Earticle

Das Gericht kann die Wiedereröffnung einer Verhandlung, die geschlossenwar, nach Ermessen des Gerichts durch Beschluss anordnen. Das Gericht hatdie Wiedereröffnung insbesondere anzuordnen, wenn ① das Gericht einenentscheidungserheblichen und rügbaren Verfahrensfehler, insbesondere eineVerletzung der Hinweis- und Aufklärungspflicht oder eine Verletzung desAnspruchs auf rechtliches Gehör, feststellt, ② nachträglich Tatsachenvorgetragen und glaubhaft gemacht werden, die einen Wiederaufnahmegrundbilden, oder ③ zwischen dem Schluss der mündlichen Verhandlung und demSchluss der Beratung und Abstimmung ein Richter ausgeschieden ist. ④ InBetracht kommen auch Verstöße gegen die Unmittelbarkeit oderParteiöffentlichkeit der Beweisaufnahme. Daher das Gericht hat den Parteien eine Schriftsatzfrist gewährt, sogebietet es der Anspruch auf Gewährung rechtlichen Gehörs, dieVerhandlung wieder zu eröffnen, wenn der zu berücksichtigende Schriftsatzneuen Prozessstoff, insb. relevante Unterlagen enthält. Auch einenachträglich mitgeteilte Vergleichs- bereitschaft kann eine Wiederöffnung derVerhandlung rechtfertigen.

Die Großbritanniensregierung hat nicht eingenommen, daß jemand, dereine Geschlechtsidentität ungeordnet ist, nach Operation derGeschlechtsumwandlung den Geschlechtsunterschied rechtlich verändert undmit verändertem Geschlechtsunterschied verheiratet. Das Urteil über“Christine Goodwin” des Europäischen Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte hatfestgestellt, daß die Maßnahme der Großbritanniensregierung das Recht aufPrivat- und Familiensleben in Art.8 Europäische Kovention fürMenschenrechte verletzt hat,Das Urteil “von Hannover v. Germany” des Europäischen Gerichtshof fürMenschenrechte hat den Schlichtungsmaßstab für die Grundrechtskollisionzwischen dem Recht auf Privatleben und der Meinungsfreheit vorgezeigt,Das Urteil über “Hatton and others v. the United Kingdom” desEuropäischen Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte hat den Beurteilungsbereichvon einem inhaltlichen und prozeduralen Gesichtspunkt aus daraufdargestellt, ob das Recht auf persönliche Wohnung oder Privatleben, das inArt.8 Europäische Kovention für Menschenrechte garantiert ist, durchFlughafenslärm verletzt ist oder nicht

The method of selecting attorneys in Korea is changed from bar exam toLaw school in 2009. Under the act on the establishment and management ofprofessional Law schools, legal ethics is adopted as one of the requiredcourses for the exam to be attorneys. Because there is no course that islegal ethics under bar exam system, reviewing the state and how performsthe education of legal ethics in Law school is important at this stage whichis after 5 years from starting the Law school system. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to look behind the education oflegal ethics in Law school for 5 years and review the problems of theeducation of legal ethics. Afterwards the purpose of this paper is to providethe solution for the problems of legal ethics in Law school at this stage. In addition, Refering the study about education of legal ethics in Japan Lasschool which has been started 5 years ahead of us in 2004 such as howperforms the education of legal ethics and which problems indicate ishelpful. Therefore this paper compare the education of legal ethics in Korea Lawschool with Japan such as the state of education of legal ethics, whichcurriculum time is best, qualification of professor for legal ethics, range ofeducation, teaching method and curriculum. Through these comparative and review, this paper point out problems ofcurrent education of legal ethics such as education level which enumeratethe articles of Attorney At Law Act under the circumstances that the testtype is only optional and the goal of education is preparing for the test oflegal ethics by Ministry of Justice. After this pointing out, this paper provide the new teachig method suchas performing the deepen learning by expressing students’ own viewthrough report and/or discussion and investing time for specific theme fordeepen learning.

행정소송법은 주관적 권리의 실현을 위한 개인주의적인 주관적 소송체계를 기본 이념으로 하고 있다. 그런데 이러한 주관적 소송체계만으로는 사법통제의 범위를 벗어난 행정작용을 통제하기에 부족하다. 이에 행정소송법은 민중소송과 기관소송 을 두고 있는데, 이들은 자기의 법률상 이익에 관계없는 자격으로 제기하는 객관소 송이다. 이러한 객관소송의 존립의 근거는 개인의 주관적 이익에 관계없는 위법한 행정활동의 통제이다. 즉 민중소송은 법질서의 유지를 위한 소송으로 객관적 소송 이다. 행정의 법률적합성의 원칙 아래 행정주체는 법규범에 적합하게 행동하여야 하는데, 민중소송은 이러한 행정주체의 법규범에 반하는 행위 중 원고의 개인적 이 익에 관계없는 것을 대상으로 규율한다. 우리 행정소송법 제45조는 민중소송을 법률이 정하는 경우에 법률에 정한 자에 한하여 제기할 수 있다고 규정하고 있다. 따라서 민중소송은 반드시 개별법에 규정 되어야 제기할 수 있는데 현행법제도에서 인정되고 있는 것으로는 대별하여 “선거 에 관한 소송”, “투표 등에 관한 소송”, “주민소송” 등 3 유형을 거론할 수 있다. 즉 공직선거법에 의한 선거의 효력 또는 당선의 효력에 관한 소송과 국민투표법과 주민주표법에 의한 국민투표무효확인소송과 주민투표소송 그리고 지방자치법에 의 한 주민소송이 그것이다. 그러나 이들 제도의 활용도가 그다지 높지 아니한 현실과 국민소송제도의 제도 화에 대한 논의를 감안하면 사법의 행정에 대한 통제를 강화하기 위하여는 행정소 송의 일 유형으로서의 객관소송제도인 민중소송의 정비가 요구된다 할 것이다. 이 를 위하여 민중소송에서의 쟁송성, 소의 이익의 문제가 논의된다.

Administrative Litigation Act Article 3 states about Classification ofAdministrative Litigations ; Appeal litigation, Party litigation, Publiclitigation, Agency litigation. Appeal litigation and Party litigation are thesubjective litigation. Public litigation and Agency litigation are the objectivelitigation. The objective litigation means a litigation instituted by a personwithout his own legal interests. Especially Public litigation means a litigationinstituted by a person without his own legal interests to seek the correctionof illegal acts by the State or a organs of public entities. Public litigations in the Korea Administrative Litigation System areResidents' Lawsuit(Local Autonomy Act), Election Lawsuits(Public OfficialElection Act), Residents Voting Act(Residents Voting Act). Local Autonomy Act article 17 states about the Residents' Lawsuit. Residents' Lawsuit means that the residents having made a request forinspecting the matters concerning the disbursement of public money, mattersconcerning the acquisition, management and disposition of property, mattersconcerning the conclusion and execution of a contract for trade, lease orundertaking, and other contracts, to which the competent local governmentis a party, or matters concerning the neglect of imposition and collection ofpublic money, such as local tax, fee for use, service charge, fine fornegligence, pursuant to Residents' Lawsuit Article 16 (1) may, file a lawsuitfor the unlawful acts or the neglect of business related to matters requestedfor the inspection against the head of the competent local government. Residents Voting Act Article 222 states about the Election Lawsuits. TheElection Lawsuits means that In the presidential election and the election ofNational Assembly members, an elector, political party (limited to a politicalparty which has recommended a candidate), or candidate that has anobjection to the validity of the election may file a lawsuit with the SupremeCourt against the chairperson of the constituency election commissionconcerned within 30 days from the electionResidents Voting Act Article 25 states about the Residents Voting Act. The Residents Voting Act means that Any resident voter who has anobjection to the validity of the residents' voting may request for judgmentwith signatures not less than 1/100 of the total number of resident votersreferring to the chairperson of the competent election commission as ajudge to a Special Metropolitan City/Metropolitan City/Do ElectionCommission in cases of a Si/Gun/autonomous Gu, and with the NationalElection Commission in cases of a Special Metropolitan City/MetropolitanCity/Do, within 14 days from the date when the result of the residents'voting is published pursuant to Article 24 (3).

According to present civil law, torts is applied based on the principle ofresponsibility by negligence, and thus risk responsibility is being introducedexceptionally. Risk responsibility is considered as legislative counteractionfor the victim protection needs that have grown ever in the course of hightech industrialization in the 19th through 20th century throughout the world. In such a context, new establishment of general provision for riskresponsibility was asserted in the discussion of revision of civil law in 1995. About the assertion, proponents maintained that establishment of special lawmay involve such potentials like delay of protection and backwardness ofnational consciousness on facility or risk of substance, and reliance onspecial law may increase the problem of equitability among businesses, butallow for presence of businesses that may not take advantage of thelegislation. On the contrary, opponents emphasized that no generalprovisions exist even in other countries that have many special laws on riskresponsibility. Also in the 2004 revision discussion, new establishment ofgeneral provisions on risk responsibility was discussed, but it wasdetermined that the issue shall be excluded from revision. Regarding the new establishment of general provisions of riskresponsibilities, it remains a question whether to maintain the classicalformula to approach the issue by weighing the advantages by the operationof risk facility and the disadvantages by realization of risk. Newestablishment of general provisions of risk responsibility can be supported only if the ideological changes in the responsibility of deficit indemnity fromthe past are recognized. Later on the issue of indemnity responsibility fordeficit shall not be considered content, only indemnifying the deficit uponrecognizing the fact that the deficit was caused by intention. There areclearly areas where offender may distribute the deficit of particular personsocially through taxation of indemnity amount, pricing structure or otherliability insurance etc by attributing the negligence to the offender. It ismore desirable to distribute the disadvantage by the deficit by risk facilitywith social value socially than to let a particular victim undertake suchdeficit. In such perspective, in case general provisions on risk responsibilityare newly established, the general requirements for offender's responsibilityfor risk should include provisions on the capability to distribute deficits aswell as to create risk.

2008년, 국민참여재판이 시행된 후 이 제도에 대하여 대상사건의 범위, 신청주 의, 배제결정제도, 배심원의 선정, 배심원의 평의․평결의 방식과 효력, 양형의견의 효력, 국민참여재판에 대한 항소의 허용여부 등에 대한 문제점이 꾸준히 지적되어 왔으며, 국민참여재판법 역시 이러한 점을 감안하여 동법 제55조 제1항은 “국민참 여재판 제도의 최종적인 형태를 결정하기 위하여 대법원에 국민사법참여위원회를 둔다”고 규정하였고, 이에 따라 대법원은 국민사법참여위원회를 통하여 최종형태안 을 마련하였고, 2013.2.18. 공청회를 개최한 바 있다. 본 논문은 이러한 점을 감안하여 우선 우리의 국민참여재판과 유사한 제도를 가 지고 있는 외국의 입법례 및 국민참여재판이 헌법 제27조에 따른 ‘법관’에 의한 재 판을 받을 권리를 침해하는지의 여부에 관한 합헌성논의를 검토하고(Ⅱ. 국민참여 재판제도의 의의와 합헌성논의), 현행 국민재판참여법이 규정하는 국민참여재판의 대상사건, 배심원의 구성, 공판절차, 평의․평결 및 효력을 개관하였다(Ⅲ. 국민참여 재판제도 개관). 이어서 국민참여재판제도의 도입 이후 지금까지 지적되고 있는 운 영상의 문제점을 분석하고 그 개선을 위한 법제도적 방안을 제시하였으며(Ⅳ. 현행 국민참여재판제도의 해결과제), 끝으로 국민사법참여위원회의 최종형태안 및 그 공 청회의 결과를 분석․평가한 후(Ⅴ. 대법원 국민사법참여위원회의 최종형태(안)), 결 론을 도출하였다.

Since the citizen participation trial was enforced in 2008, problems ofthis system such as scope of case, jury selection, methods andeffectiveness of juries’ discussion and decision permission of appeals aboutcitizen participation trials were consistently pointed out. Thus, civicparticipation in criminals trials act took these matters into account andprescribed “To decide the final form of citizen participation trials system,national judicial participation committee is set in the supreme court” into1stclause of 55th article. As are sult, Supreme Courtprovided fina lf ormthrough national judicial participation committee and held pub lichearing inFeb 18, 2013. Considering these points, this research paper examined aboutconstitutional discussion if the foreign countries’ legislation case and citizenparticipation trials which are similar to ours violate the right to receivetrials from the judge according to Article 27 of the Constitution (II. citizenparticipation trials system’s meaning and constitutional discussion). Also,this paper has overviewed the citizen participation trials’ target cases,constituting juries, procedure in public trial, discussion and decision, andefficacy which are prescribed by the current citizen participation trials act(III. citizen participation trials system’s overview). Moreover, operational problems which were pointed out since theintroduction of citizen participation trials system was analyzed and legalinstitutional ways are suggested for the improvement (IV. current citizen- participation trial system and its solution task). Finally, after analyzing andevaluating national judicial participation committee’s final form and itspublic hearing (V. national judicial participation committee’s final form),conclusion was drawn.

This paper is about the judgment of determining the need formodification of an indictment theories and the criteria for the judgment ofdetermining the need for modification for studied. Truth discovery and substantive modification of an indictment theauthority to impose penalties the country, and at the same time to enableproper exercise of the accused can guarantee defense of the rightsinstitution. Thus, the court can modification of modification of reason modificationof an indictment occurs, the public prosecutor require. The public prosecutormust apply for modification of an indictment. An indictment should be changed in any case for the opposition to havea different theory. Most importantly, the public prosecutor receive anindictment want to judge described the defendant appeals the fact itself. In this sense, the theory is reasonable to mention the fact. SupremeCourt follows this theory. In fact, according to the change of these claims,and the fact that the defendant's defense of the changes result in asubstantial penalty if the concern is that should the need modification of anindictment.