Earticle

2008년 세도나 컨퍼런스의 제7 연구모임인 세도나 캐나다에 의해 만들어진 전 자증거개시를 위한 세도나 캐나다 원칙은 2010년 캐나다 온타리오(Ontario) 주의 개정 민사소송규칙에 그 자체가 조문에 포함된 바 있다. 사실 2004 년 세도나 컨퍼 런스 제1 연구모임에 의해 만들어진 세도나 원칙의 내용 중 일부가 미연방민사소송 규칙이나 미연방증거규칙에 반영된 것은 그리 놀랄만한 일이 아니 지만, 캐나다 온 타리오 주의 경우처럼 아무런 구속력을 갖지 않는 세도나 컨퍼런스 라는 기관 내지 단체에서 제시하고 있는 원칙을 민사소송규칙에 그대로 수용하는 것은 동 원칙에서 반영될 향후의 변화까지 민사소송규칙에 수용될 가능성이 있다는 점에서 다소 이례 적인 모습이다. 물론 캐나다 온타리오 주의 이와 같은 입법방식이 우리의 법체계상 으로도 가능한 것인지 그리고 합리적인 것인지 여부에 대해서는 별 론의 여지가 있 지만, 해석하기에 따라서는 세도나 캐나다 원칙이 그 만큼 신뢰할 만한 가치가 있음 을 의미하는 것으로 볼 여지도 있다. 세도나 원칙의 경우 미국에서 제정법과 판례 에 매우 광범위하게 반영 내지 인용되고 있어 우리나라의 경우에도 이를 소개하고 있는 몇몇 선행연구가 있지만 세도나 캐나다 원칙에 대한 소개는 찾아보기 어렵다. 세도나 캐나다 원칙은 이전의 세도나 원칙이나 전자증거개시와 관 련된 캐나다의 여 러 지침과 비교할 때 주요내용이나 구조면에서 크게 새로운 내용을 담고 있는 것은 아니지만 세도나 원칙이 미국의 상황에 맞추어져 있음을 감안한다 면 세도나 캐나다 원칙은 캐나다의 상황에 맞게 적절히 변경되어 있음을 발견할 수 있다. 이에 본고 는 세도나 캐나다 원칙을 중심으로 동 원칙의 기반이 된 세도나 원 칙과 캐나다의 관련 지침 내지 원칙 등을 비교분석 및 검토하고 동 원칙이 우리에 게 주는 시사점 에 대해 고민해 보고해 봄으로써 향후 우리 법제의 변화를 위한 토 대를 마련하고자 한다.

In 2010, “the Sedona Canada Principles Addressing Electronic Discovery” developed by the Sedona Conference working group 7 itself was adopted on the rules of civil procedure in Ontario, Canada. Although it is no wonder that parts of the contents of “the Sedona Principles Addressing Electronic Document Production” was adopted on the federal rules of civil procedure in the united states, the adoption of Ontario is the exception rather than the rule concerning the binding force of the Sedona Conference and acceptability of the potential for change of the Sedona Canada Principles. However, this adoption could be the indicator of the reliability of the Sedona Canada Principles in Ontario. There are some precedent studies on “the Sedona Principles Addressing Electronic Document Production”, although there is few studies on “the Sedona Canada Principles Addressing Electronic Discovery” in Korea. In fact, there are few surprises in the Sedona Canada Principles in comparison with other principles or directions on the E-Discovery. But, the Sedona Canada Principles is reflecting the situation of the Canada through making small changes. A review of “the Sedona Canada Principles Addressing Electronic Discovery” comparing other principles or directions on the E-Discovery and its implications for Korea would lay the foundation for the changes of the our legal system.

한·미 양국의 열띤 정치적 공방 후에서야, 2011년 자유무역협정은 미국 의회와 한국 의회를 통과하게 되었다. 양국의 사업자들 사이에 경쟁과 교역을 증가시키기 위한 자유무역협정의 규정들로 인해 양국의 거래가 상당히 증가할 것이다. 법적 쟁점들이 사업에 방해가 되지 않아야 하기 때문에, 한·미 양국의 사업자들과 이들에 대해 자문을 제공하는 자들은 국제 물품매매에 관한 유엔협약에 대한 이해가 요구된다. 나아가, 미국의 사업자들과 그들에 대해 자문을 제공하는 자들은 특히 한국의 증거법과 같은 한국과 미국의 사법절차에서의 광범위한 차이점에 친숙해질 필요가 있으며, 반면 한국의 사업자들과 그들에 대해 자문을 제공하는 자들은 통일 통상 규정(통일상법전)에반영된 것과 같은 미국의 국내법에 익숙해져야 할 필요가 있다. 이 논문은 국제 물품매매에 관한 유엔협약의 간단한 역사를 살펴보고, 부대적 증거에 적용되는 제8조에 대해 논의한다. 그런 다음 한국에서의 민사소송절차와 증거법을 살펴보고, 해당 규정들이 미국의 증거법과 어떻게 다르게 작용하는지도 검토한다. 논문의 많은 부분은 국제 물품매매에 관한 국제협약 제8조와 통일 통상 규정의 구두증거배제의 원칙에 대해 분석하고 있다. 여기서 중점적으로 검토되는 것은 한·미 양국의 법제에서 차이점이 무엇인가에 대한 검토와 이런 증거법적 차이가 양국의 사업자들 사이에서 발생하는 분쟁에 어떤 영향을 미칠 것인가를 분석하는 것이다. 이 논문은 상대방 국가의 상대방의 거래에 있어서 자국의 의뢰인들에게 자문을 하려는 미국과 한국의 변호사들에게 실무적인 도움이 되고자하는 목적에서 작성되었다

After heated political theatre in both countries the Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement was ratified by both the U.S. Congress and the Korean National Assembly in late 2011. There will be a significant increase in trade under the terms of this agreement which will cause an increase in both competition and interaction between the merchants of both countries. As legal issues should not be a hindrance to business, Korean and U.S. merchants and their respective advisors will need to acquire a familiarity with the U.N. Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (“Convention” or “CISG”). Further, Korean merchants and their advisors will need to become familiar with the domestic law of the United States as reflected in the Uniform Commercial Code (“UCC”) while U.S. merchants and their advisors will need to gain familiarity with the extensive differences between U.S. and Korean court procedures, especially as regards Korean evidentiary rules. This article gives a brief history of the Convention and discusses Article 8 as it applies to extrinsic evidence. The article then discusses civil procedure rules and evidence rules in the Republic of Korea and how these rules differ from the U.S. rules of evidence. The bulk of the article analyzes the differences between the CISG Article 8 and the UCC parol evidence rule with emphasis on exploring how differences in the two uniform laws and the different evidentiary rules of the U.S. and South Korea affects disputes that arise between merchants of the two countries. This article aims at assisting both U.S. and Korean attorneys in advising their respective clients when interacting with their counterparts.

The unemployment benefit system proved effective in South Korea during the 1997 financial crisis and the global financial crisis, triggered by the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers in 2008, as it proved income support for people who lost their job. The unemployment benefit system has been refined to serve an important role in preventing unemployment and accelerating reemployment, in addition to the core objective of providing income for unemployed people. Despite the effective role of the unemployment benefit system, it is necessary to assess the system as a key element of social safety net as originally intended and its effects on reemployment of people receiving unemployment benefit. The system still has downside as a social safety net given that approximately 5 million laborers are uninsured for the benefit and that people who are voluntarily unemployed due to irresistible reasons such as illness are not entitled to the benefit. In addition, people who are not eligible for the benefit include those who failed to find a new job after receiving the benefit, young people seeking a job, those aged 65 or older who want a job, those who have an irregular employment status, those who want to return to the job market after resigning from the previous job voluntarily and those who run a self-employed business. Thus the exclusion of many groups makes it hard to see the unemployment benefit system as an instrument of social protection. The level of unemployment benefit also stir debates. It is therefore needed to investigate the benefit level and effects of the system on reemployment of the unemployed. The job market was hit hard by the financial crisis in 1997 and 2008. The economic crisis that began to loom in the European region in 2011 also pose a potential threat to job security. Although the job market is highly vulnerable to economic slowdown, the unemployment benefit is the only social security available for Korean people. To expand the system as a complete social safety net, the introduction of unemployment allowance seems necessary. This study suggests the direction of the unemployment benefit system that can fulfill the all objectives; stabilize living situation of the unemployed, redistribute wealth and promote reemployment.

As the number of non-regular employees has been increased sharply since 1997 when the financial crisis occurred, its scale in the public sector also has been increased rapidly. The portion of non-regular employees is over one third of whole wage earners nationwide now. Among those employees in the public sector, this study focuses on the school employees. The purpose of this study is to analyze problems of those school employees as they are covered by different kinds of employers; the parties to employment contracts applied by the Labor Standard Act on one hand, and the parties to collective bargaining stipulated by the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act on the other hand. It means that the term of ‘employer’ under both the Labor Standard Act and the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act are stipulated as the same meaning, however, as its interpretations are different under different acts, this will definitely create a lot of confusion and it is worried to destabilize legal stability. Firstly, about the employer under the Labor Standard Act, both the Labor Relations Commission and courts of justice have almost the same opinion that the superintendents of education are recognized as the parties as employers to enter into employment contracts. On the contrary about the employers for collective bargaining, school principals are considered as the parties, it’s a problem. The employment contracts should be entered into by those employers and employees who are able to determine their own employment conditions. However, the judgement that school principals are parties to collective bargaining has not been made from close considerations because the employers as the parties of collective bargaining should have the power to determine conditions of employees collectively. After studying whether or not such judgment was appropriate, the conclusion is as it follows. Because the suitable party to collective bargaining of the school sector is the superintendent of education, the counterparty for collective bargaining offered by the trade union should be the superintendent of education. Furthermore, the matters what a school principal is suitable to be the party to collective bargaining should be restricted to the matters applied to the school individually. That is the scope that a school principal is qualified to be the party to collective bargaining. This theorizing will secure stable labor-management relationships, and will keep consistency for determining as employer under the Labor Standard Act. By theorizing eligibility of employer to collective bargaining with workers in the public sector including school sectors in the future, it is expected to have opportunities to show directions of relations between the labor and management.

This paper deal with doctrine of Insurer's Utmost Good Faith. a contract of insurance is a contract based upon the utmost good faith, and, if the utmost good faith be not observed by either party, the contract amy be avoided by the either party. But utmost good faith doctrine in English Law is the notion of the Anglo-American legal system witch greatly differs from Korean one. And this article writes that the utmost good faith doctrine is similar to the doctrine of the trust and good faith which is provided in the Korean Civil Law art 2. In writer's view, under the Korean law, the insurer's duty of disclosure ti the insured is admitted with the rule of good faith and clause of fraud exclusion in the Korean Civil Code. In this regard, the legal effect of the violation of the said provisions will be a breach of contract or tort law, and one who has suffered damages from the non-disclose may request compensation from the insurer. The Korean Supreme Court considers the insurer's liability under Article 102 to be a strict liability, and broadly applies the Article to various situations. Because Article 102 of the Korean Insurance Business Act is unique, the UK law does not have that kind of provision in their legislation. Under the Korean law, the insured who has suffered damages from non-disclose of the insurer may be compensated for is losses with the application of Article 102 to some extents, Article 102 of the Korean Insurance Business Act.

Recently, we saw another case of corporate corruption through that of SK group. Also, some of local governments were caught for that they fabricated the accounts to secure budgets for focal projects and projects promised during the election. Those cases show that the corruption is wide spread in Korea regardless of public and private sectors. Under these circumstances, a certain system is required to detect and uncover quickly and effectively corruption. Besides, monitoring corporate managements is important not only for stock holders and employees but also for the interested parties and public interest. In Korea, Public Interest, the Notifier Protection Act was legislated to invigorate whistle-blowing from the inside. However, this has failed to prevent corruption like accounting fraud, dereliction of duty, and embezzlement which mainly occur in Korean companies. Corporate corruption became as big as an incident that can cause the risk of national economy. And so it has a serious impact on public. Therefore, another whistle-blowing system is required to prevent corporate corruption and it should be designed to take it into considerations that Korean companies have corporate governance based on controlling stockholders.

A holder in due course under the Uniform Commercial Code (hereinafter, “UCC”) § 3-302 is a person who acquires a negotiable instrument for value, in good faith, without notice that it is overdue, dishonored, or that any person has any claim or defense, and the holder in due course is protected by UCC § 3-305 from most claims and defenses. Through this protection of the holder-in-due-course rule, however, in the structure of the home mortgage lending market, predatory lenders have been able to avoid the risk of harm created by mortgage borrowers, and investors in the securitization market have been able to assign almost all such risk to the homeowners who are the victims of the predatory lenders’ practices. This article raises a fundamental policy question: is there reason to support the continuing availability of the holder-in-due-course protection for assignees of home mortgage notes in the U.S.? The answer can be approached form many perspectives, including historical, economical, and political. This article approaches the answer form the historical perspective. In order to find some new suggestions for the Korean legal regimes and relevant studies, first of all, this article reviews the legislative history of the holder-in-due-course rule and the underlying concept of negotiability under UCC. Additionally, this article analyzes the legal changes regarding the protection afforded to holders in due courses in consumer goods transactions and in estate transactions. Then, this article comes to the conclusion that the policy justifications, the parties. and the market circumstances for negotiable instruments have changes, therefore, Korea needs deeper studies on the holder-in-due-course rule to reflect the reality.

Im Rahmen von koreanischen Strafrecht versteht man die Täterschaft als primär und die Teilnahme als sekundär verantwortlich. Deshalb kann man so definieren, dass die Teilnahme über die Täterschaft hinaus existiert. Es ist exakt das Problem über die Akzessorietät der Teilnahme, die jetzige Mehrheit nimmt die Stellung, dass die Rechtswidrigkeit solidarisch ist und die Verantwortung individuell. Dies nennt man limitierte Akzessorietät. Solche Annahme ist gleichgültig in japanische Strafrecht. Eine von den aktuellen Streitigkeiten im japanischen Strafrecht ist dieses Problem über die Akzessorietät der Teilnahme. Der Mittelpunkt von dieser Debatte ist wie man unter die limitierte Akzessorietät versteht, die Mehrheit bevorzugt. Die vergangene limitierte Akzessorietät zeigt einfach an unter die Annahme 'die Rechtswidrigkeit solidarisch und die Verantwortung individuell', wenn die Täterschaft rechtswidrig ist, ist die Teinahme ebenfalls widrig. Es gibt nun aber andere Meinungen zu dieser Annahme. Neben der relativen Rechtswidrigkeit existiert ebenfalls die Meinung die Akzessorietät der Teilnahme als die Begründung der Teilnahme. Dennoch im Angesichts von akzessorische Verursachungstheorie wird die Bedeutung von solidarische Rechtswidrigkeit anders verstanden, dies wiederum bedeutet, dass die Rechtswidrigkeit von Täterschaft und Teilnahme in relativen Massen evaluiert werden könnte. Die Bedeutung der Akzessorietät der Teilnahme ist die Rechtswidrigkeit der Täterschaft nicht unbedingt mit der Teilnahme bezogen, sondern die Rechtswidrigkeit ist nur eine Bedingung des Existenz von der Teilnahme. Das heißt, die solidarische Rechtswidrigkeit bedeutet nicht 'absolut solidarisch' per se. Rücksichtsnahme von solchen Punkten, geben 'die relative Rechtswidrigkeit' und 'die Akzessorietät der Teilnahme als notwendige Option für die Begründung der Teilnahme' neue Aspekte an uns.

In a few very extreme cases, courts may "pierce the corporate veil," and hold some or all of the shareholders personally liable for the corporation’s debts. This is the so-called doctrine of piercing the corporate veil. This doctrine was first developed at the end of 19th century in America. Under the American corporate law, if the corporation’s shares are held by individuals, courts look in deciding whether to pierce the corporate veil to such factors as, for example, tort vs. contract, fraud, inadequate capitalization and failure of formalities. In nearly all cases, at least two of the above four factors must be present for the court to pierce the veil; the most common combination is probably inadequate capitalization plus failure to follow corporate formalities. In Japan, the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil was first adopted in 1969 by a Supreme Court decision, which categorized the piercing the corporate veil cases into two groups; one is abuse of corporate legal entity case and the other one is skeletonizing of legal corporate entity case. Thereafter all the Japanese courts are following the Supreme Courts' lead and categorize the piercing the corporate veil case as above. However, this kind of categorization has been strongly criticized by many Japanese scholars because the factors to be considered in determining which cases belong to the abuse of corporate legal entity case and which cases belong to the skeletonizing of legal corporate entity case are too vague. Such categorization is the only creature of Japanese courts and American courts never know such a dichotomy. Even though the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil applied by the Japanese Courts has many problems as mentioned above, Korean courts and scholars followed the Japanese Courts's attitude without much thought. The object of this article is to study the American doctrine of piercing the corporate veil which is the model of korean and japanese doctrine of piercing the corporate veil, and to reasonably reconstruct the system of Korean doctrine of the corporate veil.

지난 20세기 말 이후 일련의 세계경제위기와 최근 미국 발 글로벌 금융 불안에 기인해 국제금융체제와 금융산업에 대한 재평가 작업의 진행과 함께 글로벌 금융위기에 적절히 대처할 수 있는 국제금융감독 시스템의 구축에 지구촌의 관심이 집중되고 있다고 해도 과언이 아니다. 그동안 금융의 세계화와 금융기법의 혁신으로 인한 국제 금융환경의 혁명적인 변화로 인하여 현행 금융 감독 체제는 금융의 세계화가 야기한 위험에 적절히 대처하지 못하고 있다. 이는 국가(정부)의 잘못과 시장의 실패로 금융위기가 야기되었음이 근래의 글로벌 금융위기에서 밝혀져 금융을 시장의 논리에만 맡겨서는 안 되며 국가프로젝트 차원에서 전략화함으로써 국가적 헤게모니를 유지할 수 있는 도구로 활용하여야 한다는 주장의 논거가 되고 있다. 이에 본 논문은 세계화의 물결을 타고 나타난 시장과 세계화의 주역으로 등장한 국제경제기구의 위세 앞에 선 국가의 현주소와 미래를 국제법의 관점에서 살펴보고자 한다. 아울러 본 연구는 규범통합의 주체로서 국가의 주권개념도 국제정치경제질서의 변화에 부응하는 분석을 통하여 권위적인 국가의 몰락이 아니라 글로벌 사회계약 당사자로서 동시에 국제경제사회의 일원으로서 수행해야 할 국가의 책임과 의무에 초점을 맞추어 새롭게 설정하고 있다. 그것은 국가 없이는 시장은 물론 국제기구도 존속할 수 없기 때문이다.

In information society, human life has been adjacent to broadcasting and communication. The convergence of broadcasting and communication has called for a need reviewing a traditional theory on the freedom of broadcasting and communication. There are two main sides in legally reviewing the freedom of broadcasting and communication. One is the people's point of view, focusing on how to guarantee people's fundamental human rights to the freedom of broadcasting and communication. The other is the state's point of view, focusing on how to regulate people's rights to freedom of broadcasting and communication. This paper has mainly studied the legal nature of 'the freedom of broadcasting and communication' and 'the regulatory body' among topics regarding the two main sides above. Actually, there are already enough preceding studies on the nature of the freedom of broadcasting and communication. However, this study intends to review the freedom, which can be seen as an object of content regulation, considering traditional theories and reality. Content regulation means scrutinizing contents of broadcasting and communication. So it can not coexist with the protection of the confidentiality of correspondence. Like this, a possibility of content regulation is formed depending on the character of broadcasting and communication. Content regulation should keep its limit on the freedom of broadcasting and communication. By analyzing the nature of the deliberation and the regulatory body, we could make a legal conclusion whether the content regulation stays in its boundary or not. After doing a research on 'the character of the freedom of broadcasting and communication as an object of content regulation' and 'the nature of the deliberation and the regulatory body', this paper contains a statutory analysis on 'Korea Communication Standards Commission'.

Unter unserer vertretungsberechtigten Regulierung zur Internet Content versteht man “das Gesetz zur Informations- und Kommunikationsdienste”. Aber es wird zu oft geändert, und zwar wird es bis heute in elf Jahren schon sechsundzwanzigmal verbessert. Diese häufige Verbesserung des Gesetzes verletzt die Rechtssicherheit. Ausserdem beinhalten unsere fast alle Gesetze -auch zur Internet- die Strafe zur abweichenden Handlung in Bezug auf Internet Content. Aus dieser unvernünftigen Erweiterung der strafrechtlichen Sozialkontrollbereich ergibt sich das Misstrauen zur Legitimität des Gesetzes. In Bezug auf diesem Problem hat die Regulierung der deutschen Internet Content uns mehr beeinflußt. Erstens hat das deutsche Gesetz zur Vereinheitlichung von Vorschriften wie EIGVG, IuKDG, etc. dazu geholfen, dass Allgemeinheit die Verordnung oder Verbesserung des Gesetz einfach erkennt. Davon trägt es auch zur Stabilisierung der Norm, ferner Rechtssicherung bei. Zweitens hat diese deutsche Regelung zur neuen abweichenden Handlung in Zusammenhang mit der Internet vorzugsweise nicht mit der Strafe, sondern mit der Verwaltungssanktion wie Bußgeld geregelt. Daraus kann man verstehen, dass die Anwendung oder die Einsetzung des Strafrechts im Deutschland sehr sorgfältig. Die Nachteile der Internet durch der Strafe aufzulösen, kann die Vorteile auch eher reduziert. Mir scheint so gut, dass das Internetproblem nicht mit der Strafe, vielmehr mit der Wiederanordnung des Verwaltungssystems erledigt wird, wie die deutsche Regelung.

Up to now, there are multiple dilemmas both within and outside judicial proceedings of medical tort lawsuit. The fundamental reason for those dilemmas is the concerns and helplessness of patients and judges over non liquet in the facts of cases , which may happen in any kind of litigations. In light of professional expertise involved in and complicatedness of medical services, the non liquet in facts in judicial proceedings of medical tort lawsuit is more prominent. The core at making breakthroughs in dilemmas lies in overcoming the non liquet in facts of cases. It is the consensus that the burden of proof system is the best tool by which non liquet can be overcome. But the process of building up this system in medical tort lawsuit is fraught with difficulties and there seems to be no single proof burden sharing rule that can meet the needs of achieving material justice. Therefore, classifying and analyzing medical torts, then applying different criterions of administrative liability and rules about burden of proof to different types of torts and in turn structuring a diversified burden of proof system is imperatively needed in development of modern tortious liability as well as the best option to break the dilemmas in modern medical tort lawsuit.