• Journal of Korean Society of Forest Science
• /
• v.90 no.3
• /
• pp.398-412
• /
• 2001

The purpose of this study is to examine the roles of the forest-land registry system in the Forest Law of 1908 and the effects this system had on the colonial forest-land policy used in Korea under the influence of Japanese Imperialism. This was started under the Profit-sharing Forest System which was one of the policies for disposing of the Korean national forests. The purpose of this system was to establish forest-land ownership, a fundamental human right. This system was enforced by the Japanese Colonial Government without regard to the customary and important right of Koreans to use the forests, and without considering the distinction between national and private forests. Koreans understood that this system was a warning sign of a tax being imposing on forest-land owners. Furthermore, Koreans thought the Japanese were using this system to deprive them of their forest-land. The strata of Koreans reporting ownership were very limited and included the intellectual(upper-middle) class, higher officials in counties and townships, relatives and relations of these officials, and survey agents. In particular the actual owners could not submit a report registering their land in this system because the required survey cost more than the value of the forest-land. Within the time period specified by the Japanese Colonial Government, about 520,000 registries were reported involving 2.2 million Jung-bo(.9917 hectare) with most of these coming during the last five months of reporting period. Koreans made a reasonable request to extend the deadline, but it was refused. After the reporting period expired there were no follow-up measures such as verification of the reported registrations nor establishment of boundaries between national and private forests. According to Article 19 in the Forest Law of 1908 about 14 million Jung-bo, which was not registered within the reporting period was nationalized. The colonial forest-land policy used in Korea by the Japanese Colonial Government was as follows : (1) to create a large number of national forests in the early period of their rule, (2) to divide these national forests into indispensible national forests and dispensible national forests, and (3) to transfer ownership of the dispensible national forests to colonial Japanese. To achieve the latter, the occupational government needed a method to insure ownership. They devised a tree-planting scheme in which the national forests classified as disposable were "loaned" and then transferred to these Japanese. The actual Korean owners claimed title to this forest-land and asked for the eviction of the new owners but the Japanese occupation government rejected these suits using the excuse that previous Korean owners did not submit the required registration report within the specified time period. In short the Principle of Forest-land Registry was used as a means to consolidate the forest-lands of Korea and distribute large portions of it to Japanese citizens after seizing it from the rightful Korean owners.

• Journal of the Korea Society of Computer and Information
• /
• v.6 no.4
• /
• pp.188-205
• /
• 2001

Insurer's duty of declaration is based on reciprocity of principle of the highest good, and recently it is widely recognized in the British and American insurance circles. The conception of fiduciary relationship is no longer equity or the legal theory which is only confined to the nations with Anglo-American laws. Therefore, recognizing the fiduciary relationship as the essence of insurance contract, which is more closely related to public interest than any other fields. will serve an efficient measure to seek fair and reasonable relationship with contractor, and provide legal foundation which permits contractor to bring an action for damage against violation of insurer's duty of declaration. In the future, only when the fiduciary relationship is approved as the essence of insurance contract, the business performance and quality of insurance industry is expected to increase. Therefore, to keep well this fiduciary relationship, or increase the fiduciary relationship persistency rates seems to be the bottom line in the insurance industry. In this paper, we developed a fiduciary relationship maintenance ratio based on comparison by case, which is represented with usually maintained contract months to paid months, based on each contract of the basis point. In this paper we have developed a new business model seeking the maximum profit with low cost and high efficiency, management policy of putting its priority on its substantiality, as an improvement measure to break away from the vicious circle of high cost and low efficiency, and management policy of putting its priority on its external growth(expansion of market share).

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.33 no.1
• /
• pp.45-79
• /
• 2018

An increase of airplanes and military aircraft operation lead to significant demanding of residential claims by people who live in nearby airports and military bases due to noise, vibration and residential damages caused by aircraft operations. In recent years, a plaintiff has filed a lawsuit against the defendant, claiming the prohibition of using claimant's possessed land as a helicopter landing route, and the Daejeon High Court was in favour of the plaintiff. Although the Supreme Court later dismissed the Appeal Court decision, it is necessary to discuss the case of setting flight prohibited zone. In Japan, the airport noise lawsuits have been filed for a long time, mainly by environmental groups. Unlike the case that admitted residential damages caused by noise, the Yokohama District Court for the first time sentenced a judgment of the prohibition of the flight. This ruling was partially changed in the appellate court and some of the plaintiffs' claims were adopted. However, the Supreme Court of Japan finally rejected such decision from appeal and district courts. Atsugi Base is an army camp jointly used by the United States and Japan, and residents, live nearby, claim that they are suffering from mental damage such as physical abnormal, insomnia, and life disturbance because of the noise from airplane taking off and landing in the base. An administrative lawsuit was therefore preceded in the Yokohama District Court. The plaintiff requested the Japan Self-Defense Forces(hereinafter 'JSDF') and US military aircraft to be prohibited operating. The court firstly held the limitation of the flight operation from 10pm to 6am, except unavoidable circumstance. The case was appealed. The Supreme Court of Japan dismissed the original judgment on the flight claim of the JSDF aircraft, canceled the first judgment, and rejected the claims of the plaintiffs. The Supreme Court ruled that the exercise of the authority of the Minister of Defense is reasonable since the JSDF aircraft is operating public flight high zone. The court agreed that noise pollution is such an issue for the residents but there are countermeasures which can be taken by concerned parties. In Korea, the residents can sue against the United States or the Republic of Korea or the Ministry of National Defense for the prohibition of the aircraft operation. However, if they claim against US government regarding to the US military flight operation, the Korean court must issue a dismissal order as its jurisdiction exemption. According to the current case law, the Korean courts do not allow a claimant to appeal for the performance of obligation or an anonymous appeal against the Minister of National Defense for prohibiting flight of military aircraft. However, if the Administrative Appeals Act is amended and obligatory performance litigation is introduced, the claim to the Minister of National Defense can be permitted. In order to judge administrative case of the military aircraft operation, trade-off between interests of the residents and difficulties of the third parties should be measured in the court, if the Act is changed and such claims are granted. In this connection, the Minister of National Defense ought to prove and illuminate the profit from the military aircraft operation and it should be significantly greater than the benefits which neighboring residents will get from the prohibiting flight of military aircraft.