Earticle

The National Assembly of Korea established the Clause 2(Assessment Contract), Article 12, by revising the Motor Vehicle Compensation Guarantee Act in part on Nov. 29, 2011. The purpose of the new Clause 2, Article 12 of Motor Vehicle Compensation Guarantee Act was “to prevent leakage of insurance benefits and improve the medical service quality by strengthening specialty, objectivity and fairness of the medical charge assessment for auto insurance through the medical charge assessment contract with the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service, the professional assessment institution, because of serious leakage of insurance money by false and excessive medical examination and insurance fraud.” The legal status of Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service in accordance with Motor Vehicle Compensation Guarantee Act is the contractor for medical charge assessment with the insurers. In other words, when an insured causes a car accident and a medical institution requests the medical charge after taking care of that insured, the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service assesses if the medical treatment is appropriate for treatment details, determines the medical charge and notifies it to the medical institution. The Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service is the contractor of insurers which does the businesses related to assessment and claims executed by the insurers in the past. The system which an objection against medical charges determined by the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service, the assessment contractor, is made and the final means is the legal action in a court when such objection is not accepted is very unfair treatment for medical institutions in terms of fairness and equity. Accordingly, the insurers shall prevent any objections against the assessment results by the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service, their contractors for assessment to which they pay the fees. If it is considered that the assessment results by the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service is unfair, it is required to revise the provisions of Article 19 (Assessment Request on Medical Charge of Auto Insurance and Others), Motor Vehicle Compensation Guarantee Act, to enable the medical institutions to request the assessment to Auto Insurance Council for the equity between insurers and medical institutions.

Recently, developing social enterprise is considered as the third way to vitalize depressed rural areas instead of government policy and market mechanism. The emergence of social economy or social enterprise is line with creating jobs and then actualizing welfare society by expanding social service. The government decided to nurture social enterprises as one of aggressive supports for more employment and income, and enacted the Law of Social Enterprise in 2007. Social enterprise is a new business model was born in order to solve the unemployment and public interest issues arising from the contradictions of capitalist society, in the presence of a certain order to return to society the most of the revenue, and to contribute to society. Thus, the purpose of this study is to analyze current Korean system of support for social enterprises as well as actual cases of their connections with other industrial sectors, and deduce various ways of support required for business entities to turn successfully into social enterprises, so that it can propose effective ways to resolve the issues of support for social enterprises.

Obligation to prevent damage means the obligations of that policyholder or the insured strive for the prevention and mitigation of damages when the insurance accident occurred, and costs to avoid damages means the costs of that spending necessary and beneficial to prevent the occurrence and expansion of additional damages and mitigate damages. Our current 「Commercial Code」 Article 680 has been recognized obligations of that to prevent the spread of the damages or relief of the damages to policyholder or the insured, and has been recognized the liability to the insurer even if the sum of expenditure costs and compensation exceed the insurance amount. But these regulations did not prescribe explicitly the scope of the obligation to prevent damage and the effect of violation of the duty, and may be interpreted adversely to insurers because these regulations has been prescribe that insurer to be responsible regardless of whether the insurer's instructions. For this reason, the Department of Justice submitted the 2007 revised bill of insurance side of the 「Commercial Code」 to 17th National Assembly, but it was disposed due to term expires. Since then, the government submitted 「Commercial Code」 revised legislation to modify and supplement 「Commercial Code」 insurance side of existing, but these amendment has been deleted revised bill of the 「Commercial Code」 Article 680. But practical necessity to revised these regulations more clearly is critical. Moreover, the amendment of this provision was favored because the German Insurance Contract Act of 2009 was amended. For that reason, it has been giving considerable regret that revised bill of the 「Commercial Code」 Article 680 was deleted. Therefore, I would like to present desirable revised legislative measures after reviewing the issues of interpretation can be raised from the current 「Commercial Code」 Article 680 and look more the related statutes around the world on obligation and costs to prevent damage in this paper.

The executive officers mean, in the case of a corporation, the top of officers of a corporation. In 2011, the Korean Commercial Code adopted the new regime for the executive officers, and, as the duty currently stands, they owe some duties(including fiduciary duties) analogous to those owed by directors, to the company they are employed by and the shareholders they serve. In the U.S., the Delaware Supreme Court, renowned for its corporate governance decisions, recently decided Gantler v. Stephens and held that corporate officers owe the same fiduciary duties as directors. Before Gantler, two competing views emerged with respect to the protections courts should extend to executive officers for alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. One argued that executive officers and directors were equal fiduciaries and, therefore, courts should afford them the same business judgment presumption. Another contended that executive officers had greater responsibility over the day-to-day operations of the companies and, thus, should not be given the deferential treatment of the business judgment presumption. Gantler is important because it expressly held that executive officers are fiduciaries, however, the opinion left some very important questions undecided. One of those questions is whether the business judgment rule applies to executive officers. This article studies on the theory and practice of the business judgment rule under Delaware law in order to have a clearer understanding of whether Korea needs the rule to protect executive officers under the Korean Commercial Code.

Das Verbot des Übermaßes oder das Gebot der Verhältnismäßigkeit entspricht der allgemeinen Bedeutung dieser Maxime als eines verfassungsrechdichen Maßstabs für das gesamte staatliche Handeln. Das ist als Direktive des Verfassungsrechts heute unbestritten. Unter den Schranken, die der Beschränkung der Grundrechte gezogen sind, hat namentlich in der Rechtsprechung des Bundesverfassungsgerichts das Übermaßverbot (Verhältnismäßigkeitsgebot) zentrale Bedeutung gewonnen. Das Bundesverfassungsgericht erklärte jedenfalls schon ohne nähere Begründung, jedoch unter Zitierung zahlreicher Judikate, "die Grundsätze der Verhältnismäßigkeit und des Übermaßverbotes, die sich als übergreifende Leitregeln allen staatlichen Handelns zwingend aus dem Rechtsstaatsprinzip ergeben und deshalb Verfassungsrang haben". Vor allem dienten diese Grundsätze der Machtbegrenzung und Freiheitssicherung. Der Grundsatz des Übermaßverbots (Verhältnismäßigkeitsgebots) hat sich mithin als die Schranken-Schranke der Grundrechtsbeschränkungen gerade in der Rechtsprechung des Bundesverfassungsgerichts erwiesen. In diesem Rahmen gilt der Grundsatz auch als wesentlicher Bestandteil des Gewichtens und Abwägens zwischen Grundrechtsgütern und Gemeinwohlbelangen. Insgesamt gehört er heute zum verfassungsrechtlichen Standardrepertoire.

Summary criminal procedure is designed to achieve the idea of discoveries of truth and guarantee of human rights, realizing a fair trial and making an efficient use of judicial resources. China Criminal Procedure Law amended in 2012 has shown a big improvement upon the way to efficiently shape in this respect, which includes changes in applicable summary criminal procedure, application conditions, trial organization. Specifically, the amended act provides that the accused have the right to consent to a commencement of summary criminal procedure, which legislatively refined identified problems. However, building up efficiency in criminal procedures and value of a speedy trail in China can be a daunting prospect in spite of improvement mentioned above. The institutional framework, where procedures with strict examination should apply to cases that severe trial and stern judgment is required for and a decision on minor offenses should made in a direction to minimalize the growth of spending and promptly conclude a case, is necessary. This paper evaluates legal implication through the consideration of summary criminal procedure in the amended China Criminal Procedure Law and suggests ways for further improvement.

2013년 4월 17일 미국 연방대법원은 미국의 연방법인 “Alien Tort Statute(외국인불법행위법)”에 근거한 소송에서 치외법권(추정) 원칙을 적용하여 미국연방법원의 재판관할을 인정하지 않는 판결을 선고하였다. 외국인불법행위법은 “각국의 법(law of nations)” 또는 미국이 가입한 조약에 위반한 불법행위에 대해 외국인이 소송을 제기할 경우, 연방법원에 관할권을 부여하는 법이다. 1980년대 이후, 이 법을 연방법원의 관할유무를 판단하는 법으로만 볼 것인지 아니면, 청구원인을 인정하는 법으로 볼 것인지에 대한 논의가 계속 되었으며, 2004년 연방대법원의 Sosa 판결 이후에는 불법행위가 미국법, 국제법, 국제관습법(customary international law) 등 국제적인 규범을 엄격하게 해석, 적용하여, 피고가 이러한 국제법 위반이 명백하다면, 이 법에 의해 원고의 청구도 인용될 수 있다고 보았다. 이에 따라, 외국인불법행위법에 근거하여, 외국정부, 외국회사 등을 상대로 반인륜적 행위 등 국제인권침해에 대한 외국인의 손해배상 소송이 미국법원에서 지속적으로 제기되었으나, 미국법원, 특히 연방법원의 재판관할권 인정여부에 대해 하급심 법원의 판결이 엇갈려 왔었다. 이에 연방법원은 Kiobel 사건(나이지리아인 원고가 네덜란드, 영국, 나이지리아 회사를 상대로 이들 회사가 나이지리아 정부의 반인륜적 행위를 방조, 교사한 불법행위에 대한 손해배상 청구)에서 치외법권 법리를 적용하여 외국에서 행한 불법행위에 대해서는 미국의 외국인불법행위법에 의해 재판관할권을 인정하지 않는다고 판결한다. 정치적 사안처럼 외국정부와의 마찰을 피하기 위해 필요한 결정이라고 찬성하는 견해와 동 판결로 인해 향후 외국인이 미국에서 국제인권침해소송을 제기하기 어렵게 되었다는 비판이 있다.

For a long time, computer programs has been unpatentable. However, nowadays, if the patent claim is in one of the forms of information processing system, information processing method or computer readable media, it can be awarded to invention regarding computer programs. Major countries in the world recognized that it is not enough that computer programs are protected by copyright, and adopted computer programs claim under some requirements. In other words, expression is protected by copyright law and idea is protected by patent law, and these make computer programs protected by both of them. This effectively makes unauthorized transmission of the patented computer programs impossible. In Korea, computer programs are protected under copyright law, but patent law does not allow computer program claim format and only adopts method or computer readable medium claim format, therefore it is controversial whether the online transmissions of software constitute patent infringements, while Japen patent law are enabling the remedies for patent infringements which occur in the online usage of patented software technologies, such as transmission of patented software through online or mobile platform. So, it is hard to say that Copyright is joining in the environmental change of the software industry and protects the software technology of the national software companies effectively. Online software market like App Store becomes commonplace and this fact creates a strong demand for the protection of the online deployment of computer programs. Now, there is no reason that does not adopt computer programs claim and it’s just time that the patentability of computer programs as the product in Patent Law should be allowed.

The field of architecture lies at the intersection of the sciences and the arts, employing a combination of engineering and artistry, functionality and design. Because of their integrated characteristics of being utilitarian, functional as well as artistic, at present, no intellectual property protection method provide completely satisfactory protection to architectural design creations. Therefore, architectural design creations should have sui gerneris protection and there is a need to establish a new requirement for protection and protection period etc. to satisfy their sui gerneris characteristics. My aim in this article is to search an adequate and effective method for protecting architectural design creations. For this purpose, firstly, I will address definition and characteristics of architectural design creations. Secondly, I will deal with legislations and international norms for protecting architectural design creations, and, thirdly, I will review protection methods for architectural design creations and problems thereof. Fourthly, furthermore, with regard to protection of architectural design creations, I will propose new rules for adequately and effectively protecting architectural design creations. If artistic and functional architectural design creations are protected adequately, architects might be motivated for greater creativity, and they would be rewarded for their architectural design creations. Finally, I expect this article will become a starting point to be of any assistance in establishing special law for protection of architectural design creations.

(1) Wenn es auch keine Beweisführungslast(́́subjektiv Beweisführungslast), so sind doch Regeln über die objektiv Beweislast im Verwaltungsprozeß unentbehrlich. Es bedarf eben in jeder Verfahrensart Regeln darüber, wie zu entscheiden ist, wenn die Beweislasterhebung zu einem non liquet führt. Wenn das Verwaltungsgericht nach Beweiserhebung zu dem Ergebnis kommt, daß der Sachvortrag der Verfahrensbeteiligten nicht beweisen werden konnte, gelten folgende Beweislastregeln im Verwaltungsprozeß; (2) Die aus dem Zivilprozeßrecht bekannte Günstigkeitregel bzw. das Normbegünstigungprinzip gelten bei der Verwaltungsprozeß. Wer ein subjektiv- öffentliches Recht für sich in Anspruch nimmt, hat den Beweis zu erbringen, daß der Sachverhalt vorliegt, an den das Gesetz die Entstehung dieses Rechts knöpft. Der Beklagte muß die tatsächlichen Voraussetzungen jeder Normen beweisen,, auf die er sich beruft. Daher soweit nicht durch rechtliche Regelung eine besondere Beweislastverteilung getroffen worden ist, geht die Unerweislichkeit von Tatsachen, aus denn eine Partei eine ihr gönstige Rechtsfolge herleitet, zu ihren Lasten. (3) Diese Beweislastregel unterliegt sowohl im Zivilprozeß- als im Verwaltungsprozeßrecht erheblichen Einschränkungen. So hat bei der Anfechtungsklage der beklagte Rechtsträger die Beweislast, daß die tatsächlichen und rechtlichen Voraussetzungen der Eingriffsnorm gegeben sind. Denn der Verwaltung bei Eingriffen in Freiheit und Eigentum die Beweislast abzunehmen, wäre mit der strikten Bindung der Verwaltung an Gesetz und Recht nicht zu vereinbaren. Da Grundrechtseingeriffe und Freiheitsbeschränkungen vom Staat zu rechtfertigen sind, träger er das Aufklärungsrisiko für die tatsächlichen Voraussetzungen belastenden Verwaltungshandelns. Ähnliches gilt für Verbote mit Erlaubnisvorbehalt. Die Einführung von Verboten mit Erlaubnisvorbehalt, bei denen die Erlaubnis mit einer Verpflichtungsklage zu erstreiten ist, darf die Beweislast nicht ohne zureichenden Grund auf den Bürger abwälzen, der bei Verpflichtungaklagen grundsätzlich beweispflichtig ist. Der Kläger muß lediglich die allgemeinen Voraussetzungen der Erlaubniserteilung nachweisen; die Behörde trägt demgegenüber -wie bei der Beweislastverteilung im Zivilprozeß- die Beweislast für die rechtshindernden Ausnahmen. (4) Davon abgesehen regelt sich die Beweislast vielfach nach einer Mitwirkungslast bzw. nach Verantwortungssphären. Jede Partei ist für jede Tatsachen beweispflichtig, die in ihrem Lebenskreis liegen und damit auch nur von ihr erweisen werden können. So ist die Behörde für jene Tatsachen beweispflichtige, die sich im Behördenbereich und damit in ihrer Verantwortungssphäre ereignet haben.

In the case that the disposal of credit is restricted for some purpose, it is important that establishing the standard of judgment of creditor’s restricted disposal. In this regard, this paper will review the definition of creditor’s restricted disposal in another case related to the restriction of credit disposal such as provisional attachment or attachment against credit, credit transfer and injunction for prohibition of disposal. In addition, this paper inter alia will review the case of Supreme Court on May 17, 2012(No. 2011Da87235 Unanimously Agreed Verdict) which recently changed its opinion in a case where the contract between the obligor and his/her obligor lost validity after the notice of the exercise of the ‘obligee’s right of subrogation to obligator’, due to the obligor’s non-performance of his contractual obligation. In this case, the Korea Supreme Court ruled that the obligor’s termination shall not be determined as a ‘disposal’. This case is based on the Article 405 (2) which restricts the obligor’s right to dispose the right which is the subject of an ‘obligee’s right of subrogation to obligor’. The Korea Supreme Court decided in such way because (i) the obligor’s non-performance of a contractual obligation itself cannot be determined as an active action which dismantles the credit; and (ii) legal termination is a proper lawful measure which the obligor can take against his/her obligor’s objective non-performance of its contractual obligation. However, it does not definitely declare the meaning of ‘Disposal’ in the Korean Civil Code §405. Therefore, we should examine it on the legal definition of disposal of obligor in the light of legislative purposes and effectiveness of subrogation right of obligee. There are some disposals that can be decided as the restricted disposal by obligor under the Article 405 (2) even though the disposal is made by obligor’s obligor. Therefore, this paper tries to categorize the new types of restricted creditor’s disposal under the Article 405 (2). In addition this paper tries to make a proposal new theory of legislation to overcome these problems.