Earticle

The property law of China, which had been discussed for more than ten years, was successfully passed by the Chinese National People’s Congress on 16 March 2007. It is a law in the transitional stage from typical socialistic legal system to the Chinese unique socialistic legal system. Although there are some important changes in it, we should pay more attention to the fact that it keeps a lot of things from the past. The characteristic of the property law is that it is a result of a compromise or concession among interested parties. The characteristic is bred by Chinese special culture and reflects the reality of Chinese society.

2007年3月16日，十届人大五次会议高票通过物权法，至此酝酿起草十余年的物权法最终将于2007年10月1日正式实施。物权法是中国社会转型和变革时期由各种因素、各种势力，经过博弈和谈判而铸就的一部 阶段性法律。它既带有旧制度的鲜明色彩，又嵌入了改革开放过程中出现的新思想、新制度。物权法作为一部“惊世”之作，其亮点主要不在于它的立法质量和技巧，而在于它饱受争议后所达成的妥协与退让。1) 物权法中的这种务实性特色事实上也正是中国当今社会的客观现实的真实反映，是在特定的社会文化历史背景下孕育的中国特色。

2007년 3월 16일, 제10기 인민대표대회 5차 회의에서 물권법이 다수결로 통과되어, 10여 년의 물권법 기초 이후 2007년 10월 1부터 정식으로 시행된다. 물권법은 중국 사회전형과 변화 발전시기 각종 요소, 세력의 논쟁 끝에 제정된 과도적인 법률이다. 물권법은 구제도의 선명한 특색을 띠고 있을 뿐만 아니라, 개혁개방 과정에서 형성된 새로운 사상, 제도를 흡수하고 있다. 물권법이 “놀라운” 법률로써, 그 중요한 포인트는 입법 품질과 기술에 있지 않고, 그것이 격론후의 타협과 양보의 산물이라는 데에 있다.1) 물권법의 이러한 실제적인 특색은 곧 중국 현재의 객관적 현실의 참된 반영이며, 특정된 사회 문화 역사 배경 하에 나타난 중국특색이다.

The distribution of corporate profit is a financial behavior that involves in the interests of shareholders of company, country, and creditors of company. Every country has different provisions of law in the distribution of profits, and there are also many differences about distribution of corporate profit in two countries, such as the standard and means of distribution of profit, and particularly the provisions relating to accumulation fund having significant differences. Corporate can not make up for the loss with capital accumulation fund in Company law of China, while, according to Commercial Code of South Korea, corporate can make up for the loss with capital accumulation fund, and Commercial Code of South Korea doesn’t make any restrictions on the proportion of conversion of surplus accumulation fund to capital. Based on these differences, the paper, through the comparative analysis of provisions in the distribution of profits between Company Law of China and Commercial Code of South Korea, presents some reference for the legislation’improvement of China Company Law in the distribution of profit. * Attorney at law in China.

公司利润分配是一个涉及股东、公司、国家乃至债权人利益的财务行为。各国法律对公司利润分配有不同的规定，中韩两国在公司利润分配方面也存在比较大的差异，例如利润分配标准和方式。其中尤其有关公 积金的规定更存在显著差异。中国公司法严格禁止资本公积金弥补公司亏损；而韩国商法典并不禁止资本公积金弥补公司亏损，并且，韩国商法典对法定盈余公积金转增为资本也没有作出比例限制。基于这些不同点，本文希望通过对中国公司法和韩国商法典在利润分配方面规定的比较分析，从而为中国公司法在利润分配方面的立法完善提出浅薄建议。

회사의 이익배당은 주주, 회사, 국가 및 채권자의 이익과 관련되는 재무행위이다. 각국의 법률은 회사의 이익배당에 관해 서로 다른 규정을 하고 있는바, 중국과 한국도 회사의 이익배당에 관한 규정에서, 예 컨대 이익배당의 기준과 방법 면에서 많은 차이를 나타내고 있다. 그 가운데 준비금에 관한 규정에서 차이가 크다. ≪중국회사법≫은 자본준비금으로 회사의 결손을 충당하는 행위를 엄격하게 금지하지만, ≪한국상법≫은 자본준비금으로 회사의 결손을 충당하는 행위를 금지하지 않는다. 뿐만 아니라, ≪한국상법≫은 이익준비금이 자본으로서 전입금액에 관한 비례제한을 두고 있지 않다. 본 연구에서는 이러한 다른 점을 통하여, ≪중국회사법≫과 ≪한국상법≫에서 이익배당에 관한 규정을 비교 분석하고자 한다. 그리고 한 걸음 나아가서 ≪중국회사법≫에서 이익배당의 관한 규정의 입법상의 미비점에 대한 개선방안을 제안하고자 한다.

In recent years, with the reform of corporate law around the world, mainly calling for reducing control and enforcing corporate self-governing, it presents the trend of a conversion from formerly prior regulations to subsequent regulations. So the judicial litigation mechanism comes to show its importance. No matter whether corporate legislation or corporate practice is concerned, the function of corporate action is more and more emphasized. On the basis of provisions on corporate actionin corporate laws of both China and Korea, this paper is to review and compare the categories and features concerning corporate action of both in full scale, and concentrate on discussing and comparing the actions of shareholder meeting’s defective resolutions, so as to find out the features and deficiencies in the legal systems of both countries, thus attempting to supply helpful experience on how to improve the legal system of corporate action in China. Apparently, relevant provisions in corporate law of Korea are more developed, which reflects Korean legislators’ attention to judicial remedies for corporate disputes. Comparatively, though the availability of litigation is increased under amendments of corporate law in 2005, relevant provisions in the corporate law of China is still obviously insufficient, which greatly requires improvements through judicial interpretations or other methods to meet the needs of judicial practice. The establishment and judicial experience of corporate action system of Korea are undoubtedly more advanced than that of China. While both the legal system and methods of interpretations are very similar between Korea and China, legislative experience and cases in Korea is deemed to be of high significance to China as references.

近年来，随着各国公司法改革纷纷倡导放松管制、加强公司自治，体现出由原先的事前规制转向事后规制的特点，公司法上的司法诉讼机制显得非常重要，不论是公司立法，还是公司实践，越来越关注公 司诉讼的作用。本文以中国和韩国公司法上关于公司诉讼的规定为基础，全面考察比较两国公司法上公司诉讼的种类及特色，并着重探讨与比较股东大会决议瑕疵之诉，以期找出两国公司诉讼法律制度的特点及 不足，并为完善我国的公司诉讼法律制度借鉴有益的经验。 显然，韩国公司法的相关规定比较完善，显示出韩国立法者对公司纠纷的司法救济的关注。相比之下，尽管2005年新公司法的可诉性得到加强，但是，中国公司法的相关规定还是明显不足，急需通过司法解释 等手段进行完善，以满足司法实践之需求。韩国在公司诉讼制度的建设及审判经验的积累方面无疑走在中国的前面，且韩国的法律体系与中国非常相似，解释的方法也较相近，因此，韩国的立法经验和判例对中国具有很大的借鉴意义。

근래에 들어 각국의 회사법 개정이 규제를 완화하고 회사자치를 강화하는 방향으로 이루어짐에 따라 회사법상의 규제의 중심이 사전규제에서 사후규제로 전환되는 특징이 나타나고 있다. 따라서 회사법상의 司法소송메카니즘은 그 중요성을 더해가고 있으며 회사법의 입법 뿐만 아니라 실무에서도 회사소송의 역할은 점점 더 큰 주목을 받고 있다. 본문은 한국과 중국의 회사법상 소송에 관한 규정을 기초로 양국의 회사법상 소송의 종류와 특색을 전체적으로 고찰하고, 주주총회결의하자의 소를 중점적으로 검토하고 비교함으로써 양국 회사소송법률제도의 특징과 미비점을 찾아보며, 아울러 중국의 회사소송법률제도의 개선을 위하여 한국에서의 유익한 경험을 참고하고자 한다. 전체적으로 보았을 때 한국 회사법의 관련규정은 비교적 완비되어 있으며 이는 한국입법자의 회사분쟁의 司法的 救濟에 대한 관심을 나타내고 있다고 할 수 있다. 이에 비해, 중국의 경우 비록 2005년 개정 으로 “신회사법”상 소송가능성이 많이 강화되었다고는 할지라도 회사법의 관련규정은 여전히 적지 않은 미비점을 안고 있으며, 사법해석등의 수단을 통하여 개선함으로써 실무상의 수요를 충족시켜야 할 것 이다. 한국이 입법 및 재판경험의 축적에 있어서 중국을 앞서고 있다는 것에 대해서는 의심의 여지가 없으며, 아울러 한국의 법률체계는 중국과 매우 유사하고 법해석의 방법도 비교적 유사하므로, 한국의 입 법경험과 판례는 중국에 아주 큰 참고적 의의가 있다고 본다.

信用卡作为新的支付工具被广大消费者使用还不到一个世纪，但它的先进结算方式及便利性使其越来越受到人们的青睐，同时已成为现代人必需的金融商品。 信用卡发行者发行(包括信用卡发行公司及银行)信用卡的目的在于它作为凭单证件可以反复购买商品及接受服务。但是，由于信用卡飞速发展，因信用卡滥发使用导致个人破产的现象在信用卡发达的国家时有发 生，而且已成为重要的社会及经济问题。除此之外，保证人的责任问题也是比较复杂的法律问题。 中國同韓國就保证人的保证责任采取同样的立场，即保证人承担有限责任保证。信用卡因基于持卡人的资信状态和资金偿还能力而发行，故保证人的责任范围也应限制在信用卡发行公司规定的信用卡额度之内比 较合理。只有信用卡发行公司才有权利允许信用额度的变更及透支，所以应当给保证人以有限责任。

It’s possible to understand the formation and development of Chinese environmental laws by comparison with those of Korea and‐Japan. In the earlier stage of legislation, Japan resulted in the enactment of environmental laws by undergoing various industrial pollution cases, on the other hand, Korea enacted environmental laws for the protection of environment in advance, and China was reluctant of enacting environmental laws. In the developing state of legislation, Japan and Korea enacted environmental laws for environmental conservation, and China enacted environmental laws for the protection of environment and nature. In the consummation of legislation, the environmental law of China‐Korea‐Japan are having many things in common.

中国竞争法分为反不正当竞争法和反垄断法。其中，反不正当竞争法是通过规制不正当竞争行为来调整和监督市场竞争体系的法律制度，其目的是促进和保护公平竞争，进而保障经营者和消费者的合法权益。本 文简单分析了反不正当竞争法的制定背景、法律意义、种类与法律责任等主要内容，并向韩国有关部门提出了一些粗浅建议或对策。 1987年，中国正式成为了“保护工业产权巴黎公约“的成员国之一，为了正确履行公约中规定的反不正竞争的义务，中国迫切需要制定反不正当竞争法。同时，随着改革开放力度的加大与市场经济的持续发展，中 国政府也逐渐认识到通过运用法律手段来调整市场竞争的功能与价值。 在这种背景下，中国政府开始着手制定竞争法。但是，因对反垄断方面的看法分歧较大，所以中国政府不得不采用了分立的立法模式，首先于1993年9月2日颁布了中国第一部统一的有关竞争方面的专门法律《中华人民共和国反不正当竞争法》。 不正当竞争行为大致分为不正当交易行为和独占或者限制竞争行为。其中不正当交易行为又分为不正当表示ㆍ广告行为(主要包括虚假标识行为、虚假宣传行为、商业诋毁行为)、商业贿赂行为、侵犯商业秘密行 为、不当亏本销售行为、搭售商品或附条件的交易行为、不正当有奖销售行为；独占或者限制竞争行为又分为公用企业限制竞争的行为、行政垄断行为、串通招投标行为。 关于不正当竞争行为的法律责任，中国反不正当竞争法规定了行政责任(即纠正措施、没收违法所得、罚款与吊销营业执照)，刑事责任与民事责任(即损害赔偿责任)。但是，不正当竞争行为中的商业诋毁行为、不当亏本销售行为和搭售商品或附条件的交易行为没有规定相应的行政责所以有关部门不能追究行政责任，只能按照行政指导方式来监控; 同时这些行为几乎也没有涉及到刑事责任，只是商业诋毁行为可以适用刑法。 相比韩国的不公平交易行为，中国不正当竞争行为的适用范围较大，其执法力度也较强。笔者认为中国政府在实行反垄断法之后，针对跨国企业的不正当行为或垄断行为可能会加大执法力度。所以，韩国有关部门应该密切关注中国的执法情况，并要严格遵守竞争法有关法规。

According to the WTO Secretariat report, during the period 1 January 1995-30 June 2007, China was the most frequent target of new anti-dumping investigations, and products exported from China were the most frequent target of new anti-dumping measures. Korea was the second most frequently targeted country in this respect. Also, Korea and China initiated numerous anti-dumping investigations and applied anti-dumping measures vis-àà-vis each other. So, it seems very important to learn about the anti-dumping legal system of China and Korea through comparative study. In this article, I compared the Chinese and Korean anti-dumping system with WTO rules, and analyzed it with particular reference to law of both countries. As a result of this study, I concluded that several part of the Chinese and Korean anti-dumping legal system are not consistent with WTO rules. There are also some aspects that the Chinese and Korean government should learn from each other, such as a lesser duty rule, anti-circumvention, public interest and so on.

据世贸组织秘书处的报告，从1995年1月1日起到2007年6月30日，针对中国的反倾销调查数量最多，中国也是受到反倾销措施最多的成员。而我们的邻国韩国也受到较多的反倾销调查，成为第二大反倾销受调查成员。此外，中韩两国间又互相展开了很多反倾销调查，并最终征收反倾销税。因此，对中韩两国的反倾销法律制度进行比较研究非常有意义。在本文中，作者首先将中韩两国的反倾销制度同世贸组织规则进行了比较分析。发现两国的反倾销制度中都存在一些与世贸组织规则不一致的内容，并且也发现两国政府可就从轻征税规则、防止规避、公共利益等诸多内容进行互相学习和合作。

当今，中国抓回外逃贪官、追回转移到国外的国有资产的方式呈多样化态势发展，从中可以看出传统的引渡制度发生了一些重大变化。目前 引渡制度的基本原则包括很多，诸如缔约月则或者自愿对等原则、双重 犯罪原则、或引渡或起诉原则、本国国民不引渡原则等，近几年发展变化最大且与中国“追究逃犯”有关的主要有两种： 一, 是 “死刑不引渡”原则，这条原则已经得到国际社会的普遍承认，而且在中国与外国特别是法国签定的引渡条约中明确写明任何与死刑有关的案件将不会适用于中法间的引渡条约。“死刑不引渡”原则在中国的发展经历了三个阶段，在与西班牙签定双边引渡条约之前，在条约中是完全不承认“死刑不引渡”原则的，属于第一阶段，在与西班牙签定的双边引渡条约中有限制的承认了死刑不予引渡原则，属于第二阶段，在与法国缔结引渡条约时完全承认了“死刑不引渡”原则，属于第三阶段，至此，在中国与外 国签定的双边引渡条约中明文承认了“死刑不引渡”原则； 二, 是“政治犯罪不引渡”，这条原则受到限制。基于世界各国对危害人类基本权利和生存的犯罪的重视和认识的统一，为了避免某些犯罪分子以政治犯罪的借口尊求他国保护，“国际犯罪非政治化”已经成为一项新的国际法原则而受到人们关注，政治犯不引渡原则在适用范围上越来越受到限制，主要表现在国际社会在打击跨国有组织犯罪、恐怖主义犯罪、腐败犯罪乃至所有的国际犯罪方面，都呈现出一种非政治化的趋向。引渡是国与国之间正式移交罪犯的方法，起着非常重要的作用。目前，中国与其他国家只签定有20多个的双边引渡条约，只依靠引渡来达到抓捕逃犯，追回被转移的国有资产，显然达不到我们的目的。因此，在当前情况下，引渡的替代措施虽然有着天然的局限性，但是在当前情况下正在发挥着重要的作用。 在的引渡实践中，不仅注重抓回外逃的贪官，同时更加重视国有资产的追回。经济性犯罪携巨款外逃使国有资产大量流失到国外，给国家造成了重大损失，所以在“追逃”的同时，也伴随“追赃”，本文对国际上一般的“追赃”方式给予了介绍，同时介绍了中国在制度建设方面的不足，最后对韩国在对有组织犯罪的“共享追缴财产制度”对中国“追逃财产制度的”的启示。

This paper tries to study the current situation, function, improvement of mediation in Chinese civil litigation in Chinese new century. This paper points out the importance of the role which mediation plays in social transformation period. Litigant’s disposition right and principle of party autonomy which mediation base on are also mentioned in this paper, and it is emphasized that the perfection of mediation in the procedure and effect is important. It is criticized in this paper that the harmful reward system which mediation rate depends on judge’s bonus. This paper proposes that to solve the civil dispute rapidly, exactly is the goal of mediation in civil litigation.

本文试图从新时期我国人民法院诉讼调解的现状、功能、改进三个方面入手，探索在社会转型期间诉讼调解工作发挥的重要作用，揭示诉讼调解工作基于当事人的处分权和自愿原则的深层内涵，强调诉讼调解 工作在程序和效果上的完善，批判将调解率与法官奖金挂钩的不良奖励机制，提出快捷、准确的解决纠纷才是诉讼调解工作的目标。 建设社会主义和谐社会，既需要不断加强社会主义物质文明和精神文明建设，也需要人民法院提供强有力的司法保障。人民法院准确的解决民事纠纷，对密切联系群众，扩大党的执政基础，维护社会稳 定，促进社会和谐发展发挥着最基本和最直接的作用。特别是新形势下，由于社会转型时期的诸多因素，各类纠纷增多，如何充分发挥调解职能，妥善化解矛盾，减少社会震荡，一直是我们认真研究和努力 探索的新课题。

이 본문은 신시기의 중국 인민법원 소송조정의 상태와, 기능, 개선의 세 가지 방면에 대한 연구를 하고, 사회변화시기의 소송조정 업무가 발휘하는 중요작용을 탐구하고, 당사자의 처분권과 자원원칙에 근거 하는 소송조정 업무를 심층적으로 다루고, 소송조정 업무의 절차와 효과상의 완전함을 강조하고, 조정률이 법관들의 상여금과 관련된 바람직하지 못한 시스템을 비판하고, 빠르고, 정확한 분쟁해결이야말로 소송조정 업무의 목표라는 것을 언급하고 있다.

In essence, the thinking is a spiritual practice. As the results and products of the spiritual practice, the thinking includes the theory, the doctrine and the ideology. The legal thinking with general legal profession related, as a concept in modern legal science, are some manners or habits which originated from legal profession’s observation, thinking, analysis and judgement on legal issues in the long-term legal practice. In judicial practice, all of magistrates are the direct results of judge thinking, or judge thinking play an important role in the results of legal issues. Judge thinking include two legal way: “According to the law on” and “Thoughts on law”. The purpose of justice is to make rules of law applicable to the activities of specific casesby judge, which is decided by the thinking what to seek “Anything worth understanding”. But the results of magistrates are decided by “former see” of judge which set the quality of judge thinking. In other words, what is the “former see” what kind of thinking has breadth and depth. Judge thinking belong to judicial philosophy.

從本質上說，思維是人的一種精神實踐活動；作為這種精神實踐活動的結果和產物，是理論、學說 和思想體系。法律思維作為現代法律科學中的一個概念，與一般的法律職業相關，它是法律職業者在長期法律 實踐中所形成的觀察、思考、分析和判斷法律問題的方式或習慣。在司法實踐中，法官所作的任何裁判都是其思維活動直接作用的結果，或者說，法官的思維對案件的處理結果起著十分重要的作用。法官思維包括“根據法律的思考”和“關於法律的思考”兩種法律方式。司法審判目的是法官將法律規則適用於具體案件的活動中，尋找“什麼東西值得認識”的思維所規定的。然而，司法審判是受法官已經獲得的“前見”所決定，這些“前見”規定著法官思維的品質，可以說有什麼樣的“前見”就有什麼樣的思維廣度和深度。法官思維特徵屬於司法理念的一部分。

Recent developments of the penal law in Korea could be summarized in following two mostsignificant areas: (1)improvement democratic protection of human rights; and (2)increasing civil participation in criminal justice system. In September 23, 1954, Korea has enacted its first Criminal Procedural Law since the country has been founded in 1948. Defense rights of criminal defendants are enhanced. The right to refuse self-incriminatory testimony has been newly provided. Individual’s physical arrest system has been improved in furtherance of safeguarding human rights. In addition to emphasis on public trial, pretrial procedures have been introduced into Korea. For the first time in its criminal justice history, Korea is implementing jury trial based on Law Regarding Individual Participationin Criminal Trials Consisting of total seven chapters sixty articles, this law has been officially enacted in June 1, 2007. There should be no jury trial if the defendant waives the right. Jury has power to deliver opinion on matters concerning recognition of the facts, application of law, and decision on punishment in trials involving individual participation. To qualify as a juror, one must be a citizen of the Republic of Korea who reached the ageof20. Cases in which the applicable punishments involve death penalty, life imprisonment, or indefinite custody must be heard before 9-person jury, while all other cases must be heard before 7-personjury. As the recent developments of information technology accelerates globalization in Korean society, individual recognition of human rights is becoming increasingly important along with individual advancement of democratic ideology. Since the amended Criminal Procedural Law has become effective, both the doctrine of public trial and physical arrest system have been significantly improved. Reforms are evolving in Korean penal system now. It is expected that reforms in physical arrest system would lead to stronger human rights protection and civil participation in criminal justice would result in a desirable penal system for people in Korea.