• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.8 no.1
• /
• pp.107-135
• /
• 2007

In preparation of the medical examination records, the failure to correctly write the taken medical behaviors on the medical examination records, is subject to criminal conviction due to the breach of the Article 21-1. The false or overstated writings on the medical examination records is subject to the same punishment due to the Article 21-1, which $\underline{additionally}$ may lead to the administrative measures such as the suspension of license according to Article 53-1. The interpretation is considered as proper in light of the function of the medical examination records, hazard to the patients, and the doctors' ethics. In light of the attitude of The Supreme Court for the preparation obligation of the medical examination records specified in the medical law Article 21-1(Purport : The doctors may continue to use their opinions on the patient's status and treatment process on the medical examination records, may provide the proper information to other medical staff, and ought to specify the details enough to decide the appropriateness of such medical behaviors after the recent treatment.), the false writings of the doctors on the medical examination records of the non-treated patient as faithfully treated one during the entire period before the present hospitalization, will be regarded as the fulfillment obligation of the preparation of the medical examination records in the medical law Article 21-1.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.38
• /
• pp.181-226
• /
• 2008

The purpose of this paper is to describe the settling procedures of the investor-state disputes in the FTA Investment Chapter, and to research on the international arbitration system for the settlement of the investor-state disputes under the ICSID Convention and UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules. The UNCTAD reports that the cumulative number of arbitration cases for the investor-state dispute settlement is 290 cases by March 2008. 182 cases of them have been brought before the ICSID, and 80 cases of them have been submitted under the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules. The ICSID reports that the cumulative 263 cases of investor-state dispute settlement have been brought before the ICSID by March 2008. 136 cases of them have been concluded, but 127 cases of them have been pending up to now. The Chapter 11 Section B of the Korea-U.S. FTA provides for the Investor_State Dispute Settlement. Under the provisions of Section B, the claimant may submit to arbitration a claim that the respondent has breached and obligation under Section A, an investment authorization or an investment agreement and that the claimant has incurred loss or damage by reason of that breach. Provided that six months have elapsed since the events giving rise to the claim, a claimant may submit a claim referred to under the ICSID Convention and the ICSID Rules of Procedure for Arbitration Proceedings; under the ICSID Additional Facility Rules; or under the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules. The ICSID Convention provides for the jurisdiction of the ICSID(Chapter 2), arbitration(Chapter 3), and replacement and disqualification of arbitrators(Chapter 5) as follows. The jurisdiction of the ICSID shall extend to any legal dispute arising directly out of an investment, between a Contracting State and a national of another Contracting State, which the parties to the dispute consent in writing to submit to the ICSID. Any Contracting State or any national of a Contracting State wishing to institute arbitration proceedings shall address a request to that effect in writing to the Secretary General who shall send a copy of the request to the other party. The tribunal shall consist of a sole arbitrator or any uneven number of arbitrators appointed as the parties shall agree. The tribunal shall be the judge of its own competence. The tribunal shall decide a dispute in accordance with such rules of law as may be agreed by the parties. Any arbitration proceeding shall be conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Convention Section 3 and in accordance with the Arbitration Rules in effect on the date on which the parties consented to arbitration. The award of the tribunal shall be in writing and shall be signed by members of the tribunal who voted for it. The award shall deal with every question submitted to the tribunal, and shall state the reason upon which it is based. Either party may request annulment of the award by an application in writing addressed to the Secretary General on one or more of the grounds under Article 52 of the ICSID Convention. The award shall be binding on the parties and shall not be subject to any appeal or to any other remedy except those provided for in this Convention. Each Contracting State shall recognize an award rendered pursuant to this convention as binding and enforce the pecuniary obligations imposed by that award within its territories as if it were a final judgment of a court in that State. In conclusion, there may be some issues on the international arbitration for the settlement of the investor-state disputes: for example, abuse of litigation, lack of an appeals process, and problem of transparency. Therefore, there have been active discussions to address such issues by the ICSID and UNCITRAL up to now.

• Korean Journal of Heritage: History & Science
• /
• v.52 no.2
• /
• pp.240-253
• /
• 2019

Archaeological heritages are precious cultural relics and public assets that must be preserved, conserved, and shared with people all over the world. Investigating archaeological heritage is valuable and plays an important role for the public good; our ancestors' cultures can be restored, and it helps with developing a clear understanding of the cultural and social aspects of a historical period as well as teaches about historical factors unreported in the literature. One of the most basic and important conditions necessary for recognizing the value and importance of archaeological heritage investigation, expertise, and quality improvement is to establish detailed criteria for investigation services and the qualification examination of archaeological heritage. Observation of detailed criteria and the qualification examination of archaeological heritage can partially demonstrate society's recognition of strengthening transparency, public property, and the objectivity of the investigation of archaeological heritage. However, the detailed criteria for investigation services and the qualification examination of archaeological heritage currently implemented as administrative rules are neither followed by all institutes in the public and private sectors nor the government. Thus, there are serious problems in terms of the effectiveness and stability of institutions. The detailed criteria for the qualification examination breach the principle of statutory reservation, the principle of statutory regulation, and regulations on the announcement and management of orders and rules. Non-compliance with compensation criteria for investigation services or with detailed criteria for the qualification examination of archaeological heritage will be one of the reasons for the failure of the investigation foundation for archaeological heritage in the future. That is, it will result in the expansion, reproduction, and repetition of a vicious cycle of conflict between developers, who are the decision-makers responsible for selecting an investigating organization for archaeological heritage and determining the cost, and investigating organizations. This includes the impractical shortening of investigation periods and reducing costs by developers, distrust of the values and the importance of investigations of archaeological heritage, a decrease in quality, accidents caused by a lack of safety, a lack of occupational ethics, and non-recruitment of new experts, etc. Therefore, it is necessary to change the structure from a vicious cycle to a virtuous cycle, and promote the enactment of regulations that will ensure effectiveness and stability in the process of attaining the goals of the institution and application of the institution, as well as the continuous advancement of work to fill the gaps with reality.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.32 no.1
• /
• pp.177-200
• /
• 2017

This writer have thus far reviewed the civil and criminal obligations of the directors of a parent company that sponsored financially troubled affiliates. What was discussed here applies to logistics companies in the same manner. Hanjin Shipping cannot expect its parent company, Korean Air to prop it up financially. If such financial aid is offered without any collateral, under Korean criminal law, the directors of the parent company bears the burden of civil and criminal responsibility. One way to get around this is to secure fairness in terms of the process and the content of aid. Fairness in terms of process refers to the board of directors making public all information and approving such aid. Fairness in terms of content refers to impartial transactions that block out any possibilities of the chairman of the corporate group acting in his private interest. In the case of Korean Air bailing out Hanjin, the meeting of board of directors were held five times and a thorough review was conducted on the risks involved in the loans being repaid or not. After the review, measures to guard against undesirable scenarios were established before finally deciding on bailing out Hanjin. As such, there are no issues. In terms of the fairness of content, too, there were practically no room for the majority shareholder or controlling shareholder to pocket profits at the expense of the company. This is because the continued aid offered to a financially troubled company (i.e. Hanjin Shipping) was a posing a burden to even the controlling shareholder. This writer argues that the concept of the interest of the entire corporate group needs to be recognized. That is, it must be recognized that the relationship of control and being controlled between parent company and affiliate company, or between affiliate companies serves a practical benefit to the ongoing concern and growth of the group and is therefore just. Moreover, the corporate group and its affiliates, as well as their directors and management must recognize that they have an obligation to prioritize the interests of the corporate group ahead of the interests of the company that they are directly associated with. As such, even if Korean Air offered a loan to Hanjin Shipping without collateral, the act cannot be treated as an offense to law, nor can the directors be accused of damages that they bear the responsibility of compensating under civil law.

• Proceedings of the Korea Technology Innovation Society Conference
• /
• 2015.05a
• /
• pp.545-570
• /
• 2015

Korea is among the ten countries with the largest R&D budget and the highest R&D investment-to-GDP ratio, yet the subject of security and protection of R&D results remains relatively unexplored in the country. Countries have implemented in their legal systems measures to properly protect cutting-edge industrial technologies that would adversely affect national security and economy if leaked to other countries. While Korea has a generally stable legal framework as provided in the Regulation on the National R&D Program Management (the "Regulation") and the Act on Industrial Technology Protection, many difficulties follow in practice when determining details on security management and obligations and setting standards in carrying out national R&D projects. This paper proposes to modify and improve security level classification standards in the Regulation. The Regulation provides a dual security level decision-making system for R&D projects: the security level can be determined either by researcher or by the central agency in charge of the project. Unification of such a dual system can avoid unnecessary confusions. To prevent a leakage, it is crucial that research projects be carried out in compliance with their assigned security levels and standards and results be effectively managed. The paper examines from a practitioner's perspective relevant legal provisions on leakage of confidential R&D projects, infringement, injunction, punishment, attempt and conspiracy, dual liability, duty of report to the National Intelligence Service (the "NIS") of security management process and other security issues arising from national R&D projects, and manual drafting in case of a breach. The paper recommends to train security and technological experts such as industrial security experts to properly amend laws on security level classification standards and relevant technological contents. A quarterly policy development committee must also be set up by the NIS in cooperation with relevant organizations. The committee shall provide a project management manual that provides step-by-step guidance for organizations that carry out national R&D projects as a preventive measure against possible leakage. In the short term, the NIS National Industrial Security Center's duties should be expanded to incorporate national R&D projects' security. In the long term, a security task force must be set up to protect, support and manage the projects whose responsibilities should include research, policy development, PR and training of security-related issues. Through these means, a social consensus must be reached on the need for protecting national R&D projects. The most efficient way to implement these measures is to facilitate security training programs and meetings that provide opportunities for communication among industrial security experts and researchers. Furthermore, the Regulation's security provisions must be examined and improved.