• 융합보안논문지
• /
• 제15권6_2호
• /
• pp.55-63
• /
• 2015

유성기업사태나 SJM사태 등 일련의 집단민원현장에 대한 반복적인 불법행위는 당해 집단민원의 이해당사자들의 인권침해는 물론이고 동 사건에 직 간접적으로 연루된 민간경비회사와 전체 민간경비업계에 대한 비난과 사회적 평판 하락은 물론, 감독관청인 경찰청의 책임론 및 경비업법에 대한 규제의 강화라는 악순환의 한 부분이라고 볼 수 있다. 매년 되풀이되고 있는 집단민원현장에서의 반복적 폭력사태는 경찰청 등 관련 부처에 경비업체에 대한 규제 강화방향을 경비업법 개정작업으로 이어졌다. 이 연구에서는 경비업법상의 '집단민원현장' 관련규정의 내용을 살펴보고 그 문제점과 개선방안으로 집단민원현장 개념정의의 열거규정을 예시규정으로 전환, 배치승인권에 의한 경찰의 개입정도의 적정한 운용, 그리고 경비도급계약의 체결의무규정의 합리적 운용 등을 제시하고 있다.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제29권2호
• /
• pp.107-132
• /
• 2019

The arbitration procedure, which is a private trial, does not have a separate enforcement agency. Therefore, unless a party consents to the arbitration award and voluntarily fulfills the award, its execution is accomplished through the implementation of the national court. In particular, the decision in the foreign arbitration procedure will be refused or rejected for the arbitration award in case the proceedings of the law and procedure on which the judgment is based are caused by inconsistency with the domestic law or procedural defect. However, all foreign arbitration awards generally do not have to go through the approval process, and it will come into force with the arbitration award. In the case of Germany in the revision of the German Civil Procedure Act of 1996, the main provisions of the New York Convention concerning the ratification and enforcement of arbitration proceedings are reflected. Germany provides for the arbitration procedures in the arbitration proceedings of Book 10 of the Civil Procedure Act. Particularly, with Article 1061 in Book 10 Section 8 below, the approval and enforcement of foreign arbitrators shall be governed. Article 1061 has been referred to as "The New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Jurisdictions," Article 5 (1). The main reasons for approval and enforcement rejection are: (1) Reason for the acceptance or refusal of enforcement by request of the parties: Reason for failure of subjective arbitration ability, invalidation of arbitration agreement, collapse of attack or defense method, dispute not included in arbitration agreement, (2) Reasons for the approval and enforcement of arbitration considered by the competent authority of the arbitrator: violation of objective arbitration ability, violation of public order, but not based on the default of German statute.

• 항공우주정책ㆍ법학회지
• /
• 제33권2호
• /
• pp.115-168
• /
• 2018

본 논문에서는 일본 항공법상 무인항공기의 규제 전반을 개괄적으로 살펴보았다. 먼저 일본 항공법상의 항공기 개념과 공역체계를 검토한 후, 무인항공기의 비행공역 규제와 비행방법 규제를 구체적으로 검토해 보았다. 무인항공기 규제에 관한 일본법과 우리법의 비교분석의 결과로서 다음과 같은 몇 가지 시사점들을 생각해 볼 수 있었다. 첫째, 항공안전법상 무인항공기에 관한 일반적인 정의규정이 필요하다고 생각된다. 항공안전법은 항공기의 한 종류로서 '무인항공기'를 규정하고, 초경량비행장치의 한 종류로서 '무인비행장치'를 규정하여 각각의 개별규제를 실시한다. 이로 인해 무인항공기에 관한 일관적인 규제가 쉽지 않고, 규제 내용 역시 산재되어 있어 그 체계를 파악하기가 어렵다는 문제가 있다. 따라서 무인항공기에 관한 일반적인 정의규정을 마련하고 그 대상요건을 명확하게 지정할 필요가 있다. 둘째, 항공안전법상 무인항공기와 사람 물건과의 안전거리 지정이 필요할 것으로 보인다. 항공안전법에는 일본법과 같은 안전거리확보 규정이 없는데, 지상에 있는 인명 물건의 피해를 적극적으로 예방하기 위해서는 이와 관련한 명시적인 규정이 필요하다고 생각한다. 셋째, 항공안전법상 위험물 수송 금지에 관한 명시규정이 필요할 것으로 보인다. 위험물 수송은 단한번의 투하 또는 사고로도 수많은 인명피해와 재산손해를 초래할 수 있다. 따라서 이 부분에 대해서는 명확한 금지 규정을 두어 규제하는 것이 옳다고 본다. 넷째, 수색 구조 활동을 수행하는 무인항공기에 대해서는 특별한 허가나 승인 없이 이러한 활동을 수행할 수 있도록 하는 항공안전법상의 특별한 예외규정이 필요하다고 생각한다. 항공안전법의 경우에는 수색 구조와 관련하여 국가기관 등의 항공기에 대한 적용특례를 두고 있으나, 무인항공기에도 이와 같은 특례 적용이 가능한지 명확하지 않으므로, 일반적 규제 적용이 배제되는 명시적인 예외규정이 필요할 것으로 보인다.

• 의료법학
• /
• 제15권2호
• /
• pp.31-60
• /
• 2014

In this paper the good Samaritan civil liability is argued. In many cases some damage could be caused by an emergency medical service. In such situations the degree of duty of care taken by the service provider would be alleviated depending upon the degree of emergency. Then the service provided by anyone not carrying any duty to do so could be generally ruled by the 'Korean Civil Act' Article 735. This article is related to the management of affairs in urgency. The application of this article means the mitigation of civil liability of the service provider. If the service provider not carrying any duty to provide it "has managed the affairs" of the service "in order to protect the" victim "against an imminent danger to the latter's life", the provider "shall not be liable for any damages caused thereby, unless he acted intentionally or with gross negligence". Korea has another rule applied in such a situation, that is the Korean 'Emergency Medical Service Act' Article 5-2. This article is established for the exemption from responsibility for well-intentioned emergency medical service. It could be referred to as the Good Samaritan law. It provides: "In cases where no intention or gross negligence is committed on the property damage and death or injury caused by giving any emergency medical service or first-aid treatment falling under any of the following subparagraphs to an emergency patient whose life is in jeopardy, the relevant actor shall not take the civil liability ${\cdots}$" In this paper the two articles is compared in the viewpoints of the requirements for and effects of the application of them respectively. The 'Korean Civil Act' Article 735 is relatively general rule against the the Korean 'Emergency Medical Service Act' Article 5-2 in the same circumstance. Therefore the former could be resorted to only if any situation could not satisfy the requisites for the application of the latter. In this paper it has suggested that the former article be more specific for the accuracy of making decision to apply it; and that the latter be revise in some requirements including the victim, the service provider, and the service.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제17권3호
• /
• pp.57-79
• /
• 2007

Laws regarding to Arbitration in North Korea are Arbitration Act, Foreign Economic Arbitration Act, Regulations on the Foreign Trade Arbitration Commission, Regulation for treatment of cases in Arbitration Commission, Rules of Hearing. North Korea has enacted the laws related to Arbitration including Arbitration Act enacted in 1995 and Foreign Economic Arbitration Act enacted in 1999. In the North Korea's planed economy system, as there will be many disputes among organizations, companies, other Institutions Arbitration Act resolves the disputes to compete the economic plan. North Korea's Arbitration Act is different from Normal Arbitration Acts in particular other socialist states in view of arbitration agreement and selection of arbitrator and functions as the tools controlling the members of North Korea and have the characteristics such as national arbitration system and mixture of criminal trial and governmental control and strict legal control system on violent acts in North Korea's plan and plan regulation. And North Korea's Arbitration Act deals with the civil disputes and limits the parties and subject matter of arbitration. The parties in dispute such as organizations, companies, other Institutions could apply for arbitration to Central Arbitration Body and Provincial (City under the direct control of Government) Arbitration Body and Sectional Arbitration Body. The purpose of this paper is to contribute to the enhancement of the understanding arbitration in North Korea by studying the clauses in the Arbitration Act.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제32권2호
• /
• pp.55-83
• /
• 2022

The United Nations Convention on International Settlement Agreements Resulting from Mediation (Singapore Mediation Convention) results in new challenges to the area of international dispute resolution by providing the enforcement regime for mediated settlement agreements, which have not been admitted as enforceable in some civil law countries, including Korea and Japan. Japan has struggled to promote international arbitration and international mediation, and such efforts were accelerated by the adoption of the Singapore Mediation Convention in 2018. In order to standardize arbitration proceedings and promote the practice of international arbitration, Japan produced two noticeable results: the new JCAA Arbitration Rules and the amendment to the Arbitration Act of Japan. In addition to that Expedited arbitration procedure and Interactive Arbitration Rules of JCAA present the new possibility of international arbitration procedure for civil law practitioners, the amendment to the Arbitration Act of Japan suggests significant implications to Korea for its manifest provisions regarding enforcement requirements and proceedings and its protection of Access to Justice for foreign law practitioners.

• 의료법학
• /
• 제19권2호
• /
• pp.99-137
• /
• 2018

정신보건법은 1995년 제정되어 2016년 정신건강복지법으로 전면개정되었다. 일련의 개정을 통하여 기왕에 제기되어온 문제 중 상당 부분이 해결되기는 하였으나, 기존의 틀을 유지한 채 대증요법으로 일관한 결과 문제 해결의 방법이 다소 거칠고, 그로 인한 부작용도 우려된다. 이 글에서는 이러한 관점에서 우리 법의 기본 틀이 어디에서 왔고, 그 근본적인 한계는 무엇이며, 비교법적 관점에서 대안과 바람직한 개선 방향은 어떠한 지를 검토하였다. 나아가 이와 체계적으로 관련되어있는 민법상 피성년후견인 입원절차(제947조의2)에 관하여도 살펴보았다.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제31권1호
• /
• pp.107-127
• /
• 2021

Vietnam is an important country with many trade transactions with the Republic of Korea. Arbitration is a method of resolving disputes that can arise with the increase in trade transactions. It is essential to study the legal system and precedents of Vietnam on the approval and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. Such is the case because the law in Vietnam and the court's position on the approval and enforcement of foreign arbitration awards issued by the courts depend on the possibility of realizing the parties' rights concerning their disputes. Therefore, it is of great value both theoretically and practically to analyze the exact differences between approval and the denial of approval. Vietnam has enacted the Commercial Arbitration Act, which replaces the previous Commercial Arbitration Decree and creates an arbitration-friendly environment that meets international arbitration standards. Regarding the approval and execution of foreign arbitration awards, the Commercial Arbitration Act, the Civil Procedure Act, the Civil Execution Act, and the Vietnam Foreign Arbitration Awards Approval and Enforcement Ordinance are regulated. Following these laws and regulations, the reasons for the approval, enforcement, and rejection of the arbitral award are specified. In accordance with these laws and inappropriate arbitration agreements, an arbitral award beyond the scope of its right of disposition, an arbitral tribunal, or the concerned parties could not be involved in a proceeding or an arbitral award if the involved party does not have an opportunity to exercise its rights lawfully. If the state agency in the forum does not recognize the arbitral award, the dispute is not subject to arbitration under Vietnamese law, or the arbitral award does not conform to the basic principles of Vietnamese law, the parties are not bound, and the foreign arbitration award is rejected for approval and execution.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제25권1호
• /
• pp.47-64
• /
• 2015

Pursuant to Article 109(1) of the Attorney-at-Law Act of Korea, a person, not an attorney-at-law, who receives or promises to receive money, articles, entertainment or other benefits or who gives or promises to give those things to a third party, in compensation for providing or mediating legal services, such as examination, representation, arbitration(emphasis added), settlement, solicitation, legal consultation, making of legal documents, etc. shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not more than 7 years or by a fine not exceeding KRW 50 million or may be punished by both and there is no specific provision on qualification of arbitrator except on nationality of an arbitrator in the Arbitration Act of Korea. Then, the question arises, can any non-lawyer arbitrator who receives arbitrator's fees be punished in accordance with the Attorney-at-Law Act in Korea? To search for an answer for this matter, this paper examines the Arbitration Act or the Civil Procedure Code of 33 major countries in the world and explains a research on the participation ratio of non-lawyer arbitrators in all 360 arbitration cases registered in 2012 at the Korean Commercial Arbitration Board (KCAB).

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제24권3호
• /
• pp.125-169
• /
• 2014

In France, arbitration, both domestic and international, has recently been subjected to a major reform. This article discusses the content of the 2011 reform and its aftermath, while putting into perspective the current arbitration act in South Korea, an arbitration-friendly jurisdiction that contemplates reforming its own law. The two legal systems are characterized by their concern for efficiency and rationalization of the arbitration proceedings, through the codification of essential principles previously established by case law and through the promotion of the independence of this ADR vis-$\grave{a}$-vis state courts. The efficiency consideration is strengthened at every stage of the proceedings: from the arbitration agreement often considered valid and rarely challenged, through the proceedings for annulment, recognition and enforcement of the award, up to the judicial assistance of the French supporting judge towards the actual arbitral proceedings. Finally, new concerns are emerging: the increase of transparency and the arbitrability of disputes in some uncertain fields of law.