는 자세는 자국 내에서 큰 비판에 직면할 수 있다는 정치적 부담이 있다. 결국 각각의 연안국가들은 자기에게 가장 유리한 이론과 논리를 내세우게 되며 타협과 협력에 도달하기 위해서는 수문, 기상, 사회, 문화, 경제 및 정치적 문제를 극복해야 한다. 본 연구에서는 남북공유하천의 공평하고 합리적인 이용방법을 제시하기 위하여 이해관계가 복잡한 하류유역의 수리권을 추정하였다. 이를 위해 국제 공유하천에서 수리권 배분을 위한 표준화된 법칙이 없으므로 과거 사례 분석을 통해 해석방법을 찾고자 하였다. 아울러 현재 남북공유하천의 문제점을 진단하고 국제사례를 통해 하류국가인 남한지역에 기득수리권이 존재함을 증명하고자 하였다. 또한 수리권 배분(북한의 임남댐 보장방류량)을 위해 국제적으로 적용된 사례와 이의 평가기준 등을 고려하여 남북공유하천에 적용하고자 하였다.

  • PDF

A Legal Study on liability for damages cause of the air carrier : With an emphasis upon liability of passenger (항공운송인의 손해배상책임 원인에 관한 법적 고찰 - 여객 손해배상책임을 중심으로 -)

  • So, Jae-Seon;Lee, Chang-Kyu
    • The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
    • /
    • v.28 no.2
    • /
    • pp.3-35
    • /
    • 2013
  • Air transport today is a means of transport that is optimized for exchanges between nations. Around the world, has experienced an increase in operating and the number of airline route expansion that has entered into the international aviation agreements in order to take advantage of the air transport efficient, but the possibility of the occurrence of air transport accidents increased. When compared to the accident of other means of transport, development of air transport accidents, not high, but it leads to catastrophe aviation accident occurs. Air Transport accident many international transportation accident than domestic transportation accident, in the event of an accident, the analysis of the legal responsibility of the shipper or the like is necessary or passenger air carrier. Judgment of the legal order of discipline of air transport accident is a classification of the type of air transport agreement. Depending on the object, air transport agreements are classified into the contract of carriage of aviation of the air passenger transportation contract. For casualties occurs, air passenger transportation accident is a need more discussion of legal discipline for this particular. Korean Commercial Code, it is possible to reflect in accordance with the actual situation of South Korea the contents of the treaty, which is utilized worldwide in international air transport, even on the system, to control land, sea, air transport and welcoming to international standards. However, Korean Commercial Code, the problem of the Montreal Convention has occurred as it is primarily reflecting the Montreal Convention. As a cause of liability for damages, under the Commercial Code of Korea and the contents of the treaty precedent is reflected, the concept of accident is necessary definition of the exact concept for damages of passengers in particular. Cause of personal injury or death of passengers, in the event of an accident to the "working for the elevation" or "aircraft" on, the Montreal Convention is the mother method of Korea Commercial Code, liability for damages of air carrier defines. The Montreal Convention such, continue to be a matter of debate so far in connection with the scope of "working for the lifting of" the concepts defined in the same way from Warsaw Convention "accident". In addition, it is discussed and put to see if you can be included mental damage passenger suffered in air transport in the "personal injury" in the damage of the passenger is in the range of damages. If the operation of aircraft, injury accident, in certain circumstances, compensation for mental damage is possible, in the same way as serious injury, mental damage caused by aviation accidents not be able to live a normal life for the victim it is damage to make. So it is necessary to interpret and what is included in the injury to the body in Korea Commercial Code and related conventions, non-economic damage of passengers, clearly demonstrated from the point of view of prevention of abuse of litigation and reasonable protection of air carrier it must compensate only psychological damage that can be. Since the compensation of delay damages, Warsaw Convention, the Montreal Convention, Korea Commercial Code, there are provisions of the liability of the air carrier due to the delayed arrival of passenger and baggage, but you do not have a reference to delayed arrival, the concept of delay arrangement is necessary. The strict interpretation of the concept of delayed arrival, because it may interfere with safe operation of the air carrier, within the time agreed to the airport of arrival that is described in the aviation contract of carriage of passenger baggage, or, these agreements I think the absence is to be defined as when it is possible to consider this situation, requests the carrier in good faith is not Indian or arrive within a reasonable time is correct. The loss of passenger, according to the international passenger Conditions of Carriage of Korean Air, in addition to the cases prescribed by law and other treaties, loss of airline contracts, resulting in passengers from a service that Korean Air and air transport in question do damage was is, that the fact that Korean Air does not bear the responsibility as a general rule, that was caused by the negligence or intentional negligence of Korean Air is proof, negligence of passengers of the damage has not been interposed bear responsibility only when it is found. It is a clause in the case of damage that is not mandated by law or treaty, and responsible only if the negligence of the airline side has been demonstrated, but of the term negligence "for" intentional or negligent "Korean Air's Terms" I considered judgment of compatibility is required, and that gross negligence is appropriate. The "Korean Air international passenger Conditions of Carriage", airlines about the damage such as electronic equipment that is included in the checked baggage of passengers does not bear the responsibility, but the loss of baggage, international to arrive or depart the U.S. it is not the case of transportation. Therefore, it is intended to discriminate unfairly passengers of international flights arriving or departure to another country passengers of international flights arriving or departure, the United States, airlines will bear the responsibility for the goods in the same way as the contents of the treaty it should be revised in the direction.

  • PDF

A Study on Causal Relationship About the Reparations Range (손해배상범위에 관한 인과관계의 연구)

  • Choi Hwan-Seok;Park Jong-Ryeol
    • The Journal of the Korea Contents Association
    • /
    • v.6 no.4
    • /
    • pp.146-157
    • /
    • 2006
  • Causal relationship means what relations the result occurred have with a fact as a reason. In general, a formular that no result exists without reasons is used for the method to confirm existence and inexistence of causal relationship. Problematic causal relationships in Private Law are reparations (Article No. 393 of Private Law) due to debt nonfulfillment and reparation due to tort (Application of Article No. 393 by Article No. 750, and No. 763 of Private Law). The purpose pursued by reparation system in private law is to promote equal burden of damages, and the range of reparation at this time is decided by the range of damage and the range of damage is decided by the principle of causal relationship. That the causal relationship theory fairly causes confusion by treating one problem and the other problem as the same thing, instead of dividing them according to the purpose of protection presented by the law is a reason of the criticism from different views.

  • PDF