항공기나 군용기의 운용이 폭발적으로 증가함에 따라, 공항이나 비행장 인근 주민들이 항공기 운항으로 인한 소음 진동 등을 이유로 손해배상을 청구하거나 비행을 금지하는 경우가 점차 늘어나고 있다. 최근에는 원고는 토지의 소유권에 터 잡아 피고를 상대로 토지의 상공을 헬기의 이 착륙 항로로 사용하는 행위의 금지를 구하는 소를 제기하였고, 대전고등법원에서 청구를 인용한 사례가 있다. 비록 위 판결은 대법원에서 파기되었지만, 비행금지청구에 관한 논의가 필요하다. 일본에서는 공항소음소송이 환경단체를 중심으로 오래 전부터 제기되어 왔는데, 소음피해로 인한 손해배상을 인정하는 경우와 달리 비행금지청구를 인용한 판결은 2014. 5. 21. 요코하마 지방재판소에서 처음 선고되었다. 위 판결은 항소심에서 일부 변경되어 원고의 청구가 일부 인용되었으나. 최고재판소에서 파기 환송되었다. 아쓰기(厚木) 기지는 미국과 일본이 공동으로 사용하는 기지인데, 인근주민들은 아쓰기 기지에 이착륙하는 항공기에서 발생하는 소음에 의해 신체적 피해 및 수면방해, 생활방해 등의 정신적 피해를 받고 있다고 주장하면서, 방위청장관이 소속되어 있는 국가에 대하여 자위대기 및 미군기의 운항금지 등을 요구하는 행정소송을 요코하마 지방재판소에 제기하였다. 제1심은 "부득이하다고 인정하는 경우를 제외하고"라는 제한을 부과하여 매일 오후 10시부터 다음날 오전 6시까지 자위대기의 비행을 금지하는 판결을 선고하였고, 위와 같은 결론은 항소심에서도 유지되었다. 그러나 최고재판소는 자위대기의 비행금지청구를 인용한 원심판결을 파기하고, 그 부분에 해당하는 제1심 판결을 취소하였으며, 원고들의 청구를 기각하였다. 최고재판소는 자위대기의 운항은 고도의 공공성이 인정되고, 소음피해는 경시할 수 없으나 상응하는 대책을 강구할 수 있으므로, 방위청장관의 권한행사는 타당하다고 판시하였다. 우리나라에서도 군용기지 인근주민들이 미국이나 대한민국 또는 국방부장관을 상대로 군용기 비행금지를 구하는 소를 제기할 수 있다. 만약 군용기지 부근의 주민들이 미국정부를 상대로 미군기 비행금지를 청구하는 소를 제기하면, 법원은 재판권면제를 이유로 소장각하명령을 하여야 한다. 현행 판례 법리에 따르면, 국방부장관을 상대로 군용기의 비행금지를 청구하는 의무이행소송이나 무명항고소송은 허용되지 아니하므로, 그러한 소는 부적법하다. 다만, 행정소송법이 개정되어 의무이행소송이 도입된다면 소제기는 적법하게 될 수 있다. 군용기 운항에 관한 행정처분이 위법하다고 판단하기 위해서는 청구가 허용될 경우 인근주민이 받을 이익과 상대방 및 제3자가 받게 될 불이익 등을 비교 형량해 보아야 한다. 국방부장관으로서는 군용기의 운항으로 인한 이익(초계임무나 대잠활동 등 국방상 필요, 항공정보의 획득 제공, 재해파견 등 민생협력 활동, 해적대처 등 국제공헌, 교육 훈련 등)이 인근주민이 군용기 비행금지로 인하여 얻는 이익보다 훨씬 크다는 점을 주장 증명할 필요가 있다.
The interplay between hedonic and utilitarian attributes has assumed special significance in recent years; it has been proposed that consumption offerings should be viewed as experiences that stimulate both cognitions and feelings rather than as mere products or services. This research builds on previous work on hedonic versus utilitarian benefits, regulatory focus theory, customer satisfaction to address two question: (1) Is the shopping goal at the point of purchase different from the shopping value? and (2) Is the customer loyalty after the use different from the shopping value and shopping goal? We surveyed 345 peoples those who have bought the electronic-goods within 6 months. This research dealt with the shopping value which is consisted of 2 types, hedonic and utilitarian. Those who pursue the hedonic shopping value may prefer the pleasure of purchasing experience to the product itself. They tend to prefer atmosphere, arousal of the shopping experience. Consistent with previous research, we use the term "hedonic" to refer to their aesthetic, experiential and enjoyment-related value. On the contrary, Those who pursue the utilitarian shopping value may prefer the reasonable buying. It may be more functional. Consistent with previous research, we use the term "utilitarian" to refer to the functional, instrumental, and practical value of consumption offerings. Holbrook(1999) notes that consumer value is an experience that results from the consumption of such benefits. In the context of cell phones for example, the phone's battery life and sound volume are utilitarian benefits, whereas aesthetic appeal from its shape and color are hedonic benefits. Likewise, in the case of a car, fuel economics and safety are utilitarian benefits whereas the sunroof and the luxurious interior are hedonic benefits. The shopping goals are consisted of the promotion focus goal and the prevention focus goal, based on the self-regulatory focus theory. The promotion focus is characterized into focusing ideal self because they are oriented to wishes and vision. The promotion focused individuals are tend to be more risk taking. They are more sensitive to hope and achievement. On the contrary, the prevention focused individuals are characterized into focusing the responsibilities because they are oriented to safety. The prevention focused individuals are tend to be more risk avoiding. We wanted to test the relation among the shopping value, shopping goal and customer loyalty. Customers show the positive or negative feelings comparing with the expectation level which customers have at the point of the purchase. If the result were bigger than the expectation, customers may feel positive feeling such as delight or satisfaction and they would want to share their feelings with other people. And they want to buy those products again in the future time. There is converging evidence that the types of goals consumers expect to be fulfilled by the utilitarian dimension of a product are different from those they seek from the hedonic dimension (Chernev 2004). Specifically, whereas consumers expect the fulfillment of product prevention goals on the utilitarian dimension, they expect the fulfillment of promotion goals on the hedonic dimension (Chernev 2004; Chitturi, Raghunathan, and Majahan 2007; Higgins 1997, 2001) According to the regulatory focus theory, prevention goals are those that ought to be met. Fulfillment of prevention goals in the context of product consumption eliminates or significantly reduces the probability of a painful experience, thus making consumers experience emotions that result from fulfillment of prevention goals such as confidence and securities. On the contrary, fulfillment of promotion goals are those that a person aspires to meet, such as "looking cool" or "being sophisticated." Fulfillment of promotion goals in the context of product consumption significantly increases the probability of a pleasurable experience, thus enabling consumers to experience emotions that result from the fulfillment of promotion goals. The proposed conceptual framework captures that the relationships among hedonic versus utilitarian shopping values and promotion versus prevention shopping goals respectively. An analysis of the consequence of the fulfillment and frustration of utilitarian and hedonic value is theoretically worthwhile. It is also substantively relevant because it helps predict post-consumption behavior such as the promotion versus prevention shopping goals orientation. Because our primary goal is to understand how the post consumption feelings influence the variable customer loyalty: word of mouth (Jacoby and Chestnut 1978). This research result is that the utilitarian shopping value gives the positive influence to both of the promotion and prevention goal. However the influence to the prevention goal is stronger. On the contrary, hedonic shopping value gives influence to the promotion focus goal only. Additionally, both of the promotion and prevention goal show the positive relation with customer loyalty. However, the positive relation with promotion goal and customer loyalty is much stronger. The promotion focus goal gives the influence to the customer loyalty. On the contrary, the prevention focus goal relates at the low level of relation with customer loyalty than that of the promotion goal. It could be explained that it is apt to get framed the compliment of people into 'gain-non gain' situation. As the result, for those who have the promotion focus are motivated to deliver their own feeling to other people eagerly. Conversely the prevention focused individual are more sensitive to the 'loss-non loss' situation. The research result is consistent with pre-existent researches. There is a conceptual parallel between necessities-needs-utilitarian benefits and luxuries-wants-hedonic benefits (Chernev 2004; Chitturi, Raghunathan and Majaha 2007; Higginns 1997; Kivetz and Simonson 2002b). In addition, Maslow's hierarchy of needs and the precedence principle contends luxuries-wants-hedonic benefits higher than necessities-needs-utilitarian benefits. Chitturi, Raghunathan and Majaha (2007) show that consumers are focused more on the utilitarian benefits than on the hedonic benefits of a product until their minimum expectation of fulfilling prevention goals are met. Furthermore, a utilitarian benefit is a promise of a certain level of functionality by the manufacturer or the retailer. When the promise is not fulfilled, customers blame the retailer and/or the manufacturer. When negative feelings are attributable to an entity, customers feel angry. However in the case of hedonic benefit, the customer, not the manufacturer, determines at the time of purchase whether the product is stylish and attractive. Under such circumstances, customers are more likely to blame themselves than the manufacturer if their friends do not find the product stylish and attractive. Therefore, not meeting minimum utilitarian expectations of functionality generates a much more intense negative feelings, such as anger than a less intense feeling such as disappointment or dissatisfactions. The additional multi group analysis of this research shows the same result. Those who are unsatisfactory customers who have the prevention focused goal shows higher relation with WOM, comparing with satisfactory customers. The research findings in this article could have significant implication for the personal selling fields to increase the effectiveness and the efficiency of the sales such that they can develop the sales presentation strategy for the customers. For those who are the hedonic customers may be apt to show more interest to the promotion goal. Therefore it may work to strengthen the design, style or new technology of the products to the hedonic customers. On the contrary for the utilitarian customers, it may work to strengthen the price competitiveness. On the basis of the result from our studies, we demonstrated a correspondence among hedonic versus utilitarian and promotion versus prevention goal, WOM. Similarly, we also found evidence of the moderator effects of satisfaction after use, between the prevention goal and WOM. Even though the prevention goal has the low level of relation to WOM, those who are not satisfied show higher relation to WOM. The relation between the prevention goal and WOM is significantly different according to the satisfaction versus unsatisfaction. In addition, improving the promotion emotions of cheerfulness and excitement and the prevention emotion of confidence and security will further improve customer loyalty. A related potential further research could be to examine whether hedonic versus utilitarian, promotion versus prevention goals improve customer loyalty for services as well. Under the budget and time constraints, designers and managers are often compelling to choose among various attributes. If there is no budget or time constraints, perhaps the best solution is to maximize both hedonic and utilitarian dimension of benefits. However, they have to make trad-off process between various attributes. For the designers and managers have to keep in mind that without hedonic benefit satisfaction of the product it may hard to lead the customers to the customer loyalty.
관상수재배(觀賞樹栽培)의 현황(現況), 생산(生產), 유통과정(流通過程), 문제점(問題點), 전망(展望)과 개선방안(改善方案)을 조사(調査)한 결과(結果)를 요약(要約)하면 다음과 같다. 1. 관상수재배(觀賞樹栽培)의 일반현황(一般現況) (1) 전국(全國)(서울제외(除外))의 관상수재배면적(觀賞樹栽培面積)과 재배자수(栽培者數)는 각각 1,872.02ha, 2,717명(名)으로서 농수산부(農水產部) 집계(集計)와 많은 차이(差異)가 있는데, 이것은 재배업자(栽培業者)들이 조세부담등(租稅負擔等)의 이유(理由)때문에 정확(正確)한 답(答)을 하지 않은 것으로 보여진다. (2) 직업(職業)은 원예(園藝)(관상수포함(觀賞樹包含)), 농업(農業)을 비롯한 일차산업분야(一次產業分野)의 종사자(從事者)들이 대부분이었으며, 공무원(公務員), 회사원(會社員)도 약간 있었다. (3) 관상수재배자(觀賞樹栽培者)는 학력(學歷)이 높을수록 그 수(數)가 많은 경향(傾向)을 보였으며, 연령(年齡)은 청년층(青年層)보다 장년(壯年)에서 노년층(老年層)이 많은 분포(分布)를 보였다. (4) 관상수재배동기(觀賞樹栽培動機)는 취미(趣味)로 시작, 수익(收益)이 높아서 자산저축적(資產貯蓄的)인 취지(趣旨)에서 공한지활용등(空閑地活用等)의 순(順)으로 나타났으며 재배경력(栽培經歷)은 5~10년(年)이 가장 많고, 대체로 5~15년(年)까지의 재배경력(栽培經歷)을 가진 자가 전체(全體)의 약
벼의 생육기간중(生育期間中) 논에서의 수력소비(水力消費)에 관(關)하여 연구(硏究)하였던바 다음과 같은 결론(結論)을 얻었다. 1. 엽면(葉面) 및 주간수면증발(株間水面蒸發) 1) 벼의 엽면증발량(葉面蒸發量)은 조(早), 중(中), 만생종(晩生種) 공(共)히 이앙(移秧)후 점차(漸次) 증가(增加)하다가 수잉기(穗孕期)에 급증(急增)하고 수잉기(穗孕期) 말기(末期)에서 출수개화(出穗開花) 초기(初期)(조생종(早生種)은 제6기(第6期), 중(中), 만생종(晩生種)은 제7기(第7期)에 최대량(最大量)에 달(達)하며 그 후 점감(漸減)한다. 2) 벼의 엽면증발작용(葉面蒸發作用)은 조(早), 중(中), 만생종(晩生種) 모두 제5기(第5期)까지는 별(別) 차이(差異)가 없으며 제6기(第6期)에는 조생종(早生種)이 가장 왕성(旺盛)하고 제7기(第7期) 이후(以後)는 만생종(晩生種)이 계속(繼續) 제일(第一) 왕성(旺盛)하다. 3) 엽면증발(葉面蒸發)이 가장 왕성(旺盛)한 시기(時期)인 제6기(第6期) 조생종(早生種)와 제7기(第7期)(중(中), 만생종(晩生種)의 엽면증발량(葉面蒸發量)은 전(全) 생육기간(生育期間)의 총엽면증발량(總葉面蒸發量)의