Earticle

“The Act of Anti-Money Laundering in China” was enacted at the 24th meeting of the Standing Committee of the 10th National People’s Congress of the People’s Republic of China on October 31, 2006 and was effective as of January 1, 2007. The Act is devised, for the purpose of preventing money-laundering, maintaining the financial order, and restraining the crime of money-laundering and other related crimes. The term “anti-money laundering” in the Act refers to the act of adopting related measures of the Act to prevent any money laundering activity in order to conceal or disguise, by all means, the sources and nature of the criminal proceeds which is generated from any drug crime, organized crime in the nature of gangland, crime of terrorism, crime of smuggling, crime of corruption or bribery, crime of disrupting the financial management order, crime of financial fraud and etc. The Act mainly provided that general definition and system of anti-money laundering, Supervision and Administration on Anti-money Laundering, Obligations of Financial Institutions for Anti-Money Laundering, Investigation on Anti-Money Laundering, International Cooperation on Anti-Money Laundering, and Legal Liabilities. It was inevitable that the Act might have some problem in the practice. Sino-Korean Law of anti-money laundering may cross-reference each other. Foreign enterprises including Korean enterprises must be attentive to the provisions and practice of the Law.

企业合并是现代经济生活中一个极其重要的现象, 是市场经济高度发展的产物。作为一种重要的企业产权的资产性交易形式, 它是企业从资产经营向资本经营转化的有效扩张手段, 体现了市场经济中优胜劣汰的 竞争法则。企业合并是一把“双刃剑。一方面。它能够迅速实现企业的低成本扩张, 提高企业的市场竞争力。另一方面, 企业合并在快速提高企业实力的同时, 也在消灭潜在的竞争对手, 这样市场的集中度就会不断提高, 有可能会导致垄断, 从而会破坏有效竞争。因而企业合并一直是各国法律和监管政策关注的焦点。同时, 韩、中两国由于历史、文化、地理位置的相近性和经济的互补性, 已成为重要的贸易伙伴。并且, 随着贸易和投资的增加, 两国企业间的合并也越来越多。在这样背景下, 比较、研究两国企业合并法律制度具有必要性和现实意义。本文主要从以下几个角度进行分析。 首先, 申报制度, 韩国采用事前和事后双重申报制度(即, 在一千亿以上到未满两万亿韩币的公司进行企业合并的, 以事后申报为原则; 而在两万亿韩币以上的大规模公司则采用事先申报制度)。申报对象分为一般、简易、不适用对象。而中国采用事前申报制度, 申报对象分为一般对象和免除对象。两国都采用申报代理人制度和事前申请审查制度(即, 申报前商谈)。 其次, 审查制度, 韩国将相关市场分为商品市场、地域市场、交易阶段市场和购买群体市场。中国则分为产品市场和地域市场。在韩国, 判断是否限制竞争的标准大致分为两个程序：一是判断是否形成支配关系；二是判断是否属于限制竞争性。后者又分为两个程序：评估市场集中度和按照不同合并类型的审查标准来分析市场进入等其他相关因素。韩国反垄断审查制度的主要特点是采用推定限制竞争制度、评估市场集中度标准(又分为重点审查领域和安全领域)。中国的审查标准与欧盟的相似, 关于反垄断审查的阶段和标准, 分为初步审查和进一步审查, 而后者也规定了听证会和国家安全审查制度。两国具体的判断因素虽然有所不同, 但是基本上都重视基于市场集中度的限制竞争性与否, 同时还考虑市场进入条件、消费者利益等其他因素。另外, 韩国的豁免因素是提高经济效率和挽救濒临破产的企业, 中国的豁免因素则是经济效率和社会公共利益因素。 再次, 关于违反企业合并规定的法律责任, 分为违反申报义务的和限制竞争合并行为的, 前者又分为虚假记载申报内容、没有履行申报义务和未过等待期间便实施企业合并行为。韩国采用一定的行政责任(即, 纠正 措施、罚款、强制履行金), 刑事责任(即, 罚金)、民事责任(即, 损害赔偿请求制度)。但是, 中国只对合并当事人追究行政责任(即, 停止实施集中、限期处分股份或者资产、转让营业等的纠正措施和罚款)和民事责任, 并没有涉及到刑事责任, 也没有区分违反申报义务和限制竞争合并的法律责任。但是, 两国都明确地规定了就国外进行的企业合并的申报义务, 即采用域外适用制度。 最后, 在前面分门别类介绍韩中企业合并制度的基础上, 概括地评价了中国企业合并制度的现状, 然后对韩国的有关当局简单提出了一些建议和对策方案。

Even though China enacted the “PRC Act of Enterprise Bankruptcy,” in 1986, the Act was not applied to all state-owned enterprises for a variety of reasons, and China’s “Administrative legislation” generally prevailed over such bankruptcy proceedings. Therefore, the need for a unified act applicable to all corporate entities not limited to state-owned enterprises has become increasingly evident. Accordingly, a new act of “Enterprise Bankruptcy” was enacted which took effect on June 1, 2006. Under the existing Bankruptcy Act, while “liquidation” was one means of settlement available to the parties at hand, “composition” and “restructuring” were combined into one joint proceeding. Government agencies were also authorized to intervene in such composition and restructuring proceedings at their discretion, a practice unique to China. The new act, however, introduces separate proceedings for liquidation, composition and reorganization. The new act expands the scope of eligibility for applicants, stipulates the appointment of a bankruptcy administrator, strengthens creditors’ rights, and changes rights relationships between secured creditors and workers. The new act also contains provisions to prevent fraudulent transfer of assets and to strengthen creditors’ responsibilities during bankruptcy proceedings, as well as special provisions on bankruptcy for financial institutions, policy-based bankruptcy, and international bankruptcy regulations. Although the new act still maintains a role for significant government involvement, it is nevertheless a cornerstone of China’s effort to transition to a market-based economy. This act will be both China’s new economic act, as well as the first market economy-based bankruptcy act that regulates the liquidation and/or rehabilitation of all legal entities. As a supplement to the existing act, this new act on enterprise bankruptcy is expected to have profound effects on China’s creation of a legal framework for its “socialist market economy.”

With the social and economic development of China, the original Partnership Enterprise Act, which was enacted by the Standing Committee of the 8th National People’s Congress on February 23, 1997 and that could no longer meet the current requirements of the social and economic development, was badly in need of revision. Under this background, the 23th meeting of the Standing Committee of the 10th National People’s Congress made large revisions to the Partnership Enterprise Act on August 27, 2006. These revisionsinclude without limitation expanding the scope of the member of partnership enterprises, extending the organization forms of the partnership enterprises, perfecting the internal organization structure of partnership enterprises, strengthening the protection of creditors’ legitimate interests, identifying partnership enterprises’social responsibilities, etc.. No doubt, this is another important development of Chinese legislation on commercial subject legislation following the revision to the Company Law. It is an important momentum to China’s economic and social development. This article is intending to discover the legislation highlights and innovation together with the shortcomings of the new Partnership Enterprise Act, through comparing the new and the old Partnership Enterprise Act.

随着中国社会经济的发展, 第八届全国人大常委会于1997年2月23日制定的第一部≪合伙企业法≫ 已难以适应当前经济与社会发展的要求, 迫切需要对其进行修改。基于此, 第十届全国人大常委会第二十三次会 议于2006年8月27日对≪合伙企业法≫ 进行大幅度的修订。其扩大了设立合伙企业的主体范围、拓展了合伙企业的组织形式、完善了合伙企业的内部组织结构、同时注重保护债权人的合法权益、明确合伙企业的 社会责任等等。毫无疑问, 这是继≪公司法≫ 修订之后中国商事主体立法的又一个重要成果, 对中国经济社会的发展具有重要的推动作用。本文试图通过比较新旧≪合伙企业法≫ 来发现新≪合伙企业法≫的立法亮点和创新之处以及不足的地方。

中华人民共和国政府为了通过劳动合同的规范化, 保护劳动者的权益, 建立和谐稳定的劳资关系, 在2003年全国人民到代表大会常务委员会确定立法计划, 在2005年10月国务院常务会审议通过≪劳动合同法≫后, 通过多次的意见征集及修订在2007年6月29日第10届全国人大常务会第28次会议通过后制定 ≪劳动合同法≫决定2008年1月1日起施行。 第一、雇用单位和劳动者在对等关系的合议为前提签订劳动合同, 形成劳动关系, 根据合同和法律行使劳动关系中各自的权利和负担其义务。并且雇用单位应书面签订劳动合同, 并根据劳动时间安排其工作, 按 时支付工资, 根据法定解雇理由程序解雇。雇用单位制定劳动合同, 团体合同及劳动规定, 明确薪金、劳动条件及惩戒理由等, 在劳动者违反合同及不服从劳动命令时制止及解雇。 第二、雇用单位应制定适当的试用期, 雇用适合本单位的劳动者。雇用单位为劳动者提供研修机会, 让劳动者学会本单位所需的技术和纪律, 并与劳动者约定劳动时间, 防止学习技术后离职, 关于高新技术产业或知识产权业务方面应约定竞争行业就业限制, 保护其本单位的利益。 第三、劳动组合应参与并确定雇用单位制定或修订或决定于劳动者利益相关的规章制度(劳动规定等)或仲裁事项, 为雇用单位和劳动者签订劳动合同提供协助和指导, 代表劳动者与雇用单位签订团体合同。因履行团体合同过程中发生争议无法协商解决的可申请仲裁或提起诉讼。并且雇用单位进行劳动管理有必要与劳动组合简历协力关系也可以支援友好的劳动组合的设立。 第四、确立“1条1裁2审”(调解1次, 仲裁1次, 审判2次)的劳动争议处理制度, 解决因实行劳动合同的履行, 解雇、开除劳动者及辞职或薪金, 研修培训, 福利, 劳动保护等发等的争议。发生以上争议时由于雇用单位有举证的责任, 因此应明确劳动合同的签订, 团体合同的签订或制作劳动规定时明确其权利义务及雇用单位的权限, 并且确保劳动者违反义务及告知等处理程序上的证据资料。 第五、雇用单位可与劳动者合议签订固定期限劳动合同, 但在一定情况下因强制要求签订无固定期限劳动合同, 强化解雇的条件和程序, 与派遣劳动者签订2年以上固定期限劳动合同, 会带来劳动市场的僵化和劳动生动性的低下。应寻求最大程度减少雇用单位的劳动费用, 生产最大化的多样的劳动关系的建立。固定期限劳动合同, 一定业务完成期限劳动合同, 劳务派遣制度, 非全日制用工, 续签合同时应强求审查条件的强化等合法方法, 定立减免费用的多样的劳动关系。

According to close connections in the fields of economics, trading, investments and so on between Korea and China, the study on the Anti-monopoly law of China would be much helpful to understand this country. After 1990, China entered into market economy from industry economy by the success of reform and opening up policy. China already established “Anti-unfair Competition Law” for the introduction of market competition system, but, there was still lots of non-competition factor among various industry field. So it was a pending issue that how to strengthen an enterprise’s competitiveness by the introduction of open competition free from government regulation and protection policy. Then the necessity of avoiding side effect of government’s growth preference policy, establishing a new economic order by revitalization of market function, and reinforcing nongovernmental-initiated economic management and enterprise’s responsible management was recognized. So, finally “Anti-monopoly law” is established in the August this year by Standing committee of National People’s Congress to free from government restriction and keep pace with world trend. This thesis is constructed all by four chapters. Chapter 1 to chapter 3 is mainly explaining current Anti-monopoly law of China and some drafts discussed before, chapter 4 is proposal to the draft of Chinese Competition Law. In chapter 1, it is analyzing the trend of competition law of China by comparing each laws and acts relating anti-monopoly law and pointed out the main argument and several different points of view for the “Anti-monopoly Law,” and some arguments into the relations between antimonopoly law and anti-unfair competition law. Chapter 2 is mainly about the theory of competition restriction contract, mainly describing the attribute of cartel, and comparing the necessity of the restriction of competition, and the standard of the restriction of merger, in order to pass judgment on the introduction of competition restriction contract, and the injustice of the collaboration. And it stated the application of reasonable rules and more as the explanation of the practicality restriction systems. Also, it analyzed private lawsuit and leniency policy as punishment and penalty. And pointed about some rules of the relating on the abuse of dominance. After then about the merger of enterprises, discussing the restriction of competition in company merger, and defining related market. It’s also analyzing market state, potential competition, possibilities of hard core cartel among competitors, and alternative supply in horizon merger. Finally, it stated the screening standard of merger, and the opinion on the relationship between competition policy and industry policy. And mainly about administrative monopoly acts especially important problems in China, and extraterritorial application of antimonopoly law which would have many impacts on the play of Korean companies in Chinese market. Chapter 3 is about the antimonopoly law enforcement agency and its execution. Firstly pointed out the need for a strong enforcement agency, and theoretical analysis of damage claim policy, prohibition of damage claim policy, and then, stated the solution to the problems on the background, basis, and current status of fine imposition policy. And it analyzed the problems of current law system, the purpose and the adequacy of legislation of exclusive prosecution system in China. In chapter 4 I proposed some personal recommendations and hopes on the establishment and execution of anti-monopoly law in China to put forward progress.

卡塔赫纳议定书的正式名称是生物多样性公约的卡塔赫纳生物安全议定书。卡塔赫纳议定书主要调整因现代生物技术获得的转基因生物的转移、处理及利用, 特别把调整重点放在了转基因生物的越境转移。卡塔赫纳议定书考虑转基因生物对人体健康可能造成的危害性的同时, 也考虑了因转基因生物的环境释放可能对生态环境造成破坏的危险性。卡塔赫纳议定书在2000年1月29日在加拿大蒙特利尔获得通过。因2003年6月13日太平洋岛屿国家帕劳作为第50个会员国加入卡塔赫纳议定书, 所以根据卡塔赫纳议定书之规定, 2003年9月11日卡塔赫纳议定书生效了。至2007年11月, 卡塔赫纳议定书的会员国是143个, 签署议定书的会员国是103个国家。 随着现代生物技术的发展, 产生了转基因生物。因转基因生物对环境有着较高的适应能力, 因此提高了农业转基因生物的产量, 还有环境净化用微生物对人类解决环境污染有较多的帮助。但是引起国际社会更广泛议论的是转基因生物在环境释放后可能对人类健康及生态环境发生的不利影响。 比如说, 人为地改变遗传基因制作的生物体在环境释放后可能对保存及可持续利用生物多样性产生不利影响、转基因生物的迅速成长可能破坏生态环境的均衡发展及可能发生环境污染、还有当人类食用后是否可能发生危险等。在这样的背景下, 国际社会普遍认为有必要签署规范安全使用、处理及转移转基因生物的国际条约, 因此根据生物多样性公约第19条、第8条、第17条及生物多样性公约会员国大会II/5决议签署了卡塔赫纳议定书。 卡塔赫纳议定书适用于可能对生物多样性的保护和可持续使用产生不利影响的所有转基因生物体的越境转移、过境、处理和使用, 同时亦顾及对人类健康构成的风险。在越境转移时出口国及出口当事人应向进口 国事先通知转基因生物的出口及提供相关资料, 如果进口国要求, 出口国应对转基因生物进行风险评估。 进口国向出口国要求提前通知及风险评估是根据贯穿于卡塔赫纳议定书的基本原则进行的。卡塔赫纳议定书中事前预防原则是具有约束力的, 以前的公约及条约中该原则不具有法律有约束力。这在保护人类健康及保护人类所依靠、共存的生态环境方面具有很大意义。同时为了确保转基因生物的安全使用、处理及转移、防止对生物多样性及人类健康可能发生的危害及为处理转基因生物的人员及会员国提供必要信息, 卡塔赫纳议定书明确要求各会员国标识是否包括转基因生物或是否是转基因生物。 但是, 事前预防原则可能形成贸易限制措施的滥用。还有在进口承认程序中要求考虑社会经济因素、必须在可能包括转基因生物的产品上或转基因生物上标上标识。卡塔赫纳议定书中的这些规定都有可能与自由 贸易为宗旨的WTO规范相冲突。同时, 因为卡塔赫纳议定书中没有明确规定与WTO规范之间的关系, 因此需要相互支持及和谐运用及适用卡塔赫纳议定书和WTO规范的措施。 中国是在世界上人口最多的国家。因此环境适应能力较高、产量较高的转基因农作物, 成为了解决持续增长的人口对农场品的需求的重要方法之一。中国是生物多样性大国, 是重要的农作物生物多样性中心, 又是主要转基因农作物进口大国。因此对转基因生物潜在的不利影响、生物多样性的保存及可持续利用问题等领域, 中国政府具有浓厚的兴趣。 为了解决转基因农产品的安全的研究试验、加工、生产、经营及进出口, 中国政府2005年6月批准了卡塔赫纳议定书, 同时在国内在农业转基因生物的安全评价、进出口检验检疫及加工、食品卫生等领域制定了行 政法规及规章制度。分析中国政府颁布及实施的相关规定, 我们不难看出, 这些规定不是禁止农业转基因生物的, 而是在一定条件下允许农业转基因生物的流通及使用。这些规定符合中国实情, 但应该尽力解决有关农业转基因生物立法层次低、效力低的问题, 应尽力提高农业转基因生物的安全评价标准及技术力, 应尽力解决农业转基因生物产品的标识问题及农业转基因生物造成损害的赔偿问题等。

Since China’s accession to WTO, agricultural products has been an important part of its foreign trade and now it is the forth biggest country in trading agricultural products in the world. China’s rapid increase of export of agricultural products has been threatening international agricultural market and the agricultural products disputes with China will be one of the important issues in the table of Free Trade Agreement(FTA) with China. The paper, first of all, examine the situations and characteristics of international agricultural products disputes since China’s entry of WTO. The paper found out that China has never been a party to WTO suits in the area of agricultural products although China has participated in a lot of disputes as a third party. China believes that it can learn and get information from the participation as a third party. It also implies that China is ready to sue any country if they violates WTO rules especially in the area of agricultural products through the experiences and lessons of participations as a third party. The paper, then, analyzes the specific situations of China’s agricultural products disputes and what its countermeasures and achievements. Mainly, the paper shows how Ministry of Commerce of the People’s Republic of China makes the most of “the Trade Barrier Investigation Legal System of China” to protect its farm producers and increase export of agricultural products. With the Korea-China FTA negotiation ahead, the paper suggests that Korea should choose which dispute settlement system if it faces agricultural products disputes with China. China have made preparation against agricultural products disputes legally and institutionally and have earned a lot of achievements. China will strengthen its government’s role in agricultural products disputes. First of all, China will try not to violate WTO rules, and Chinese government will make the most of the Trade Barrier Investigation Legal System. Based upon efficiency and flexibility, if future trade benefits are more than high costs and injury, China will deal with disputes in an aggressive attitude. Since China’s WTO accession, Korea needs to consider legal dispute settlements like WTO or bilateral dispute settlement to resolve agricultural disputes with China because it might be more useful than diplomatic and political negotiations to make domestic interest groups understand.

The bronze character 灋(fa) was carved initially at the bronze vessel named DaYuDing(大盂鼎). in Zhou (周) dynasty. 灋(fa) was composed of 去, 水, 廌. 去 related to sacrificial rites. 水 meant sacred place. 廌 meant totem. The shape of 灋 bears a close parallel to that of (天水) 訟卦 which is hexagram 6 among 64 hexagrams in the Book of Changes(周易). ☰(天) was a hieroglyphic symbol of Heaven. ☵(水) was a hieroglyphic symbol of the Milky Way. 訟 was a worship or worshipper. The bronze character 灋(fa) and hexagram 6, ( 天水 訟卦) has a common image that a worship was performed by a certain tribe at the sacred place. The bronze character 灋(fa), therefore, means that a certain tribe, a “廌” worshipper, performs a ancient rites “大社” at the sacred place “水”.

본문은 선진시대로부터 1949년 중화민국까지의 중국대륙에 있어서의 중국사회 및 1949년 이래 현재까지의 대만에 있어서의 중국사회의 법․도덕과 사회변화의 상호관계를 탐구함을 목적으로 한다고 필자는 밝히고 있다. 이를 위해 필자는 본문을, 먼저 과거에 법이 어떻게 유가도덕의 지배를 받았는가를 설명하고, 이어 이러한 법과 도덕의 관계가 법의 서구화에 어떠한 영향을 미쳤는가를 살펴보고, 마지막으로 현대의 법학이론을 근거로 고유의 도덕과 서구화된 법과의 조화를 위한 경로를 찾아보는 것으로 구성하고 있다. 그는 우선 수천년 동안 외부의 간섭없이 계속되어온 중국 고유의 법관념은 금세기초 변법운동으로 인해 서구의 법사상과 제도를 받아들이기까지, 고유문화와 함께 계속되어 왔으며, 이러한 고유의 법관념을 명확히 이해하기 위해서는, 반드시 ‘법’과 ‘예’ 양자의 고유의 개념 및 그의 상호관계로부터 시작되어야 한다고 주장한다. 그에 의하면, ‘예’와 ‘법’의 두 개념은 유가와 법가의 주장에 의하여, 한때 이론 및 실제상에 있어서 상호 대립하는 국면을 형성하였으나, 한무제 때에 이르러 유가가 정통성을 확보하게 되었지만, 법이 가진 질서를 유지하고 혼란을 바로잡고 분쟁을 해결하는 기능은 당시에도 공인되어, 법과 예의 관계는 대립관계에서, 예를 상위로 법을 하위로 하는 관계로 전환되었다. 그 결과 유가의 도덕규범과 법 혹은 형벌은, 상호 결합하여 일종의 관료적 제도가 되었고, 이것이 곧 “법률의 유가화” 혹은 “유가사상의 법률화”이라는 것이다. 한편, 청말에 이르러 서구법제를 모범으로 하는 변법운동이 일어났으나, 청조의 멸망과 함께 관철되지 못하고, 중화민국의 건국과 함께 중국의 현대입법은 마침내 전통적인 예교의 굴레를 벗어나게 되었다. 그러나, 1949년이전 대륙의 중국사회 및 현재의 대만의 중국사회는, 일반인이 모두 법 이외의 행위규범-즉, ‘예’-를 사회생활의 실제 준거로 삼고 있다는 점에 있어서는 매우 흡사하며, 이러한 법 이외의 준거를 중시하는 관념과 태도는, 예를 들면 사적 권리의 행사와 주장 등에 있어서와 같이, 현대의 서구화된 법의 지위와 효용성에 커다란 영향을 미치고 있다고 한다. 이는 곧 전통적인 법 이외의 사회행위규범-즉 ‘예’-는, 현재의 대만중국사회의 ‘살아있는 법’(living law)에 해당하는 것이며, 이 살아있는 법과 현대법과의 괴리를 의미하는 것이 된다. 따라서 이러한 괴리를 해소하기 위한 전통도덕으로서의 ‘예’와 현대법의 조화는, 서구법제의 도덕적 기초를 최후의 표준으로 삼을 것은 아니라, 보편적인 도리와 인성과 인정에 바탕을 둔 예의 기본원리와 원칙의 검증을 받은, 살아있는 법의 신규범 혹은 예의 신규칙의 조화에 의해 이루어질 수 있다고 한다. 이러한 조화의 준거는 모두 인성을 논리적 근거로 삼고, “공평성과 합리성의 최저한도의 요구”로 해석되는 자연법과 전통도덕인 ‘예’에서 찾을 수 있다고 한다. 즉, 현대 서구법학의 이론에 의하면, 자연법을 준 거로 특정사회의 살아있는 법과 실증법의 조화를 도모해야 한다는 것이다.