• 한국국방경영분석학회지
• /
• 제28권2호
• /
• pp.85-94
• /
• 2002

Calculation of proper expenses on acquisition and purchasing defense product is matter of survival and weighing the morality for both defense industry and the national facilities. With this reason, both parties have been a big job to estimate the resonable cost. The cost are composed of many subordinated parts such as material cost, labor cost, and so on. In the compositions of that cost, the most important part in between companies and the government throughout the whole calculating process is to define the proper labor cost. When both parties calculate imported articles or overhead expenses, they can easily calculate and confirm by documented evidences or related materials. In other hand, the labor cost, which can be seen as two absolutely different numbers and opinions can be created, depends on analyzer's point of view. These interpretation and judgment of data cannot avoid analyzer's intention. In accordance with the above matters, defining the reasonable labor cost will be the top priority in order to analyze the proper expenses. This study will provide a method of proper labor cost estimation before starting the actual manufacturing to calculate the rational labor cost.

• 의료법학
• /
• 제10권1호
• /
• pp.263-305
• /
• 2009

Is it lawful to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining treatment applied to a patient in a terminal condition or permanent unconscious condition? In Korea, there are no such laws or regulations which control affairs related to the withholding or withdrawal life-support treatment and active euthanasia as the Natural Death Act or the Death with Dignity Act in the U. S. A. And in addition there has had no precedent of Supreme Court. Recently Supreme Court has pronounced a historical judgment on a terminal care case. The court allowed the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment from a patient in a permanent unconscious state. Fundamentally the court judged that the continuation of that medical treatment would infringe dignity and value of a patient as a human being. And the court required some legal grounds to consider such withdrawal or withholding of medical care lawful. The legal grounds are as follow. First, the patient is in a incurable and irreversible condition and already entered a stage of death. Second, the patient executed a directive, in advance, directing the withholding or withdrawal of life-support treatment in a incurable and irreversible condition or in a terminal condition. Otherwise, at least, the patient's will would be presumed through his/her character, view of value, philosophy, religious faith and career etc. I regard if a patient is in a incurable and irreversible condition or in a terminal condition, the medical contract between a patient and a doctor would be terminated because of the actual impossibility of achievement of it's purpose. So I think the discontinuation of life-sustaining care would be legally allowed without depending on the patient's own will.

• 한국조리학회지
• /
• 제15권2호
• /
• pp.188-204
• /
• 2009

음식 축제 시스템 구성 요인은 하드웨어와 소프트웨어로 구분되는 다양한 요인으로 구성되어 있다. 이러한 점에서 본 연구는 음식 축제 구성 요인과 축제 방문객 재방문 의도와의 관계 검증에 중점을 주고 진행되었다. 방문객 평가는 만족의 전제이기 때문에 만족과 재방문 의도 등은 연속적인 관계에 놓이게 된다. 따라서 본 연구에서는 음식 축제 시스템 구성 요인이 방문객 평가(운영 평가, 체험 평가)에 미치는 영향과 음식 축제 평가요인으로서 운영 평가와 경험 평가간 관계를 검증하였고, 음식 축제 평가요인과 재방문 의도와의 영향 관계도 검증하였다. 분석결과, 음식 축제 구성 요인은 방문객 평가와 재방문 의도에 유의한 영향을 미치는 것으로 나타났다. 연속적 관계라는 맥락에서, 향후 연구에서는 음식 축제 구성 요인, 방문객 평가, 만족 및 재방문 의도 등의 관계 검증을 제안하였다.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제24권2호
• /
• pp.109-136
• /
• 2014

The separability of an arbitration clause is generally recognized throughout the world, but there are no provisions of it under the Federal Arbitration Act(FAA) of the United States. As such, the controversy over the recognition of separability has developed with the rise of certain cases. The Supreme Court recognized this separability based on section 4 of the FAA in the decision of the Prima Paint case. The Court ruled that courts must decide the claim about the fraudulent inducement of an arbitration agreement itself, but they must not decide the claim about the fraudulent inducement of a contract involving a broad arbitration clause, and they have to proceed with the arbitration. The Court said that the subject of an arbitral award is set by the agreement of the parties, and thereby arbitrators can decide the issues about the fraudulent inducement of a contract on the basis of the arbitration clause when it is broad to the point of including the issues. Many courts have extended the separability beyond the fraud context to include other defenses to contract formation in the federal courts such as the occurrence of mistake, illegality, and frustration of purpose. In interpreting the parties' intention of ensuring arbitrator competence, the Supreme Court has treated differently the issues about whether the arbitration agreement exists or not and the issues about whether the preconditions for dispute resolution by a valid arbitration agreement is fulfilled or not. The Court holds that the federal policy in favor of arbitration does not apply to the former issues, and arbitrators can decide theses issues only when parties assign them clearly and unmistakably to them. However, the later issues receive a presumption in favor of arbitration; i.e., when the interpretation of a valid arbitration clause is contested, the arbitrators can decide these issues. In the First Options case, the former issue was questioned. The question of the separability of an arbitration clause is where the validity of the main contract involving the arbitration clause is contested. Therefore, the doctrine of separability did not operate in the First Options case in which the validity of the arbitration clause itself was questioned, and the decision in the First Options was irrelevant to the separability. I think that the Prima Paint case and the First Options case have different issues, and there is no tension between them.