Earticle

According to principle of law, freedom of agreement among litigants is commonly accepted, and this is also applied to civil procedure which is governed by principle of party disposition and principle of party negotiation. Namely, defendant and plaintiff are allowed to agree or contract regarding certain article with the purpose of generating certain legal effect which can directly or indirectly influence present or future civil procedure. However, the agreement is admitted conditionally. There exist certain restrictions because while civil procedure is conducted before governmental institution court, law of civil procedure which regulates civil procedure is a public law. According to regulations of law of civil procedure, agreement among litigants is valid when the agreement complies with the regulations. Agreement which has legal ground on provision has no problem. However, in case there does not exist a well written regulation, how the agreement is legally regulated becomes an issue. In this article, we contemplate characteristic's of law, in case it becomes a problem when agreement without legal ground on provision is admitted of legitimacy, mainly regarding abatement of claim during lawsuit contract. Furthermore, based on this, we examine requirement, efficacy, agreement to not appeal, and evidence contract of lawsuit contract. Field of lawsuit contract, influenced by inactiveness of debate on step in the proceedings, is a relatively stable theoretical field in the modern days. While theory and precedent regarding legitimacy theory which insists the validity of agreement by lawsuit is almost settled, conflict among jurisdiction contract theory, lawsuit contract theory and others can not be seen as resolved. The conflict is whether the determination of legal characteristics of these should be done by litigants' rational interpretation or by complex contemplation on external factors. The task of the theory is to develop uniform litigation theory as well as application of jurisdictional law in litigation. Recently, as a new form of agreement by lawsuit, seeing agreement among litigants as valid in principle just like truce agreement or ceasefire agreement, and processing it as management of due date designation is insisted. Subsequently, new forms of agreement by lawsuit are expected to emerge gradually. This paper is written to be used as a stepping stone to further the stability of field of lawsuit contract which will later become stabler by in-depth and developmental researches.

Asbestos was used in ancient times due to its resistance to fire. Asbestos use remained moderate until the end of the nineteenth century, when the industrialisation of society meant that protection from fire and heat was necessary. However, Asbestos was known as a material that can lead to lung cancer and other diseases. For that reason, France and the United States, Japan and other industrialized nations, most take steps to prohibit asbestos was used. This state of affairs is compounded by the significant lapse of time before asbestos-linked pathologies manifest themselves. It is therefore understandable that there is a regular increase in the number of known victims and in the lawsuits filed by victims seeking compensation. In France, asbestos victims can obtain compensation in several different ways. It is a remedy through the FIVA(Indemnification fund for asbestos victims) and the Court. The FIVA aims to compensate the various types of harm suffered by asbestos victims(regardless of whether or not the exposure was occupational). FIVA which ensures full compensation for harm suffered by asbestos victims. On the other hand, where the FIVA considers that the statutory conditions governing indemnification are not met, it notifies its refusal to the applicant by registered letter with return receipt requested, which contains the reason for the refusal. The FIVA must also inform the applicant of the timeframe(two months) and methods of filing an appeal. An appeal is possible in three cases: if the indemnification request was rejected by the FIVA, if an offer was not made within 6 months, or if the FIVA offer was refused. Appeals are heard by the Court of Appeals that has jurisdiction over the applicant’'s place of residence. An appeal on points of law before the French Supreme Court is possible if the Court of Appeals does not find in favour of the victim. However, certain asbestos victims have not hesitated in seeking compensation in other ways and in calling the State’s liability in question before the administrative courts. The French administrative courts have ruled on the State’s liability in asbestos cases on several occasions. Indeed, on 30 May 2000, the Marseille Administrative Court ruled against the State for not having legislated before the Decree of 17 August 1977 concerning specific safety measures applicable in establishments where the personnel is exposed to the effect of asbestos dust and for not having requested a scientific study on the subject before 1995, when the French National Health and Medical Research Institute published a study. The French Labour Code entitles the State to limit employers’ rights to determine working conditions in the field of health and safety. These decisions were confirmed by the Marseille Administrative Court of Appeals on 18 October 2001. The supporting arguments submitted, namely the delayed reaction by other States and the difficulty at the time of carrying out a study aimed at specifying the exact nature of the risk, were not accepted. The French State was then criticised for merely having transposed the 1987 and 1992 European Directives into French law, without the resulting reduction in exposure thresholds being justified by precise scientific data. The administrative magistrates held that the State could not claim to have acted responsibly by pleading compliance with European standards, which is necessary but not always sufficient. The State was held liable, both on the grounds of its shortcomings in the prevention of risks and on the grounds that its regulations were not sufficient and were not adopted early enough to deal with these same risks. It is not surprising that the French State was held liable, given its delay in dealing with the issue of asbestos, compared to other European countries. On 3 March 2004, the French Supreme Administrative Court upheld the ruling and confirmed the State’s liability.

The personal rights has protective legal interest that rescues either spiritual pains or property losses and damages when personal values such as life, body and honor, etc are damaged: Therefore, in principle, the rights can be owned not by the deceased but by the ones who are alive. However, when personal rights such as honor of the deceased is actually damaged, not only legal procedures but also protective legal interest of survivors might be of problem. Therefore, this paper briefly examined general theory on personal rights but also personal rights of the deceased. In particular, the author investigated admission of personal rights of the deceased at home and aborad that was discussed. Men leave either corpse or ashes at death: Does either corpse or ashes have influence upon personal rights? The author investigated theories and precedent cases on whether either corpse or ashes could be thought to be an object of ownership and to whom rights on corpse and ashes would belong. These days, the Supreme Court's judgment judged some questions on rights of either corpse or ashes gave implications to have room of discussion. So, the author gave some comments.

Under our current situation that South Korea is confronted with North Korea, it is quite essential that Military airfields must exist and Military aircraft must be much larger, faster, and more advanced to protect our country. Because Command of the air is the most decisive factor in modern warfare. Because of that, however, the residents who live around Military airfields have been undergoing mental and physical anguish and property loss. So, as far as the high-tech and low noise aircraft isn‘t created and manufactured, civil complaints about them will be increasing more and more. These days, more and more people tend to enhance the national consciousness about their surroundings and pursue the recovery of segmentalized rights and liberty strongly. Hence, one of the most important factor to judge the quality of their life, which demands pleasant and nice life surroundings, will be required a lot more. It is true that the residents who live around Military airfields have put up with much damage under the name of publicness and national security so far. So, to compensate adequately for these residents‘ real damage, I want to discuss what our government and courts should check and consider with the greatest care in this paper.

This Paper deal with the current state and the view of the Real Estate Auction. Especially, this research studies the Lien of the Real Estate Auction. a buyer is faced with an unexpected difficulty Real Estate Auction. because of a buyer undertakes a Lienor's a false claim. so A Lien is frequently troubled to the tenderer(a buyer) in taking over the auction article. The Lienor lowers the selling price by declaring the falsified and exaggerated Lien without the opposing power by abusing it and delays the delivery of real estate, which inflicts much damage. In order to prevent from damage in Real Estate Auction, you are knowledge n the analysis of unenrolled right, A Lien. By being generalized and diversified the applications of Lien, many problems on Lien in the practical procedure about Real Estate Auction become a prominent figure. this writer indicates some problems of the present a Lien and proceeds to a discussion by proposing the improvement in the court of law, buyer, debtor.

Article 245, Clause 1 of Civil Law regulates “if the person who takes possession of the real property tranquilly and futilely by the proprietary intent for 20 years register it, he would get the proprietary rights of it”. In 1993, the Constitutional Court said, the substantive interests about the real property of the object of a right between the owner of the real property who defaults exercising his rights for a long time and originally the unrightfully person who takes possession of the real property tranquilly and futilely by the proprietary intent for 20 years (it seems to be a constancy) shows the need of the acquisitive prescription system. Correlatively, under the fairness the possessor who has heavier substantial interest acquires the claim of transfer the real property from the owner of the real property. Therefore it does not violate the ideal and limit of guarantee of the property rights ruled by Article 23, Clause 1 of the Constitution. Additionally if the original owner forfeited of his ownership without an indemnification, compensation or restitution of unjust enrichment, it would be followed reflexive effect of the acquisitive prescription. It concretely formed the substance and limitation about gains and losses of the real property ownership which is the property rights ensured by the constitution. So it does not violate Article 37, Clause 1 of the Constitution which regulates limit of the restriction of the fundamental human rights. It should be comprehended the system of acquisitive prescription of real property is the system which is protecting the rightful person who gains rights substantially but cannot prove it. Namely, if the fact keeps on going for a long time, it would be easy to be disappeared the evidence of the relations of just rights so far. So the system of acquisitive prescription of real property makes the rightful person protect from that kinds of difficulty of proof. By the way, the current law is not clear. In case someone squats with malice or even the area of the dealing real property is over it of the register, current law has admitted the acquisitive prescription. It makes the rightful person sacrificed wrongfully. Under the property rights, it limited unfairly disposition rights that are about the personal usefulness and object of the property rights that is the core of substantial essence. Therefore Article 245, Clause 1 of Civil Law has the violation of the constitution because of essential violation of the private ownership of property. So it should be that only person who has possessed the real estate by the just right can get the acquisitive prescription.

Under the current legal regime, protection of the objects created in Cyberspace, which is formulated by the development of the information technology, is sometimes regarded inappropriate or the protection system does not fully understand the characteristics of Cyberspace such as openness, sharing, and participation among its members. Also, there are cases where no protection at all is granted according to the types of the cyber-objects, although proper protection thereof must be required. The following four measures can be employed to determine the appropriateness: degree of creativity, life cycle of cyber-objects in question, investment amount and development period and nature of cyber-objects. Therefore, the protection of the cyber objects is difficult to solve by applying the lex real space when considering the characteristic of Cyberspace and cyber-objects and appropriate method and extent of the protection for Cyberspace must be established. The protection system for cyber property rights must reflect the spirit of co-authership, sharing of properties and promoting utilization of cyber property rights. To meet the need of establishing rules for appropriate protection, in this article, first of all, I will intend to establish definition and scope of cyber property and review features of cyber property right. Firstly I will address emergence of creations in Cyberspace and legal concept for those creations, introducing recent moves of Cyberspace which has been emerged and has been developed and legal control over Cyberspace and the limitation thereto. Secondly, I will deal with differences of between real world objects and cyber-objects and different categories of the cyber-objects as well as definition of the cyber-objects. Then, I will address definition and types of cyber property. Furthermore, I review requirements and effects of cyber property.

1. Die Untersuchungsmaxime (Auch Untersuchungsgrundsatz, Inqusitionsmaxime oder Amtsmaxime genannt) besagt; Das Gericht hat von Amts wegen, d.h. von sich aus und unabhängig von den Parteien, den Sachverhalt restlos aufzuklären, also all erforderlichen Tatsachen und Beweismittel heranzuziehen und zu prüfen. Es trägt damit die alleinige Verantwortung für die tatsächlichen Urteilsgrundlagen. Daher Untersuchungsmaxime und Verhandungsmaxime verteilen also die Verantwortung unter Parteien und Gericht nach dem Grundsatz; alles oder nichts. Damit sind aber nur extreme Lösungsmöglichkeiten umschreiben. Ob und wieweit der Gesetzgeber der einen oder andern Maxime folgen will, ist seiner rechtpolitischen Entscheidung überlassen. 2. Im Untersuchungsmaxime, das Gericht kann auch von Amts wegen die Aufnahme von Beweisen anordnen und auch solche Tatsachen berücksichtigen, die von ihnen nicht vorgebracht sind. Auch unbestrittener Sachvortrag nicht als zugestanden gilt und Geständnisse nur als schlichte Beweismittel zu behandeln sind. Ob es nach solchen Tatsachen von Amts wegen forschen will, auf die sich die Parteien nicht berufen haben, steht nicht in sienem Ermessen, sondern pflichtig(die Amtsermittelspflicht des Gerichts). 3. Im Untersuchungsmaxime, die Parteien have das Recht, die Prozeßmittel zu beibringen(Mitwirkung[Aufklärung]srecht der Parteien). Auch die Parteien erzwingen, daß die Sachverhältnis konkludent aufklärt werden (Mitwirkung[Aufklärung]spflicht der Parteien). Im Untersuchungsmaxime, begrenzt wird die Aufklärungspflicht des Gerichts, durch den Streitgegenstand und Mitwirkungspflichtsablehnung des Partei. 4. Die Grundsatz des rechtlichen Gehörs gebietet es, daß die Parteien Gelegenheit erhalten, sich zur Beweisaufnahme zu äußern, ehe das Beweisergebnis dem Urteil zugrunde gelegt wird. Es ist für einen Bereich eine Einschränkung des Untersuchungsmaxime. Aber ist das Gericht davon überzeugt, daß eine weitere Bweisaufnahme für das Verfahrensergebnis keine Bedeutung mehr haben kann, so braucht es von Amts wegen keine weiteren Beweise zu erheben. Es unterliegen der freien richterliche Beweiswürdigung. Trotz aller Bemühungen, den Sachverhalt erschöpfen aufklären, kommen Beweislastentscheidungen vor. Die objektive Beweislast wird durch die Amtsermittlung nicht berührt.

As the court strictly decides the legitimacy of the expiration of future action in a suit of return claim against future injustice profits caused by land occupation, as the plaintiff argues, the court does not properly protect the creditor's right because it forces the creditor to sue multiple times within a time limit for the return claim and it results in increasing the expense of suit and getting the procedures complicated. Therefore, it is necessary to allow flexibility in deciding the future lawsuit qualification. The court should not turn down the lawsuit by denying the lawsuit qualification for plaintiff due to the improper expiration period. The court rather should flexibly decide by executing the right of explanation to balance the gains of the plaintiff and the burden on the defendant by considering the cost of claim, the condition and the title of road occupation, and the law related knowledge of the parties with a view to the blance of interest of related parties.

The adult guardianship system was introduced into Korean civil code in 2011 and will be put into force in July 2013. It is necessary for us to discuss how a so-called guardianship court which deals with matter of adult guardianship is designed for it in Korean judicial system. There can be three kinds of court which will be able to be proposed. One is the adult guardianship court which is separated from family court and established through the country, another a guardianship division in family court which is established in the every corner of the country, the third a family division in the court of ordinary. I believe that among them the third one is a practica one as the situation now stands. However we must note that the detailed judicial processes for the matter of adult guardianship is much more valuable than the organization of a kind of court for that.