• International Journal of Contents
• /
• 제9권1호
• /
• pp.26-32
• /
• 2013

To date, parking enforcement systems have only been used by parking enforcement authorities, who detect and penalize violators. This paper introduces a modified version of the parking enforcement system utilizing smartphones that allows ordinary citizens to report parking violators to parking enforcement officers. The procedures of the system are taking a picture of a vehicle in violation, receiving the violation report virtually and finally reporting if violation car still remained at same location after five minutes have passed. The proposed system contains properties for transmission and receiving data about whether the complaint report of the violator's vehicle has been received in real time. It also works in conjunction with the existing parking enforcement system. This paper describes implementation of the proposed system.

• 한국시뮬레이션학회논문지
• /
• 제18권2호
• /
• pp.57-64
• /
• 2009

물리적 기반의 다이내믹 시뮬레이션에 있어서 안정적이고 효율적인 제한 시스템은 매우 중요한 요소 중 하나이다. 본 논문은 기존에 널리 사용되고 있는 제한 시스템들(Lagrange Multiplier method, Baumgarte stabilization method, Post-stabilization Method, Implicit constraint enforcement method, Fast projection method)에 대한 분석과 평가를 통해 제한 시스템을 사용하고자 하는 사용자들에게 적절한 선택을 할 수 있는 지침을 제공하고자 한다. 본 논문은 기존의 제한 방법들에 대한 수학적 수식들이 설명되어 있고, 제한 오차 비교, 계산 비용, 동적 움직임 분석 등을 통해 기존 제한 시스템들 각각에 대한 평가를 제공한다.

• 한국도로학회논문집
• /
• 제14권5호
• /
• pp.179-188
• /
• 2012

PURPOSES: The aim of this study is to analyze overloading control effectiveness of enforcing overweighted vehicles using HS-WIM (High-Speed Weigh-in-Motion) at main lane of expressway. METHODS: To analyze the weight distribution statistically, HS-WIM system should has an appropriate weighing accuracy. Thus, the weighing accuracy of the two HS-WIM systems was estimated by applying European specifications and ASTM (American Standards for Testing and Materials) for WIM in this study. Based on the results of accuracy test, overweight enforcement system has been operated at main lanes of two expressway routes in order to provide weight informations of overweighted vehicle in real time for enforcement squad. To evaluate the overloading control effectiveness with enforcement, traffic volume and axle loads of trucks for two months at the right after beginning of the enforcement were compared with data set for same periods before the enforcement. RESULTS: As the results of weighing accuracy test, both WIM systems were accepted to the most precise type that can be useful to applicate not only statistical purpose but enforcing on overweight vehicles directly. After the enforcement, the rate of overweighted trucks that weighed over enforcement limits had been decreased by 27% compared with the rate before the enforcement. Especially, the rate of overweighted trucks that weighed over 48 tons had been decreased by 91%. On the other hand, in counterpoint to decrease of the overweighted vehicle, the rate of trucks that weighed under enforcement limits had been increased by 7%. CONCLUSIONS: From the results, it is quite clear that overloading has been controlled since the beginning of the enforcement.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제20권3호
• /
• pp.25-46
• /
• 2010

In spite of great interest and recent innovation of the legislative system in the Arbitration and other Alternative Dispute Resolution(ADR) system, In Japan there have been only a few case in which International commercial dispute was settled through the Arbitration compared to other countries. However, we can easily expect that foreign arbitral awards which need to be recognized and enforced in Japan will gradually increase and this makes it very important for us to review the Japanese legislative system regarding recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. In this paper, I focused on the relations between applicable laws(including convention) regarding recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in Japan and some issues concerning refusal of recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. Japan is a member state of several multilateral conventions concerning recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards including the New York Convention of 1958 and at least 20 bilateral agreements which include provisions in relate to the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards. Therefore there are some legal issues about the priority application between multilateral and bilateral agreements in relate to Article 7(1) of the New York Convention. In Japan, as I mentioned in this paper, there are incoherent opinions concerning this issue. To solve it substantially it would seem appropriate to build up concrete and explicit provisions concerning the application of priority between multilateral and bilateral agreements. On the other hand, in relate to the application between the New York Convention and National Law, it is necessary to take general approach regarding the priority application between Convention (Treaty) and National Law, considering the national application of conventions under the Constitutional System of each country. Among the grounds for non-recognition/enforcement, there are the ones that are decided under the law of the requested country, for instance, arbitrability and public policy. It would therefore be possible that some foreign arbitral awards would not be recognized in Japan especially relating to the arbitrability because its scope in Japan is not so large. Regarding the enforcement of awards annulled in their place of origin, some positive opinions in recent Japanese legal discussions, say that annulled awards should be enforced as a counter strategy of developed countries and judiciary discretion of the requested country would be needed. As mentioned in this paper, the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards is closely related to judicial policy of the requested country as the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgment is. Even though there existed uniform rules on recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards like the New York convention, each country has different internal legal status of conventions under its own Constitutional System and tends to interpret the provisions based in its own profit. Therefore, it is necessary to review, in the light of conflict of laws, the national legislative system including legal status of conventions of the requested countries concerning recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards.

• 대한교통학회지
• /
• 제26권3호
• /
• pp.85-95
• /
• 2008

고속도로 교통사고 발생의 주요 원인인 과속을 줄이기 위하여 경찰청에서는 많은 예산을 들여 과속단속카메라를 설치 운영하고 있다. 지점식 과속단속카메라의 경우 GPS 탑재장치에 의해 위치가 노출되어 과속단속 실적이 떨어지며, 과속단속카메라가 설치되지 않은 차로나 구간에서 캥거루 주행 등 회피거동에 의해 과속억제 효과 또한 감소하고 있다. 운전자의 회피거동으로 인하여 긴 내리막 구간, 터널, 교량 등에서 과속예방효과나 교통사고 감소효과는 제한적일 수밖에 없다. 따라서 중요 시설이나 위험구간에서 차량들의 속도를 일정하게 유지시켜 교통사고 예방효과를 높이기 위한 대안으로 구간과속단속의 필요성이 높아지고 있다. 따라서, 본 연구에서는 우리나라 고속도로에 최초로 도입된 구간과속단속시스템의 효과평가를 위하여 시스템 적용 전 후 교통류특성과 관련된 자료를 수집하여 비교.분석하였고, 그 결과, 시스템 설치 후 속도저감 효과 및 해당 구간의 교통류 안정적 흐름을 보이는 것으로 나타나 구간과속단속 운영구간에 있어서 교통안전성 제고와 교통사고 감소효과가 있는 것으로 파악되었다.

• 한국ITS학회 논문지
• /
• 제6권1호
• /
• pp.27-37
• /
• 2007

과속단속시스템은 지능형교통체계(ITS)의 한 영역인 첨단교통관리시스템(ATMS)으로서 중요한 역할을 수행하고 있다. 그러나 과속사고를 방지하기 위해 설치된 시스템이 시거가 확보되지 않은 구간이나 급커브 지역 등에 설치됨으로써 추가적인 교통사고 위험을 내포하고 있다. 이에 본 연구에서는 고속도로의 기하구조별로 시스템 설치위치를 구분하고, 각 위치에서 발생한 교통사고 자료를 시스템 설치 전 후로 나누어 기하구조별 과속단속시스템의 설치 전 후의 사고건수(Frequency), 대물피해환산법(EPDO, Equivalent Property Damage Only)을 통한 사고심각도와 사고비용(Accident Cost)을 분석하였다. 이와 같은 연구수행 절차를 통해 시거가 충분히 확보되지 않는 구간에서의 과속단속시스템의 설치가 사고에 미치는 영향을 알아보고 최종적으로 과속단속시스템의 설치위치에 따른 영향을 분석하고자 한다.

• 한국ITS학회 논문지
• /
• 제8권6호
• /
• pp.55-63
• /
• 2009

1997년 우리나라에서 무인과속단속시스템 32대가 처음 도입된 이래 2008년 1월 현재 약 3,700기가 설치되어 운영 중에 있으며, 이는 운전자의 운전행태 및 교통특성 변화를 유도함으로서 교통안전을 개선시켜 결과적으로 교통사고건수 및 사망자 수를 크게 감소시키는 것으로 나타났다. 그러나 현재의 설치효과 평가방법은 설치전후 각 1년간 단순 비교하는 방법으로, 설치 바로 전년도의 교통사고건수가 다른 요소에 의해 최근 몇 년간 발생건수에 의해 급격히 증가(감소)하였을 경우 시스템 설치 후 감소(증가)되었어도 명확히 시스템 설치 효과라고 단정 짓기 어려운 실정이다. 본 연구에서는 시스템 설치전후 4단계 분석기법을 근간으로 하여 과속단속시스템의 설치효과에 대하여 새롭게 평가하였다. 그 결과 2006년도에 설치한 205대의 과속단속시스템 설치효과는 기존의 분석방법에서 제시한 18%의 교통사고건수 감소효과가 아니라 시스템 설치효과에 의해 $27.4{\pm}3%$, 도로개선 등 기타 요인으로 인한 오차범위가 ${\pm}12.89%$인 것으로 나타났다.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제26권4호
• /
• pp.3-41
• /
• 2016

This paper reviews the problems on the arbitral awards enforcement in the 2016 Korean Arbitration Act. In order to get easy and rapid enforcement of the arbitral awards, the new arbitration act changed the enforcement procedure from an enforcement judgement procedure to an enforcement decision procedure. However, like the old arbitration act, the new act is still not arbitration friendly. First of all, there are various problems in the new act because it does not approve that an arbitral award can be a schuldtitel (title of enforcement) of which the arbitral award can be enforced. In this paper, several problems of the new act are discussed: effect of arbitral award, approval to res judicata of enforcement decision, different trial process and result for same ground, possibility of abuse of litigation for setting aside arbitral awards and delay of enforcement caused by setting aside, infringement of arbitration customer's right to be informed, and non-internationality of enforcement of interim measures of protection, inter alia. The new arbitration act added a proviso on article 35 (Effect of Arbitral Awards). According to article 35 of the old arbitration act, arbitral awards shall have the same effect on the parties as the final and conclusive judgement of the court. The proviso of article 35 in the new act can be interpret two ways: if arbitral awards have any ground of refusal of recognition or enforcement according to article 38, the arbitral awards do not have the same effect on the parties as the final and conclusive judgement of the court; if arbitral awards have not recognised or been enforced according to article 38, the arbitral awards do not have the same effect on the parties as the final and conclusive judgement of the court. In the case of the former, the parties cannot file action for setting aside arbitral awards in article 36 to the court, and this is one of the important problems of the new act. In the new act, same ground of setting aside arbitral awards can be tried in different trial process with or without plead according to article 35 and 37. Therefore, progress of enforcement decision of arbitral awards can be blocked by the action of setting aside arbitral awards. If so, parties have to spend their time and money to go on unexpected litigation. In order to simplify enforcement procedure of arbitral awards, the new act changed enforcement judgement procedure to enforcement decision procedure. However, there is still room for the court to hear a case in the same way of enforcement judgement procedure. Although the new act simplifies enforcement procedure by changing enforcement judgement procedure to enforcement decision procedure, there still remains action of setting aside arbitral awards, so that enforcement of arbitral awards still can be delayed by it. Moreover, another problem exists in that the parties could have to wait until a seventh trial (maximum) for a final decision. This result in not good for the arbitration system itself in the respect of confidence as well as cost. If the arbitration institution promotes to use arbitration by emphasizing single-trial system of arbitration without enough improvement of enforcement procedure in the arbitration system, it would infringe the arbitration customer's right to be informed, and further raise a problem of legal responsibility of arbitration institution. With reference to enforcement procedure of interim measures of protection, the new act did not provide preliminary orders, and moreover limit the court not to recognize interim measures of protection done in a foreign country. These have a bad effect on the internationalization of the Korean arbitration system.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제13권1호
• /
• pp.169-205
• /
• 2003

Arbitration means the procedure that a party inquires a third party arbitrator for a resolution on the dispute on certain matters of interest to follow through with the commitment of the arbitration, and a series of procedures performed by the arbitrator of the Korean Commercial Arbitration Board. Arbitration is implemented in accordance with the procedure determined by the Arbitration Act and Arbitration Regulations. In the event the parties reach to the reconciliation during the process of arbitration, the reconciliation is recorded in the form of arbitration award(decision), and in the event a reconciliation is not made, the arbitrator shall make the decision on the particular case. The arbitration award(decision) for reconciliation during the arbitration procedure (Article 31 of Arbitration Act, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') or the mediation under the Arbitration Regulation of the Korean Commercial Arbitration Board (Article 18 of the Arbitration Regulations) shall have the same effectiveness with the decision rendered by a court that, in the event a party does not perform the obligation, the enforcement document is rendered under the Rules on Enforcement Document on Mediation Statement of various dispute resolution committees of the Supreme Court to carry out the compulsory enforcement. However, in the event that the party to take on the obligation to perform under the arbitration award (decision) rendered by the arbitrator (Article 32 of the Act) does not perform without due cause, a separate enforcement decision in accordance with the procedure determined under the Civil Enforcement Act shall be obtained since the arbitration award(decision) cannot be the basis of enforcement under the Civil Enforcement Act. And, in order to enforce the judgment compulsorily in accordance with the regulations under the Civil Enforcement Act under the foreign arbitration judgment (Article 39 of the A.1), it shall fulfill the requirement determined under the Civil Litigation Act (article 217 of Civil Litigation Act) and shall obtain a separate enforcement decision in accordance with the procedure determined under the Civil Enforcement Act (Article 26 and Article 27 of Civil Enforcement Act) since the arbitration judgment of foreign country shall not be based on enforcement under the Civil Enforcement Act. It may be the issue of legislation not to recognize the arbitration award(decision) as a source of enforcement right, and provide the compulsive enforcement by recognizing it for enforcement right after obtaining the enforcement document with the decision of a court, however, not recognizing the arbitration award(decision) as the source of enforcement right is against Clause 3 of Article 31 of the Act, provisions of Article 35, Article 38 and Article 39 that recognized the validity of arbitration as equal to the final judgment of a court, and the definition that the enforcement decision of a court shall require the in compulsory enforcement under Clause 1 of Article 37 of the Act which clearly is a conflict of principle as well. Anyhow, in order to enforce the arbitration award(decision) mandatorily, the party shall bring the litigation of enforcement decision claim to the court, and the court shall deliberate with the same procedure with general civil cases under the Civil Litigation Act. During the deliberation, the party obligated under the arbitration award(decision) intended to not to undertake the obligation and delay it raises the claim and suspend the enforcement of cancelling the arbitration award(decision) on the applicable arbitration decision within 3 months from the date of receiving the authentic copy of the arbitration award(decision) or the date of receiving the authentic copy of correction, interpretation or additional decision under the Regulation of Article 34 of the Act (Clause 3 of Article 36 of the Act). This legislation to delay the sentencing of the enforcement and then to sentence the enforcement decision brings the difficulties to a party to litigation costs and time for compulsory enforcement where there is a requirement of an urgency. With the most of cases for arbitration being the special field to make the decision only with the specialized knowledge that the arbitrator shall be the specialists who have appropriate knowledge of the system and render the most reasonable and fair decision for the arbitration. However, going through the second review by a court would be most important, irreparable and serious factor to interfere with the activation of the arbitration system. The only way to activate the arbitration system that failed to secure the practicality due to such a factor, is to revise the Arbitration Act and Arbitration Regulations so that the arbitration decision shall have the right to enforce under the Rules on Enforcement Document on Mediation Statement of various dispute resolution committees of the Supreme Court.

• 한국안전학회지
• /
• 제25권2호
• /
• pp.78-83
• /
• 2010

An installation of automated speed enforcement system(ASES) was known for traffic safety and accident preventive effects that traffic characteristics transmute by speed distribution stabilizing. This study is verified the variations of average speed, 85% speed, speed distribution and dispersion as traffic characteristics depend on enforcement system influences in the road. We tested selected 5 areas. By and large, it has a little differences depend on road geometric structure and traffic environment but that is not too much. After all, after automated speed enforcement system installed in all of test areas, average speed, 85% accumulated speed, speed distribution and dispersion characteristics were declined and equalized. The speed dispersion was smaller than before installed the ASES. The speed dispersion value of each case that is the limited speed has been 70Km/h, 80Km/h at flat and straight, 80Km/h at downhill and straight or downhill and left-curved area was 77.3%, 65.2%, 68.7% and 54.1%. Each of the data was declined. We could analyze that average speed distributed depletion factor was declined rapidly by 66.3% in test area.