Earticle

To take professional and systematic measures against School Violence, IN 2004 the「ACT ON THE PREVENTION OF AND COUNTERMEASURES AGAINST VIOLENCE IN SCHOOLS」 (“School Violence Prevention Act”) was enacted. Although this Act has been revised many times in the last decade, it still has lots of problems that must be solved. So this study points out the problems of the School Violence Prevention Act and proposes improvement measures especially in the violence prevention education, relationships with other Acts, and response system Based on the Constitutional Meaning and Legal Nature of the Act. From a Constitutional standpoint, School Violence Prevention Act can be regarded as means to perform the duty of State to protect the Youth and guarantee the Fundamental Rights, and to exercise the power to institute and manage the Educational systems. Therefore, It should consider the special characteristics of adolescents and school education’s purpose. In this regard School Violence Prevention should be the first goal of the Act and place mediation and restoration above disciplinary action. In conclusion, there are three main factors to be improved in School Violence Prevention Act. First, more specific requirements about violence prevention education should be set down to achieve substantial results of education. Next, School Violence Prevention Act first be applied to other Acts like the 「Criminal Act」, and the measures took on the former should be a factor in judicial procedures according to the latter. Lastly, it is reasonable that the 'autonomous committee for countermeasures against school violence’ established in each school(Article 12) should focus on the prevention of school violence and the 'Regional Coordination Committees for Countermeasures against School Violence' established in each Si/Gun/ Gu(Article 10-2) handles school violence cases.

This article overviews the problems of the 「Artists’ Welfare Act」 which is enacted in 2011 and the overcoming measures, from a comparative perspective with 「Act on the Development of Mass Culture and Art Industry」 which is enacted in 2014 rather than own point of 「Artists’ Welfare Act」. First, after comparing the concept of “Artist” from the 「Artists’ Welfare Act」 and the concept of “Artist of Mass Culture” from 「Act on the Development of Mass Culture and Art Industry」, this article defined ‘Pure Artists’ as a complementary set of the former concept which excludes the latter concept. Based on this, this article analyzed Pure Artists a monthly average income comparing the monthly minimum wage and the monthly minimum cost of living, and investigated whether ‘Pure Artists’ joined the grand four insurance or not just as Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance, Employment Insurance, National Health Insurance, National Pension, so ultimately could check the deteriorated economic status of ‘Pure Artists’. For to deviate from criticism that 「Artists’ Welfare Act」has just declarative sense and to resolve this problem, a protective method for rising artists should be prepared, and joining the grand four insurance or not must be differed subdividing economic status of artists. Besides, reinforcing restriction level with creating penal provisions in 「Artists’ Welfare Act」 could be considered, but it would be enough through modulating upper limit of fine for negligence.

This study analyzed the full bench decision on creditor’s right to revoke, Sentences 2015. 5. 21 and 2012, Da 952. The example of the above verdict covered the content: the subscription of purchase was done by the fraudulent act that does harm to the creditor and thus the provisional registration was finished; however, the beneficiary transferred the provisional registration to the third party not knowing the fact by menas of the supplementary registration. Thus, this study discussed that under the above circumstance, if the third party who had taken the assignment of the right completed the provisional registration and the perfected registration can, the creditor can cancel the subscription of purchase as a fraudulent act and claim the restitution against the beneficiary as the transferor of the right. According to the conventional case, the possibility for the creditor to exercise the revocation against the beneficiary was denied for the reason that the assignee (beneficiary) of the right by the above provisional registration can not be the other party for the suit for registration cancelation of the provisional registration and the grantor with the right for the provisional does not have the obligation for the compensation of equivalent value. Thus, the beneficiary with any bad intention can conceal the responsible property or can evade the debt with ease, which caused the problem of being used as the passage of deviating the reasonable property. Therefore, the Supreme Court changed the conventional case judging that in the full bench decision above, the status of the beneficiary is not extinguished by the supplementary registration, the fraudulent act against the beneficiary is recognized and the compensation of the equivalent value shall be paid even if the fraudulent act against the beneficiary is canceled and the beneficiary can not implement the obligation to cancel the provisional registration as a the restitution of the original property. This study analyzed the said decision by reviewing the restoration obligation in the creditor’s right to revoke, the effect of the supplementary registration before the provisional registration, and the possibility of the compensation for the damage against the opponent in the suit for registration cancelation and the beneficiary in the case. The above full bench decision is considered to be very reasonable in that it will largely reduce the plausibility to the act of concealing the debtor's assets, prevent a potential accident of real estate transactions, protect the parties in good faith, and achieve the stabilization of the transactions.

최근 개정상법은 기업재편과 기업집단화에 초점이 맞추어져 있는 바, 상법상 소수주식 강제매수(§360.24~26)와 주주의 이중대표소송(§406.2)이 그것이다. 전자는 기업재편에 있어서 주주보호이고, 후자는 기업의 집단화(지주회사)에서 주주보호이다. 장차 이 두 제도는 한국의 기업경영에서 상당한 기여를 할 것으로 생각한다. 우선 소수주식 강제매수에 관하여 본다면, 회사의 이사나 지배주주에 대한 주주의 위법행위 유지청구권이 고려될 수 있을 것이다. 또 이사의 주의의무가 더욱 확장되어야 할 것이고, 소수주주의 주식매수청구권은 회사의 승인여부를 묻지 않고 주주의 의사표시로 유효한 것이며 그리고 매매계약 또한 그 시점에서 발생하게 된다. 다음은 이중대표소송에 대하여 본다면, 미국에서는 완전모회사의 주주총회에서 인정된다. 이런 경우에 주주총회의 승인은 회사가 전체 재산을 양도하는 경우나 재산처분으로 회사의 사업이 소멸되는 경우에 인정된다. 독일의 경우는 법 규정은 없지만, 이른바 홀쯔뮬러(Holzmüller) 판결 이후 모회사의 주주는 자회사의 경영에 관여할 수 있다. 즉 주주의 이익에 관련된 회사의 중요한 재산인 자회사를 양도하는 경우가 그것인데, 이때 모회사의 주주는 자회사의 의사결정에 관여할 수 있다. 일본의 경우에는 2012년 회사법개정안 이후 주주의 다중대표소송이 소개되었다. 이는 의결권 1/100 이상을 가진 완전모회사의 주주인 경우에 인정되고 이사의 책임도 모회사 재산의 1/5을 초과하는 자회사의 이사로 한정된다. 결국 상법상 소수주식 강제매수의 경우, 회사의 이사나 지배주주에 대한 주주의 위법행위 유지청구권이 인정되어야 할 것이며, 주주총회의 승인 없는 소수주주의 강제축출은 무효가 되어야 한다. 또 주주가 총회의 소집통지를 받지 못한 경우에는 총회무효소송이나 부존재의 소송도 인정될 필요가 있을 것이다. 상법개정안에 규정된 이중대표소송에 대하여는 한국의 기업경영에 시의적절한 조치라고 본다. 이는 향후 선진외국의 경우를 검토하여 더욱 바람직한 방안을 마련할 필요가 있다. 즉 주주의 장부열람권 및 보유주식의 낮은 비율조정 등이 그것이다.

The revised Korean Commercial Code has been focused on corporate restructuring & corporate grouping, and those are squeeze-out of minority shareholders(§360.24~26) & shareholder's double derivative suit(§406.2). The former is the protection of shareholders in corporate restructuring and the latter is the protection of shareholders in corporate grouping(holding company). The contribution of the two will be a great help to corporate management in Korea. First of all, about Squeeze-out of minority, shareholder's injunction against the director or controlling shareholders could be considered. That is, director's care duty and faith duty should be widened, and exercising of the right not to be approved by shareholder's general meeting should be invalid. And also the appraisal right of minority shareholders is the right to be effective in expression of will without the company's approval, and the sales contract takes place as of the time. Next, about double derivative suit in America, it has been approved in complete parent company by means of shareholder's general meeting. In this case, the approval of shareholder's general meeting is the time when the company hands over it's total property or the business ended by the disposal of the property. About double derivative suit in Germany, it is not regulated in the law, but according to the decision of Holzmüller the shareholder of a parent company has the authority to a subsidiary's management. That is, handing over a subsidiary as an important business in the company has an effect on the shareholder's interest. So the shareholder of a parent company could not help involving in the decision making of a subsidiary. In japanese revised company law in 2012, the multiple derivative suit of shareholders would be introduced. the shareholder to file a suit should be the one of complete parent company and the director's liability is limited by the director of a subsidiary exceeding 1/5 of parent company's assets and moreover the shareholder should have 1/100 of the right to vote in the company. To the long run, shareholder's injunction against the directors or controlling shareholders needs to b approved on korean Commercial Code, squeeze-out of minority shareholders without the approval of shareholder's general meeting is invalid, and the right to action of invalidity or non-existence for the shareholders not to be notified needs to be approved. And the introduction of double derivative suit on the revised Korean Commercial Code is a timely step in korean corporate management, moreover about this step we need to seek a desirable strategy in reference to advanced foreign country's case in the future: shareholder's right to read documents and shareholder's requirement to sue by the lower rate of holding shares etc.

최근 급속히 진행되고 있는 세계화 시대의 초국가적 경쟁 상태에서 생존하기 위하여 세계 각국은 지역협력 체제를 구축하여 새로운 변화에 적극적으로 대응하고 있는 추세이다. 우리나라가 ‘동북아 공동체’의 거점국가가 되기 위해서는 먼저 개방화정책에 따른 사람의 자유로운 이동, 즉 인적 교류가 물적 교류･정보교류 등과 함께 병행되어야 할 것이다. 개방화정책은 ‘출입국관리체계의 개선’과 ‘새로운 이민정책의 수립’을 전제로 하는데, 국가가 이러한 정책을 원활하게 수행하기 위해서는 법적･제도적 장치가 구비되는 것을 전제로 한다. 인적 교류를 위한 개방화정책이 출입국관리체계의 개선이나 새로운 이민정책의 수립으로 추진됨에 있어서 간과할 수 없는 것은, 불법입국자에 대한 대책과 외국과 연계된 국경초월범죄(조직범죄, 마약밀매행위, 테러범죄, 자금세탁범죄 등)및 시장질서 저해행위(부정경쟁행위 등)에 대하여 효율적이고 민첩하게 대처할 수 있는 체계를 갖추어야 할 과제도 함께 안고 있다는 점이다. 이를 위해서는 각국의 형사사법기관에 의한 범죄예방네트워크의 구축이 실효성을 거둘 수 있으며, 사후적 예방네트워크로서 동북아 지역에서의 국제적 수사공조체계를 확대하고 심화하기 위하여 형사사법실무기관간의 교류확대와 동북아 지역국가들 간의 공동수사그룹 등을 창설할 필요가 있을 것이다.

Every country in the world, in order to survive the transborder competition which is proceeding speedingly, is responsing actively the new changes by building community cooperation system. It should be guaranteed that human in every country could cross the nation’s border without sanctions and exchange of goods or exchange of information also could parallel with them. As the immigration opening policy is consisted of ‘revision of immigration control system’ and ‘establishment of new immigration policy’, it need to provide the legal system or institutional strategy. It should not be ignored and establish the effective and agile measure to illegal entrant, transborder crime(organized crime, drug trafficking, terror, money laundry and so on) related with other countries and disturbing market order. To meet the mentioned-above, establishment of crime prevention network by all country’ criminal justice system could work. Also, to widen an east asia area’s network of crime investigation, it need to increase the exchange of judical authorities and to build the cooperative instigation group.

본 연구는 영리형 민영교도소의 도입 여부를 비판적으로 검토해 보는 것을 목적으로 하였다. 현행 민영교도소의 한계를 짚어보고, 그 대안으로 영리형 민영교도소는 정당화될 수 있는 것인지를 확인해 보려는 것이 연구의 구체적 목적이었다. 우리나라의 민영교도소인 소망교도소는, 교도소시설은 민간인 재단법인 아가페가 소유하며 국가는 시설임대비용을 지급하지 않는 형태를 띠고 있다. 소망교도소는 교도소 운영업무 전체를 국가로부터 위탁받아 운영하고 있으며, 비영리형(종교형)으로 운영되고 있다. 이러한 현행 민영교도소는 비영리형 운영방식에서 한계점을 지니고 있다. 수용관리에 따른 운영경비만을 지급하고 교정시설 사용에 대한 사용료는 지급하지 않아 운영 비용 조달에 어렵다. 그러나 이러한 문제점을 해결하기 위한 방안으로 영리교도소는 정당화될 수 없다. 영리화라는 사업적 동기가 교도소 운영이 지니는 공공복리적 성격과 상응할 수 없기 때문이다. 국가형벌권의 집행을 민간에 위임하였다 하더라도, 수형자와 국가의 관계까지 민간에게 위임하였다고 보기는 어렵다. 그러나 영리형 민영교도소가 생겨나면, 수형자는 민간 기업과 ‘사적으로 매개된’ 권력관계에 놓이게 된다. 또한 교도소의 민간 운영 역시 여전히 정당성을 찾기 어렵다. 형벌집행은 민간에 위임할 수 없는 국가의 독점적 권력에 해당하는 것이기 때문이다. 교도소 업무의 민간 위임은 불가한 것으로 보아야 하며, 불가피한 경우에도 최소한도에 이르러야 한다. 형벌이론적 관점에서도 민영교도소의 정당성은 찾기 힘들다. 형벌 집행의 의미가 수용자의 건전한 사회복귀라고 할 때, 민영교도소는 분명 장점을 지니고 있다. 소망교도소의 장점은 종교의 사회적 사명감을 바탕으로 한, 사회복귀 촉진을 위한 민간 자원의 투입이라 할 수 있다. 따라서 이미 도입된 민영교도소를 최대한 정당화할 수 있는 합리적 운영방법을 모색할 필요가 있다. 이를 위하여 첫째, 민영교도소는 현재와 같이 비영리형을 유지할 것, 둘째, 충분한 운영비용을 국가가 지급하며, 이에 더불어 국가는 시설비용도 지급할 것, 셋째, 민영교도소의 자율성을 최대한 보장하되, 국가가 지속적으로 관리·감독할 필요가 있음을 살펴보았다. 민영교도소의 실험적·자치적 프로그램을 적극 장려하고, 이를 국영교도소에 적극 도입할 수 있도록 하는 방안을 모색함으로써만 소망교도소 존재의 정당성과 합리성이 도출될 것이다.

The purpose of this Study is to conduct a critical review on the introduction of for-profit private prison. To be specific, this Study points out the limitations of the current private prisons and contemplates on whether for-profit private prisons can be a legitimate alternative. In the case of Somang Prison, a private prison currently in operation in South Korea, the prison facilities are owned by Agape, which is a private foundation. The State does not pay rent for the facilities. Somang Prison is entrusted with the entire management works for the prison facilities by the State, and the prison is operated as a non-profit (religious) prison. Non-profit operation is problematic because the State only pays for the operation cost required for inmate management without paying the rent for the use of the facilities, which makes it difficult to secure the funds to operate the prison. Then, is a for-profit prison can be an alternative to address these issues? Firstly, it is still difficult to justify a private-operated prison. Execution of criminal sentences should be regarded as belonging to the exclusive power of the State. Even when delegating the execution to other entities, such delegation should be kept to a minimum. The second problem is whether the profit-seeking motive of a private prison can be compatible with the public interest-seeking nature of prison operation. Even when the State delegated its power of punishment, such delegation cannot be regarded as including the relationship between prisoners and the State. If a for-profit private prison is allowed, prisoers will be subject to a ‘privately mediated’ power relationship with the private firm operating the prison. The private prisons currently in operation needs to be reasonably operated to the possible extent. To achieve reasonable operation, the following is required. First, private prisons need to remain non-profit as they are today. Secondly, the State needs to pay for at least 90% of the prison operation expenses. Thirdly, in order to ensure the autonomy of operation for private prisons, the State should guarantee their autonomy as much as possible, while maintaining continuous management and supervision. Lastly, the experimental and autonomous programs of private prisons need to be actively encouraged, and future efforts need to be made to incorporate those programs into state-run prisons.