• Journal of the Korea Institute of Building Construction
• /
• v.10 no.1
• /
• pp.111-120
• /
• 2010

The public construction industry in Korea involves a variety of stakeholders, encompassing multiple layers of contractual relationships that crisscross between the State as project client and the contractors, as well as subcontractors. In such a hierarchical landscape, managerial crises of contractors involving bankruptcy or insolvency can result in unexpected damages for both clients and subcontractors. Accordingly, the applicable legal framework requires project clients to act as patrons in relation to making payments to subcontractors, and stipulates provisions pertaining to direct payments to subcontractors in order to promote the balanced development of the national economy in terms of the public interest by protecting small and medium-sized businesses working as subcontractors for large businesses. However, the relevant legal documents provide for different payment criteria and procedures from document to document, and leave room for variations in the interpretation and construction of applicable provisions, which leads to disputes and discrepancies in court rulings. For this reason, it is necessary not only to compare and analyze statutory provisions pertaining to direct payment to subcontractors, but also to review issues of contention in actual cases. This study aims to analyze issues in cases involving payment to subcontractors from the perspective of the project client overseeing and supervising the construction business. The conclusions from such an analysis will help to effectively resolve subsequent cases of a similar nature by suggesting a strategy to improve the relevant statutory provisions pertaining to direct payment to subcontractors.

• The Journal of the Korea Contents Association
• /
• v.16 no.1
• /
• pp.370-381
• /
• 2016

This study was designed to examine the Trends and Characteristics of Infringement of right to likeness by the Press in Korea. We did an analysis of 81 cases of the court's rulings related to Infringement of right to likeness by the Press from 1990 to 2014. As a result, it shows that the first court's ruling of portrait rights violations by the press was made in 1990. The results showed that there were the increasing number of disputing cases over Infringement of right to likeness against Broadcasting media in the 2000s compared to monthly magazines in the 1990s, which were regarded as gonzo journalism. Since the 2000s, 71% of lawsuits regarding Infringement of right to likeness has been against the Broadcasting Media due to increasing the influence of the broadcasting and possibility of Infringement of right to likeness by visual images. Especially, the number of lawsuits on infringement of rights to likeness has increased rapidly by the Broadcasting Media. Only 23 cases(28.4%) of total 81 cases were decided in favor of the press. the press shows the low success in disputing the rights of likeness. this study shows the korean courts put more weight on the right to likeness and the breaking a balance between freedom of the press and right of person's character. However, 52.9% of the cases was decided in favor of The press against the plaintiff of public figures compared to 22% against the public. It can be difficult for public figures to win lawsuit against the press causing the Infringement of right to likeness. Judging from this fact, it seemed that the court recognized media watchdog for public figures.

• Analyses & Alternatives
• /
• v.2 no.1
• /
• pp.31-69
• /
• 2018

This study examines the role of science in resolving trade disputes. After the Great East Japan Earthquake of 11 March 2011 that not only jeopardized the people of Japan, but also put the safety of an entire region at risk, the Republic of Korea (Korea) has imposed import bans as well as increased testing and certification requirements for radioactive material on Japanese food products. Japan has challenged these restrictions at the World Trade Organizations Dispute Settlement Body (DSB). This study aims to explain how international trade agreements and previous DSB rulings have dealt with different scientific viewpoints provided by confronting parties. In doing so, it will contrast the viewpoints espoused by Korean and Japanese representatives, and then analyzes the most similar case studies previously ruled on by the DSB, including the case of beef hormones and the case of genetically modified crops including biotech corn, both between the United States and the European Communities (EC). This study finds that science is largely subordinate to national interests in the case of state decision-making within the dispute settlement processes, and science has largely been relegated to a supportive role. Due to the ambiguity and lack of truly decisive decisions in the Appellate Body in science-based trade disputes, this study concludes that the Appellate Body avoids taking a firm scientific position in cases where science is still inconclusive in any capacity. Due to the panel's unwillingness to establish expert review boards as it has the power to do, instead favoring an individual-based system so that all viewpoints can be heard, it has also developed a system with its own unique weaknesses. Similar to any court of law in which each opposing party defends its own interests, each side brings whatever scientific evidence it can to defend its position, incentivizing them to disregard scientific conclusions unfavorable to their position. With so many questions that can arise, combined with the problems of evolving science, questions of risk, and social concerns in democratic society, it is no wonder that the panel views scientific information provided by the experts as secondary to the legal and procedural issues. Despite being ruled against the EC on legal issues in two previous cases, the EC essentially won both times because the panel did not address whether its science was correct or not. This failure to conclusively resolve a debate over whose science is more scientific enabled the EC to simply fix the procedural issues, while continuing to enforce trade restrictions based on their scientific evidence. Based on the analysis of the two cases of disputes, Korea may also find itself guilty of imposing an unwarranted moratorium on Japan's fish exports, only to subsequently pass new restrictions on labelling and certification requirements because Japan may have much scientific evidence at its disposal. However, Korea might be able to create enough uncertainty in the panel to force them to rule exclusively on the legal issues of the case. This will then equip Korea, like the EC in the past, with a way of working around the ruling, by changing whatever legal procedure they need to while maintaining some, if not most, of its restrictions when the panel fails to address its case on scientific grounds.