Earticle

Civil execution is a specific and compulsory ways and means for subjects conducted by the enforcement agency to exercise the rights established upon the grounds for execution of the Court, and a necessary action to address the difficulties of execution in China. South Korea has similar institutions of execution including property reporting obligation, background check, information disclose of subjects who lost credit. China has more diverse enforcement measures. In particular, Chinese courts can survey or investigate the subjects by authority to discover subject properties, as well as achieve the goal of law enforcement by giving psychological pressures to the subjects through execution including departure restriction, restriction on high spending, medium disclosure, and reward execution. This research aimed to help creditors to choose effective execution if the creditors failed to be repaid debts despite the grounds for execution in China through consideration on various execution measures prescribed in the Chinese law.

Since the Article 482 Section 2 of the Civil Code does not stipulate clearly with regard to the subrogation between the surety and the third acquisitor, dissensions abound on the issue and scope of subrogation between the surety and the third acquisitor in the case where the surety has repaid the debt in the debtor's stead. I think the third acquisitor must be differentiated into the third acquisitor from the debtor and the third acquisitor from the surety and be treated differently: the third acquisitor from the debtor must be treated in accordance with the debtor, and the third acquisitor from the surety in accordance with the surety. The third acquisitor from the debtor cannot subrogate the creditor against the surety, but the third acquisitor from the surety can subrogate the creditor against other surety in proportion to the value of the real property. The surety can subrogate the creditor against the third acquisitor from the debtor with the entire amount of repayment with the prerequisite supplementary registration of subrogation, but the surety can subrogate the creditor against the third acquisitor from other surety in proportion to the value of the real property. In such case, after the repayment the surety must complete the supplementary registration of subrogation before the acquisition of the right (registration) by the third acquisitor. The supreme court ruling on the case deemed the surety as a guarantor with respect to the relation to the third acquisitor and clearly declared that the surety can subrogate the creditor against the third acquisitor from the debtor with the entire amount of repayment, but the third acquisitor from the debtor cannot subrogate the creditor against the surety. The ruling is meaningful, I think, in that it broke the precedent in opposition and set forth a standard on the issue and scope of subrogation between the surety and the third acquisitor. Nonetheless, whether the logic of the ruling can apply to the subrogation between the surety and the third acquisitor from other surety needs to be further discussed.

Liberal-Democracy is one of the basic ideals which Constitution of the Republic of Korea adopts. Liberal-Democracy is very important, but controversy over it is not decreased. Above all, it is worring that skepticism about liberal-democracy is increasing on all sides. This paper attempted reinterpretation of liberal-democracy, and wanted to contribute to the loyalty of nation towards liberal-democracy. Liberalism is the ideology that is used for guarantee individual freedom. For possession of freedom, it is necessary to escape from interference or coercion of others. So individualism inheres in Liberalism. The ideology of liberalism says rationality and justification will be unfulfilled with conversation and discussion between rational citizens. It is the tendency to rationalism. However, there is a limit to liberalism to neglect participations of political groups, and non-political nature inheres in liberalism. Democracy is still uncertain idea, although its value is generally approved. With comparison with so called guardianship idea, it is a self-evident truth that democracy is most profitable political order for people. However, it is also a classical criticism that democracy may be vulnerable to guaranteeing freedom of people, and has tendency to totalitarian democracy. Both liberalism and democracy has its own value, but its own limitation. This paper want to maintain the paradoxical combination of liberalism and democracy. This combination means that liberalism and democracy coexist in conflicting context, and One should not make the other impotent. It is so-called antagonism state. With this combination and state, pluralistic competition around liberal-democracy as constitutional basic idea is possible.

Where more than one person are involved in the same crime, the Korean Criminal Act classifies them as a principal and an accomplice. A principal is a person who directly commits a criminal act, and an accomplice is a person who assists in the commission of a crime. In general, a principal includes not only a person that actually commits the crime but also a person that materializes his criminal intent by ruling the intent of another actor without directly performing the criminal act (Rule by Intent). The former is defined as direct principal, and the latter, as indirect principal. An accomplice is a person who is involved in the crime on the premise of the existence of a principal. Thus, a principal is an actor who is primarily responsible for the commitment of a criminal act, and an accomplice is a person who is secondarily responsible for that. Then, when more than one person are involved in a crime, a principal should be identified first, and only then can an accomplice be held responsible for the crime (Predominance of a Principal). In other words, who caused the criminal consequence should be first identified and then a person involved in the principal’s act should be held responsible for the crime. However, Paragraph 1 of Article 34 of the Korean Criminal Act defines an indirect principal as “a person who is not punishable” or “a person who is punishable as an offender through negligence” regardless of Rule by Intent. This produces the result far from the principle of Predominance of a Principal. This is attributed to the lack of sufficient review of the principle that an accomplice shall be punished subject to the punishment of a principle.

In the South Korean constitution it states, “All citizens shall have the right to trial in conformity with the Act” (Constitution Article 27 - 1) and “All citizens shall have the right to a speedy trial. The accused shall have the right to a public trial without delay in the absence of justifiable reasons to the contrary.” (Constitution Article 27 – 3) It also stipulates, “The accused shall be presumed innocent until a judgment of guilt has been pronounced” (Constitution Article 27- 4) and “A victim of a crime shall be entitled to make a statement during the proceedings of the trial of the case involved as under the conditions prescribed by the Act.” (Constitution Article 27 – 5) As above, the constitution prescribes the right to a speedy trial as a fundamental right of the accused. The fundamental principle of a speedy trial is to protect the rights of the accused, however at the same time based upon public interest via finding of substantial truth, judicial economy, securing public trust in trial and achieving purpose of punishment. The Constitutional Court of Korea ruled that the fundamental principle of a speedy trial is to protect the basic rights of the accused, however, it can be considered to have a dual nature due to its impact on public interest via finding of substantial truth, judicial economy, securing public trust in trial and achieving purpose of punishment thus it has a pivotal role as a fundamental right in the criminal justice system. Despite speedy trials being the fundamental constitutional principle that ensures basic rights of the public and efficiency of the criminal judicature, traditionally the issues regarding delays in litigations and its associated side effects in the South Korean criminal trials have been raised. In the judicial reform started in 2004, speedy trials were raised a major agenda and the revised Criminal Procedure Bill submitted by the government in 2006 implemented a ‘fast track procedure’ to increase efficiency of criminal proceedings. However the ‘fast track procedure’ included in this bill failed to be legislated. In reality a large number of cases need to be handled with limited jurisdictional resources. Therefore application of the choice and concentration principle is necessary to process minor cases with summary proceedings and complex/major cases through thorough process of trial and provide a judgment that coincides with the substantial truth. Application of strategies aimed at prompt proceedings within the current Criminal Procedure Act has led to implementation of the proceedings for summary judgments, summary procedures, and summary trial procedures. This study aims to examine the applications of the proceedings for summary judgments designed to increase efficiency within the existing laws and identify its issues and discuss strategies for improvement.

상장회사의 현금、 실물、 부채、 주식배당、주식매입등 이윤 분배 형식은 주주의 실제 효과에 근거하여 적극적인 분배、소극적인 분배、준분배 및 반사형 분배 등으로 나뉜다. 부동한 분배 형식에 따라 규범정책을 구분하여야 하고, 적극적인 현금 이익 분배는 격려 및 인도하고, 실물 이익분배 및 부채 이익분배 규범등 소극적인 이익분배는 규법해야 하며, 사기를 금지하는 각도에서 배당금 제한 준배당금 분배 및 회사의 주식매입의 반사형 분배하다. 지금 수정중 중국 증권법의 규정 중에 상장회사는 정관에 현금 배당의 계획 및 책략을 구체적으로 기재하는 방식을 통하여 회사 배당을 규범할 것을 요구한다. 비록 입법은 일정한 진보는 있지만, 실물、부채、주식배분、주직매입 등 분배에 여전히 부족한 점이 있다.

According to the practical effects to stockholders, the forms of listed company’s distribution could be classified as positive distribution, negative distribution, analogous distribution as well as reflecting distribution. It is indispensable to build regulation strategy discriminatively aiming to distinguishing types of distribution; to encourage the positive distribution of cash dividends, regulate the negative distribution of distribution in kind or debt, prohibit the analogous distribution of stock dividend, and forbid stock repurchase. The Securities Law in revision tends to regulate profit distribution by requiring the listed company to stipulate dividend plan and decision-making process in the articles of association. Although the legislation makes progress, the regulation of distribution in kind or debt, stock dividend and stock repurchase is not enough.

对于现金、实物与负债、送股、回购等上市公司利润分配形式，依据对股东的实际效果可分为积极分配、消分配、类分配及反射型分配等类型。应针对不同分配形式建立区分规范策略，引导和鼓励现金分红的积极分配，规范实物分红与负债分红等的消极分配，从禁止欺诈的角度限制股利股利的类分配以及公司回购的反射型分配。正在修订的中国证券法拟通过要求上市公司在章程中明确现金分红的具体安排和决策程序的方式来规范分红行为，立法虽然有进步，但对实物、负债、送股、回购等分配行为依然缺乏规范。

2005년 중국 회사법 수정에서 “회사는 반드시 사회적 책임을 져야 한다”라고 명확히 회사의 중요한 법률 의무를 추가 규정하였다. 하지만 어떻게 강제성 규범을 실제 상황에 적용하여 법률 역할을 확실히 발휘할 수 있을 뿐만 아니라, 회사법의 권위에 까지 연결 시킬지가 중요하다. 회사의 환경책임은 회사의 사회책임의 중요한 구성부분과 표현 형식이다. 양호한 제도설게를 통하여 可訴性과 현실의 긴박성 뿐만아니라 법리상의 가능성을 실현할수 있다. 회사가 환경책임에 어극나는 악질적 사건들이 거듭 일어나면서, 현재 회사의 환경책임 이행의 독촉, 제도의 결함과 곤경을 충분히 폭로 하였으며, 환경책임 공익소송 도입에 좋은 설명을 주었다. 본문은 회사의 환경책임 법위의 정의를 공공이익의 법위내에 확정하고, <회사법> 제5조를 확장 해석하는 방법으로 <회사법> 제5조의 재판 가능성과 공익소송 제도를 유기적으로 결합 하였다. 회사의 환경책임의 내용을 회사가 영리성 경영활동 종사중 환경 공공이익의 유지의무가 있으며 환경 공공이익을 침해했을 시 법률 책임을 져야한다. 회사의 사회적 책임의 사건을 통하여 적격원고의 범위를 확대하는 방식으로 사회적 역량을 동원하여 회사의 사회적 책임 이행을 감독하고, 회사가 환경책임을 잘 이행하도록 촉진한다.

One of the most important legal obligations put to companies by the amendment of Company Law in 2005 is the social responsibilities to be undertaken by companies. An effective implement of the mandatory requirement is not only related to the execution of the law, but also to the authority of law. The environmental responsibility of companies is both an important part and a main form of their social responsibility. There is an urgent need in practice to realize the suability of environmental responsibility by designing an effective system. Such realization of the suability is also feasible in jurisprudence. Malignant events in which companies went against their environmental responsibility happened time and again. Such events revealed a lack of relevant system to urge the companies to fulfil their environmental responsibility. They also serve to prove the necessity to introduce environmental public interest litigations. This paper delimits the environmental responsibility undertaken by companies within the scope of the responsibility related to public interests, and it holds that the justifiability of Article 5 of ‘Company Law’ should be integrated with the system of public interest litigation by giving a broad-term explanation to Article 5. The companies’ environmental responsibility is defined as their obligation to maintain public environmental interests and their legal liability when infringing upon the interests. It is also suggested that social forces be mobilized to monitor the companies’ fulfilment of their social responsibility by expanding the range of qualified plaintiffs in the lawsuits concerning the social responsibilities of companies, which would accordingly help companies fulfill their environmental responsibility.

公司应当承担社会责任是2005年中国修改公司法时对公司附加的一项重要法律义务。 但如何保证这一强制性规范真正能够落到实处不但发挥法律作用的必然要求， 而且直接关系到公司法的权威。 公司环境责任作为公司社会责任的一个重要组成部分和主要表现形式， 通过良好的制度设计实现其可诉性既具有现实的迫切性， 更具有法理上的可行性。公司违背环境责任恶性事件的一再发生， 不但充分暴露了当前督促公司履行环境责任制度缺失的窘境，而且为环境责任公益诉讼的引入提供了良好的注脚。本文将公司承担的环境责任范围界定为关涉公共利益的范围之内， 提出应通过对《公司法》第5条进行扩张解释的方式， 将《公司法》第5条的可裁判性和公益诉讼制度有机结合起来。 把公司环境责任的内涵限定为公司在从事营利性的经营活动中负有的维护环境公共利益的义务， 以及侵害环境公共利益应承担的法律责任。 并通过扩大公司社会责任案件适格原告的范围的方式调动社会力量对公司履行社会责任的监督， 以促进公司更好地履行环境责任。

여성의 토지권리를 보호하는 것은 아주 중대한 의의가 있는바 현재 연구의 초점과 난점적인 문제이기도 하며 새로운 연구시각 도입이 절실하다. 가호시각이란 주요하게 가호의 기본구조와 특징으로부터 출발하여 여성의 토지권익보호문제를 분석하는 것으로서 가호구성원 개체에 대한 은폐와 억제문제가 부각되고 그 연구범위는 사회적성별 시각보다 넓다. 현행 법률규정에 의하면 여성이 향유하여야 하는 토지권리의 유형에는 주요하게 토지도급경영권, 택지사용권, 집체건설용지사용권, 자류지(산)사용권 그리고 지역권 등이 있다. 그러나 여성의 혼인상황과 종부거주로 인하여 현실적으로 이 모든 권리는 유명무실하며 심지어는 무명무실에 이르렀고 더욱이 토지권리확인등기제도에서의 결원과 농촌집체 그리고 촌민자치결의제도의 선택적인 집행으로 인하여 침해되고 박탈당하였다. 하여 입법적으로 가호제도를 폐지하고 여성의 독립적인 주체지위를 향상시키며 구체적인 제도를 통하여 여성의 독립을 실현하고 부대적인 제도의 구축도 함께 실현하여야 한다. 요컨대 가호제도의 은폐성을 없애버리는 동시에 여성의 독립적인 주체지위를 실현하고 또한 각종 리스크를 극복할 수 있는 단체조직을 결성하여 여성이 독립적인 무대에 나설 수 있도록 보호하고 배려하여야 한다.

It is very important to protect woman’s rural land rights, and is also the current research focus and difficult problems, so that the urgent need for the research is a new perspective. Household perspective, mainly is what studies from the point of households with its basic structure and characteristics on protection woman's rural land rights. It can also highlight the household’s obscuring its members’ rights, and have more broader applicable scope compared with the social gender perspective. Under current law, what woman should enjoy the types of rural land rights mainly includes contractual operation right of rural land, rural housing land use right, collective construction land use rights, plot(hill) use right for farmers’ personal needs and servitude. In fact, these rights are in name only, and even don’t existence because of Woman's flow by marriage and live with her husband, and additional causes of the absence of registration of rural land rights and selective law-enforcement by village collective. Therefore, in order to highlight the independence of the woman, the legislation should cancel the household, and establish concrete system to achieve the independence of women, and the supporting system followed in time. In short, it is necessary to abolish the household system, and highlight woman's independent subject status, and also reconstruct the organization against all risk from nature, market and society.

保护妇女的土地权利意义重大， 亦是当前研究的焦点和难点问题， 亟须引入新的研究视角。家户视角， 主要是指从家户的基本构造及其特征出发分析审视妇女的土地权益保护问题， 凸显家户对家户成员个体的遮蔽和压制， 适用范围相较于社会性别视角更为宽广。根据现行法律规定，妇女所应享有的土地权利类型主要包括土地承包经营权、宅基地使用权、集体建设用地使用权、自留地（山）使用权和地役权等，但因其婚嫁及从夫居而在实践中处于有名无实甚至是无名无实的状态，加之土地确权登记中的缺位和村集体及村民自治决议制度的选择性执行，被侵害甚至剥夺。为此，立法应取消家户，以彰显的妇女独立主体地位，通过具体制度实现妇女走向独立，并及时跟进配套制度。总之，既要去除家户的遮蔽效应，彰显妇女的独立主体地位，又要再造防范各种风险的团体化组织，为妇女走向独立保驾护航。

Because of group portrait right’s specificity, when one exercising its own personal portrait right, he or she can’t neglect the group portrait right. But because of the group portrait right also belongs to the right of portrait, so it also having portrait right’s features. Personal portrait whether covered by group portrait, should be based on its identifiable characteristics. Then we could classify the group portrait as following two kinds: having distinct person and don’t have distinct person. From the view of portrait right’s content and the dispute of group portrait, exercising the group portrait is a right of privacy. But when the right’s exercise is aiming at social public benefits, the privacy right should be limited.

集体肖像因形式上的特殊性使得个人肖像的使用不得忽略集体肖像的整体性，但其仍 属于肖像的范畴应具备肖像的特点。个人肖像是否被集体肖像涵盖应基于肖像的可辨认 性特点判断，基于此可以分为能够辨认突出人物的集体肖像和无法清晰辨认突出人物的 集体肖像。 从肖像权的内容与集体肖像使用纠纷的现实纬度看，集体肖像的使用是一种自我决定 权的行使，但在以社会公共利益为目的使用时应限制其自我决定权。

According to legal theory, stocks of Joint Stock Corporation can be transferred freely. But that principle is not absolute. The disposition right of stocks may be restricted by law or articles of incorporation. Since 2000, stock options have been showing many disadvantages. Some corporations begin to take the restricted stocks as a substitute for stock options. The institutional design and the rights structure of restricted stocks are different from them of common stocks, which will become a double sword in corporate governance. However, stocks transferring right restricting system in Chinese corporation stay only on legal surface, so to broad free room for stockholders’ right allocation should become an important domain in next reform of corporation law.

股份转让自由是股份公司法理中的一般原则。但这一原则并不是绝对的，某些股份的 处分权可能基于法律或者章程的规定而受到一定限制。21世纪以来，股票期权制度的诸 多弊端日益显现，作为对其的一种替代方案，未确权股份应运而生，成为一种新型的基 于约定的处分权受限股份。 这种股份在其制度设计和股权构造等方面都与普通股份有着很大的不同，其对公司治 理的影响也具有两面性。中国股份公司立法关于股份转让自由权的限制机制仍然局限于 法定层面，不断拓展对于包括处分权在内的股东权具体权利的自由配置空间应当成为公 司法强化公司自治改革取向的一个重要领域。

According to the Fourth Assessment Report of IPCC, deforestation accounts for 17.4 percent of global carbon emissions. The international community has become increasingly concerned about carbon emissions caused by forest degradation and deforestation, and REDD mechanism was also born in this context .On the basis of REDD mechanism, REDD + mechanism increased forest conservation, sustainable forest management and the content of forest carbon stocks, to make the mechanism apply in a more suitable space. As the most important measures to reduce emissions in post-Kyoto era forestry, REDD + mechanism has no more been questioned. China, as a developing country, is very fruitful in terms of forest protection. In order to ensure the implementation of REDD + mechanism in our country, we must integrate， improve and coordinate on the domestic legal system of forest to secure more funding of REDD + mechanism and ensure our initiative in the international climate negotiations.

根据IPCC第四次评估报告，毁林占全球碳排放的17.4%，目前国际社会也越来越关注 毁林和森林退化造成的碳排放，REDD机制也正是在这种背景下诞生的，REDD+机制在 REDD机制的基础上增加了森林保护、森林可持续管理和增加森林碳储量的内容，使得这 一机制有了更大的适用空间。REDD+机制作为后京都时代林业减排的最主要措施已经不 可质疑，中国作为一个在森林保护方面卓有成效的发展中国家，为保证未来REDD+机制 在我国的实施，必须对国内的森林法律制度进行整合、完善并与之协调，才能争取到更 多的REDD+机制资金，确保我国在国际气候谈判中的主动权。