Earticle

지리적으로 인접한 한국, 중국, 일본, 대만은 한자를 기반으로 하는 언어적 유사성과 역사적으로 유교문화권이었던 문화적 유사성을 가지고 있다. 세계의 많은 국가들이 지리적 인접국과 단일한 경제구역 또는 연합을 형성하고 있는 현대사회에서 위 동북아시아 4개국 역시 긴밀한 경제·정치·문화 교류를 유지하고 있다. 원활한 교류를 위해서는 각국의 법과 제도를 이해할 필요가 있으며, 각국의 법률용어의 이해가 선재되어야 할 것이다. 그러나 아직까지 4개국의 법률용어에 대한 종합적인 연구가 이루어지지 않고 있다. 이에 동북아시아 4개국의 교수 및 연구원이 학술컨소시엄을 구축하고 2012년 6월부터 현재까지 법률용어 연구를 위해 노력하고 있으며, 그간의 시행착오와 결과를 이 글에서 정리해 보고자 한다.

Each country has achieved the economy of scale through brisk international trade, and established a good rapport. The exchange is more frequent between countries having the similar cultural area and geographic proximity, and border between countries is effaced. It is not an unaccustomed work any longer that countries having the similar cultural area and geographic proximity have been united as a bloc for the economy scale. In Europe, European Community(EC) had been established in 1967, and it has been recreated as European Union(EU) in 1991. Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam also have formed ASEAN, the collective name for Association of Southeast Asian Nations. Northeast Asian Countries, especially China, Japan, Taiwan and Korea, have a Chinese character cultural background in common. Many experts are earnest in diverse endeavors for continuous interchange in Northeast Asia. The understanding legislations and institutions of each other should take precedence in order for a smooth exchange. Whereupon the Memorandum of Understanding to Create an Academic Consortium for Sharing Legal Information of East Asia was signed in June 2012, and we have continued the research to build up a platform for sharing legal information in the last three years. It was a tough question to decide concretely upon a range and method of study for the platform. However, we have accomplished the arrangement up to a certain point after many trials and errors in June 2014. First, we gathered basic information about each country; (1) organization of legislature, executive and judiciary, (2) structure of legislation. Also, documents were written and shared to introduce a general research method, and a list of web sites was also drawn up to identify the web sites with accessible legal information, such as statutory, court judgment, academic and social information. These were the frist step. Second, we reckoned that we needed a thorough understanding of lawful terms. Dealing and interpreting various laws, and analyzing and matching each of the terms were at higher obstacle than expected. Therefore, this study was progressive and was done step by step; 1. We targeted the similarities of Chinese Character usage and matched words individually. 2. We adjusted the matching results according to the meanings. 3. These matchings are still in constant revising and rechecking through discussion. In the future, we hope to provide a platform to share law information without any language barrier by using English, as well as providing English translation service though our legal terminology matching materials.

세계 어느 나라를 막론하고 식품안전에 대하여 완벽한 나라는 없을 것이다. 국민 개인들이 매일 소비하는 식품을 모두 안전하게 관리하기는 극히 어려운 일인지도 모른다. 최근 중국에서 식품 안전사고가 자주 발생하여 중국식품의 안전에 대한 국민들의 관심이 높아지고 있다. 오늘 날에는 식품을 자가소비하기 위하여 생산하는 경우는 거의 없기 때문에 대부분 판매하기 위하여 생산을 하게 됨으로써 다양한 가공산업과 식품첨가물산업이 발달하게 되었다. 식품안전은 대개 농산물의 생산 및 가공과 유통단계에서 식품오염과 부주의한 취급 및 기타 생산비 절감 등을 명목으로 값싼 재료를 사용하는 것으로부터 발생하게 된다. 식품의 안전성을 보다 확실하게 이룩하기 위해서는 식품의 원료 확보, 생산 및 제조 가공, 그리고 유통 및 보관 등 소비자에게 이르기까지 전 단계에 걸쳐서 안전성이 확보되어야 한다. 아울러 국가적인 차원에서 식품안전을 위협하는 위해요소를 사전에 찾아내서 예방한다면 보다 더 좋은 효과를 얻게 될 것이다. 중국은 최근에 국민들의 건강과 식품가공산업의 국제화를 위하여 중국 식품의 안전관리 및 감독에 대한 법률체계를 개선하고, 이에 대한 식품안전법규 및 식품안전 표준에 대한 국제화를 서둘러 추진 하고 있다. 아울러 2014년부터 식품안전법에 대한 개정절차를 진행하면서, 식품안전 중점업무를 발표하는 등 식품안전의 강화를 위한 입법과 관련정책과 조치들을 발표하고 있다. 특히 2015년 에 개최된 전국인민대표대회와 중국인민정치협상회의의 개최기간에 국무원은 전체 국민들의 창업과 혁신을 독려하는 규정을 만들어 공포하였다. 이를 위하여 과감하게 행정규제를 철폐하고 행정절차의 간소화 및 민간에로의 권한부여 즉 “簡政放權” 정책을 적극적으로 추진하고 있다. 아무튼 중국은 우리나라가 향후에 식품을 수출입해야 하는 국가이므로 차제에 중국의 식품안전 관리시스템에 대한 법적 고찰을 시도함으로써 중국에 수출입하고자 하는 우리 기업들에게 다소 의 도움을 줄 수 있을 것이다.

There is no country that has perfect food safety. It is very difficult to manage all foods that every individual consumes everyday safely. Accordingly, if a country finds harmful elements threatening food safety and prevents any risk, it is a better solution. China progressed a revision procedure on food safety law from 2014 onwards and announced a series of legislation and related policies to reinforce food safety such as publication of key tasks for food safety. However, the more important thing is to give credibility on food safety to food consumers in China. China is the country that Korea may import and export foods. Accordingly, the examination of legal study of the food safety management system in Korea would be helpful to our companies importing and exporting to and from China.

This paper deals with the permission of Korean Family Court for an adoption. The amendment of Korean Family Law in 2012 introduced an adoption system which requires the permission of Family Court when an adoptee is minor. Until then, Korean adoption system required just both consents of an adopter and an adoptee. When an adoptee was under 15, the consents of his/her parents or guardian should be granted instead of the consent of the adoptee. Korean Family Court took no part in adoptions at that time. The amendment in 2012 attempted to expand the function of Korean Family Court in the family law field. It shall be estimated much positively. When an adoption is made inside Korea, this amendment is very understandable. If it is made by Korean people outside Korea, how does the amendment work to the adoption, especially Korean people residing in Japan? This is the main purpose of this paper. When a Korean couple makes an adoption in Japan, Korean Law shall be applied to this case according to Article 31 of Japanese Private International Law(Ho no Tekiyou ni Kansuru Tsusokuho). Thus, they are required requisites stipulated in Korean Family Law. The above permission of Korean Family Court is also necessary for the adoption. Of course, there is no Korean Family Court inside Japan. But Japanese Family Law has the similar system in which Family Court’s permission is required in an adoption when an adoptee is minor. In this situation, the Korean Supreme Court which directs the nation registry, has decided it relating to the nation registry that the permission of Japanese Family Court can’t take place the permission of Korean Family Court in adoptions. On the contrary to this decision, this paper insists on the substitution of Japanese Family Court in such cases. General speaking, the theory of Private International Law tries to admit substitution to systems of applicable law in the forum’s systems. It shall be admitted when both systems are almost same in functions, purposes, proceedings and so on. This paper analyses the high similarity of both Family Court’s permissions. Therefore, Japanese Family Court’s permission shall be substitute to Korean Family Court’s permission in an adoption when an adoptee is minor.

韓国民法は、 2012年改正において、 未成年者を養子にする場合、 家庭法院の許可を必要とすることにした （改正867条）。 家族法領域において、 家庭法院が担う後見的機能をさらに高めることを企図した改正である 。 この改正に関して、 海外に住む韓国人夫婦が未成年者を養子に迎えようとする場合、 どのように対 処すべきかが問題となる。 国際私法および国際民事訴訟法に関わる問題である。 韓国の大法院は、 戸籍 制度から改められた家族関係登録制度の業務を行うにあたり、 韓国人と日本人間の国際的な養子縁組 に関して、 改正民法867条の定める家庭法院の｢許可は、 韓国の家庭法院の許可を意味し、 日本の家庭 裁判所は、 韓国の家庭法院の役割を代行することはできない｣とした。 本稿は、 大法院が示した、 この家族関係登録の先例につき、 国際私法および国際民事訴訟法の立場 から検討、 批判を加えるものである。 結論的には、 日本民法798条を前提に制定された日本の家事事件 手続法（別表第一の61項）の定める｢養子縁組をするについての許可｣は、 その機能、 内容からして、 十分、 上記韓国民法867条に定める韓国家庭法院の許可に代行しうる手続と認められるとするものである。 家庭法院の許可のような非訟裁判は、 訴訟に比べ、 定型性に欠けるため、 代行可能性を一般的に認 めることは難しい。 しかし、 円滑な渉外的家族法関係を実現するためには、 各国法の定めるこうした非 訟裁判に対しては、 できる限り、 代行可能性を認める必要がある。 そうしないと、 海外において本国のそ うした裁判を行おうとすると、 必ず本国へ帰らなければならないこととなり、 当事者にとっては極めて 不便である。 本国の定める非訟裁判の機能に相当する、 あるいは内容的にそれを担保する制度が当該 外国にある場合には、 その制度に対して代行可能性を認めるべきである旨、 論じている。

Today, there is an extremely high level of interest in intellectual property. This is partly due to the increasing importance of intellectual property. In this climate of growing intellectual property importance, the importance of high-quality intellectual properties service and intellectual properties service specialists are increasing more and more. Specially, the importance of expansion of their business scope and strengthening working ability of patent attorneys are increasing. Responding to those environmental change and demand, amending of education and training system for strengthening working capability of patent attorney as well as patent attorney system is very much desirable and necessary. In those regards, in this article, I will address the current situation and improvements of patent attorney system, as one of the professional certification systems on intellectual property service in Korea and Japan. For this purpose, firstly, I will address the definition of a person who has professional qualifications for the intellectual property services. Secondly, I will deal with the current situation of patent attorney system in Korea and Japan. Thirdly, I will deal with the current situation of patent attorney education system in Korea and Japan. Fourthly, furthermore, I will deal with issues on improvements of patent attorney system and patent attorney education system in Korea.

高品質の知的財産サービスに対する社会的要求が増加しており、 知的財産サービス専門家に対 する社会的需要の増加に応えるため、 既存の弁理士の職域の拡大のための弁理士法の改正案が出 ている状況であり、 その他にも知的財産の取得、 管理、 保護、 活用の各領域別に知的財産サービス 専門資格士制度が生まれている。 知識情報社会における知的財産サービス専門家の必要性は高 まっている一方、 現場で必要な知的財産サービス専門家が大きく不足している状況は、 知的財産 サービス専門家養成制度が不備な点から引き起こされたので、 これからはその整備が必要である。 このような問題意識の下で、 本稿では、 知的財産サービス専門資格士の中で、 韓日弁理士制度 の現状と改善策を中心に検討しながら、 21世紀の知識情報社会で必要な知的財産サービス専門家 養成制度の方向を提示したい。 議論の順序は次のとおりである。 まず、知的財産サービス専門資格 士の概念を説明した後、 韓日の弁理士制度の現状と弁理士教育制度の現状に対して、 検討するよ うにする。 これを基礎にして、 韓国の弁理士制度と弁理士の教育制度の改善策を提示するように する。

The Chinese “Administrative Procedural Law” was legislated in April 1989, and was enacted on October 1, 1990. Since its implementation, it has played an important role in promoting the improvement of the administrative legislation, improving the administration of the administrative organ by law, protecting the legitimate rights and interests of citizens, legal persons and other organizations and maintaining social stability. But with the development of the situation, the law has increasingly revealed its insufficiencies. In the face of the escalating contradiction between the public and the officials, the administrative litigation system appears to be helpless and its role and function has failed to be given full play. And, it becomes more and more difficult for various rules legislated in the establishment of the “Administrative Procedural Law” to adapt to Chinese social reality with three difficulties, including “difficulty of cases filing, trial difficulty and enforcement difficulty”, in practice. To deal with the above three difficulties, China had incorporated the amendment of the “Administrative Procedural Law” in the legislation plan of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress as early as 2003.The 12th session of the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress had implemented three deliberation from December 25, 2013 to November 1, 2014, and finally issued the “Decision on Amending the Administrative Procedure Law”. According to the current situation of the Chinese politics, economy and social development, the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress (NPC) , in combination with the rich experience of judicial practice of the courts at all levels, implemented relatively comprehensive amendment on the “Administrative Procedural Law”. The articles of “Administrative Procedural Law” increased from 75 to 103 after revision. The main amended content is as follows: first, further open channels for litigation, strengthen the protection of civil litigation. For this, the scope of administrative lawsuit is expanded with “the specific administrative act” renamed as “administrative behavior,” which leaves space for expanding the scope of administrative litigation in the future. The normative documents formulated by the State Council and local people’s governments and relevant departments in addition to administrative rules and regulations should be conditionally incorporated in the scope of administrative litigation. The plaintiff qualification is expanded and the citizens, legal persons or other organizations, having a stake in administrative behavior, also can hold the plaintiff qualification. The filing procedure is refined with clear rules made for the filing registration system and the legal responsibility of the people’s court refusing to file. The prosecution deadline is extended. And the deadline for the citizens, legal persons or other organizations to directly file a suit in people’s court is changed from the original three months to six months. Secondly, part of the trial system is adjusted to guarantee the impartiality of the trial results. The trial level regulation of the administrative cases in the first instance is improved. The cases of filing a suit for the administrative action of the local government should be under the jurisdiction of the intermediate court. The administrative cases should be incorporated in the cross administrative region jurisdiction. With the approval of the Supreme People’s Court, the Higher Peoples Court can determine several administrative cases under the jurisdiction of the people’s court across the administrative areas. Thirdly, the supervision of the people’s court for the administrative organ should be strengthened, and the administrative disputes should be solved in essence. It is necessary to expand the scope of the rational review of the people’s court, and make clear rules on the responding system for the head of the administrative organization, the defendant qualification of the reconsideration organization, the legal consequences caused by the administrative organ’s failing to fulfill the judgment within the specified time. The amendment for “Administrative Procedural Law” can not be settled at one go and there is still a great space left. Firstly, the scope of accepting cases can be further expanded, and the administrative fact behavior, administrative contract, administrative guidance and other non-mandatory administrative behavior are also can be incorporated in the scope of accepting cases. Secondly, the scope of the defendant of administrative lawsuit remains to be further expanded. The qualification of the defendant of administrative lawsuit should adopt the “standards of public function” to involve public administrative organizations that exercise public administrative function other than the administrative body in defendant. Thirdly, the principle of legality review should no longer be acted as an unique principle in the administrative litigation. The implementation of this principle in practice leads to the Chinese administrative trial mode, namely the “unanimism of revocation litigation”. And it also causes the single administrative lawsuit type in China .The future amendment should focus on making the people’s court, to the maximum extent, respond to the appeal of the administrative relative person, and implementing legislative design on administrative litigation cases to classify them.

中国 《行政诉讼法》 制定于1989年4月, 于1990年10月1日起实施。 《行政诉讼法》 实施以来对于促 进行政立法的完善、 促进行政机关依法行政、 保护公民、 法人和其他组织的合法权益和维护社会的 稳定方面都发挥了重要的作用。 但是随着形势的发展, 这部法律日益显露出不足, 面对不断升级的 官民矛盾, 行政诉讼制度显得束手无策, 行政诉讼制度的作用与功能未能得到充分的体现。 《行政诉 讼法》 制定之初所确立的各种规则, 越来越难以适应中国社会的现实情况, 在实践中面临了 “立案 难、 审理难、 执行难” 的三大难题。 针对上述三难问题, 中国早在2003年就将 《行政诉讼法》 的修改 纳入全国人大常委会的立法计划。 第12届全国人大常委会从2013年12月25日至2014年11月1日, 经 过三次审议, 通过了 《关于修改<行政诉讼法>的决定》。 全国人大常委会根据中国政治、 经济和社会发展的形势, 结合各级法院在司法实践中所积累的 丰富的经验, 对 《行政诉讼法》 进行了首次比较全面的修改。 修改后的 《行政诉讼法》 由75条增加到 103条。 修改的主要内容如下 : 第一、 进一步畅通诉讼渠道, 加强对公民诉权的保护。 为此, 扩大了行 政诉讼的受案范围将 “具体行政行为” 更名为 “行政行为”, 为今后进一步扩大行政诉讼受案范围留 下空间。 将除了行政法规和规章以外的国务院部门和地方人民政府及其部门制定的规范性文件有 条件地纳入了行政诉讼的受案范围。 扩大了原告资格, 与行政行为有利害关系的公民、 法人或者其 他组织, 也可以具备原告资格。 细化了立案程序, 对立案登记制以及人民法院不予立案的法律责任 都作出了明确的规定。 延长了起诉期限, 公民、 法人或者其他组织直接向人民法院提起诉讼的期限, 由原来的3个月变更为6个月。 第二、 调整部分审判体制, 保证案件审理结果的公正性。 提高了一审 行政案件的审级规定, 对县级以上地方政府所作的行政行为提起诉讼的案件, 由中级法院管辖。 规定可以跨行政区 域管辖行政案件, 经最高人民法院批准, 高级人民法院可以根据审判工作的实际情 况, 确定若干人民法院跨行政区域管辖行政案件。 第三、 加强人民法院对行政机关的监督, 实质解 决行政争议。 扩大了人民法院的合理性审查范围, 并对行政机关负责人出庭应诉制度, 复议机关的 被告资格、 行政机关逾期不履行裁判的法律后果等做出了明确的规定。 对《行政诉讼法》的修改不可能一步到位, 仍留下了很大的修改空间。 第一、 受案范围有待进一步 扩大, 将行政事实行为, 行政合同、 行政指导等非强制性行政行为也纳入受案范围。 第二、 行政诉讼 被告范围有待进一步扩大。 行政诉讼被告资格标准应采用“公共职能标准”, 使行政主体以外的其他 行使公共行政职能的组织也可以成为被告。 第三、 合法性审查原则不应再作为行政诉讼特有的原 则。 实践中这一原则的贯彻导致了中国行政审判模式为“撤销诉讼一体主义”, 这使得中国行政诉讼 的类型单一。 今后的修改中应注意使人民法院最大限度地回应行政相对人的诉求, 对行政诉讼案件 进行类型化的立法设计。

“Reading out the pre-trial confession in court” is an intentional or unintentional omission in the Criminal Procedure Law of China, but the legislative loopholes are filled up by some judicial interpretations, moreover, reading out pretrial confessions is a kind of normal judicial practice. In China, “reading out the pretrial confession” functions as either substantial evidence or impeaching evidence, and is in a dilemma between self-incrimination and autonomous decision-making. So, to legalize reading out pre-trial confession, the judicial practice of Chinese country, on the one hand, should turn from the emphasis on “prohibition using illegal evidence” to “ban obtaining evidence illegally” in the application of illegal evidence exclusion rule; on the other hand, should bring forward three-sided relationship emphasized by principles of direct trial to the investigation phase from the trial stage.

“宣读审判前供述” 是中国刑事诉讼法的一个有意无意的遗漏, 这个立法漏洞被一些 司法解释填补了, 更主要的是宣读审判前供述是一种司法实践常态。 中国从诉讼原理而言, “宣读审 判前供述” 要经过 “非法证据排除规则”（合法性证明）和 “直接审理原则”的双重检验才可能真正成为 定案根据。 “宣读审判前供述” 摇摆于实质证据和弹劾证据的功能之间, 在自证其罪和自主决策之间 左右为难。 然而, 为了保障宣读审判前供述合法性, 我国的刑事司法实践, 一方面要在非法证据排 除规则适用上从强调 “使用禁止” 转向为强调“取得禁止”；另一方面要将为直接审理原则所强调的 三面关系从庭审阶段提前到侦查阶段。

As of 17th March, 2015, China has signed 12 FTAs, but there are different regulations of intellectual property rights in these FTAs. From the early does not include any intellectual property provisions to add some general terms, and then to the relevant chapters in detail. China’s current FTA negotiation partners include not only the developing countries, but also developed countries, while these developed countries pay more attention to the protection of the intellectual property rights. Therefore, it is necessary to compare China’s FTA intellectual property rights provisions to other leading FTAs in the world, and puts forward some suggestions on intellectual property right strategy in China’s FTA. At the moment, China seems have not a complete intellectual property section model, compared with the developed countries, such as United States, it is still relatively backward. The object of Chinese FTA has significantly diversified, it including not only the developing countries, but also including the developed countries. In order to more effectively promote her country's FTA, China should have a clear intellectual property section model. The content of FTA in many intellectual property rights, in addition to the most common FTA protection of intellectual property rights, interests of developed and developing countries in some areas is not the same, even in the fierce confrontation.

截止2015年3月17日, 中国已签署了12个FTA, 而这些FTA中知识产权相关规定有较大差异。 从早 期的不包括任何知识产权条款到加入一些一般性条款, 再到较为详细的相关章节。 中国目前的FTA 谈判对象不仅包括发展中国家, 还包括发达国家, 而发达国家整体上更加关注知识产权的保护, 因 此, 有必要对中国FTA中的知识产权条款与国际上对知识产权保护做出详细规定的FTA进行比较, 并 对中国FTA中的知识产权战略提出建议。 中国在目前看来, 似乎还没有一个较为完整的知识产权章 节范本, 与美国等发达国家比较起来, 还处于相对落后的状况, 这也从中国签订的FTA知识产权相 关内容的五花八门可看得出来。 中国的FTA签署对象已经明显多元化, 不仅包括了发展中国家, 也 包括了发达国家。 为了更有效地促进与他国的FTA, 中国应有一个较为清晰的知识产权章节范本。 FTA中的知识产权内容诸多, 而除了那些多数FTA所共有的知识产权保护内容之外, 某些领域中发 达国家和发展中国家的利益取向并不相同, 甚至有些是处于激烈对抗中。

1992년 10월 9일, 국유기업 华晨金杯(Huachen Jinbei)중국자동차는 百慕大(Bermuda) 에 등록한 후 ADR방식으로 미국 뉴욕거래소에 상장하여 중국기업의 해외상장의 서 막을 열었다. 1993년 7월 15일, 중국기업 《청도맥주》가 홍콩거래소에 H주식방식으로 상장하여 진정으로 해외에서 상장한 첫 번째 중국기업으로 되었다. 중국경제의 전면 적인 발전에 따라 해외에서 상장하는 중국기업의 수는 부단히 증가하고 있다. 2007년 부터 2014년까지 8년사이에 647개의 중국기업이 해외에서 상장하였는데, 주로 홍콩, 미국, 유럽의 각 증권시장에 집중되어 있다. 清科(Qingke)그룹의 통계자료 분석에 의 하면. 세계 많은 증권시장 중 홍콩에서 상장한 중국내지기업의 융자액과 상장수량의 비율이 가장 크다. 이것은 기타 증권거래소들이 비교할 수 없는 것이다. 중국기업이 잇달아 홍콩에 상장하는 이유는 홍콩거래소가 독특한 우세를 갖고 있고, 중국내지와 비슷한 문화를 지니고 있으며, 동시에 세계금융중심이며, 중국의 회계법칙을 인정하 고, 상장 후의 관리감독 또한 미국처럼 엄격하지 않기 때문이다. 그리하여 홍콩은 중국기업의 최선의 선택지로 삼고 있다. 하지만 중국기업의 해외상장 근본문제는 관 련교역과 정보공개이다. 이에 중국기업이 홍콩시장에 상장하기 전 반드시 기업개조 와 재구성을 거쳐 관리수준을 개선하고 회사의 지배구조와 내부통제시스템을 개선해 야 만이 홍콩상장 시에 부닥칠 관련기업과 정보공개 등 법률규제에 대응할 수 있다. 따라서 중국기업은 상장 전에 반드시 홍콩증권시장의 특점을 이해하고 회사자신의 지배와 발전을 강화하여야 비로소 상장 금융조달에 당면하는 곤란과 도전을 극복하 고 순조롭게 홍콩시장에 상장을 실현할 수 있다.

Chinese companies began their overseas listing journey since the state-owned motor company named Huachen Jinbei registered in Bermuda then listed in New York Stock Exchange by way of ADR on October 9, 1992. After then, Tsingtao Brewery listed in Hong Kong Stock Exchange by way of H shares on July 15, 1993, became the first truly direct overseas-listed Chinese enterprise. Along with the comprehensive development of China's economic, the number of overseas-listed Chinese enterprises increased rapidly. During eight years between 2007 and 2014, the number of Chinese companies listed overseas grown up to 645, while the locations which they chose to list were concentrated in certain markets, mainly in Hong Kong, United States, and Europe. According to the statistical data analysis from Qingke Group, there were much more Chinese enterprises chose to list in Hong Kong market rather than other securities markets. Obviously, those Hong Kong listed Chinese firms aimed for some of Hong Kong’s unique advantages: cultural similarity with mainland china; a better location as one of the world’s financial centres; recognized Chinese accounting standards in HK and less strict supervision compare to United States. All these advantages made Hong Kong market became the first choice for Chinese enterprises listing overseas. However, Chinese companies always meet related transaction and information disclosure problems during the overseas listing progress. In order to enable the enterprise to deal with the legal risks for the related transactions and information disclosure, they need to finish the enterprise system transformation and restriction to improve the management and internal control system before the they going to list on the Hong Kong market. What’s more, from aspects of regulation system, company operation system, Hong Kong market and Mainland China market are quite different, which is also challenge for Chinese enterprises which want to list. To sum up, before Chinese companies applying to list in Hong Kong market, they need to fully understand the characteristics of the market, and strengthen the company management system to overcome the difficulties to list in the market.

1992年10月9日, 国有企业华晨金杯中国汽车在百慕大注册登记以后, 在美国纽约交易所通过 ADR方式上市, 开启了中国企业海外上市的序幕。 1993年7月15日中国企业青岛啤酒在香港交易所 通过H股方式上市, 成为第一个真正意义上在海外上市的中国企业。 随着中国整体经济水平的全面 发展, 赴海外上市的中国企业的数量在不断增加。 2007年至2014年这八年间, 中国企业海外上市数 量高达645家, 但同时上市地点相对集中, 主要在香港、 美国、 以及欧洲各证券市场。 根据清科集团 统计数据分析, 在世界几大证券市场中, 中国内地企业赴香港上市的融资额和上市数量所占比率最 大, 是其他证券市场所无法相比的。 中国企业之所以纷纷选择到香港上市是由于香港交易所具有独 特的优势, 具有与中国内地相近的文化, 同时又是全球金融中心之一, 认同中国会计准则, 上市后 的监管也没有美国那么严格, 因此香港成为中国各类企业上市的首选地。 但是中国企业境外上市最 常见问题就是关联交易和信息披露问题。 基于此, 中国企业在赴香港市场上市之前须进行一系列的 企业改造与重组, 以便改善自身的管理水平, 公司治理结构与内控制度, 才能使企业从容应对赴香 港上市时所面临的关联交易及信息披露等的法律风险。 所以中国企业上市前须充分了解香港证券 市场的特点, 同时加强公司自身治理与发展, 才能克服上市筹融资所面临的困难与挑战, 顺利实现 赴港上市。

The entry into force of the Nagoya Protocol has greatly promoted the realization of Access and Benefit-sharing of genetic resources,which is the third objective of Convertion on Biological Diversity. Korea, as a user country of genetic resources, may bear more burden of using genetic resources from other countries, since domestic supply is not sufficient, especially in the bio-industry. For geographical reasons, Korea imports genetic resources from China, which is near to Korea and rich in natural resources. This article introducesthe outline of the Nagoya Protocol and ABS system, analyses the trade status between China and Korea, and focuses on China’s ABS legal and strategical measures on different types of genetic resources, such as animal genetic resources, plant genetic resources, microbial genetic resources and so on. Predicting what kind of disputes will happen, this paper suggests several corresponding measures of the Korean government and the private sector.

名古屋议定书的生效极大地推进了遗传资源获取与惠益分享制度的实现。 遗传资源获取与惠益 分享是生物多样性公约的第三个目标。 作为资源利用国的韩国, 在本国资源供给不足的情况下, 需 要从国外进口遗传资源。 中国与韩国地理相近, 并且具有丰富的生物资源, 韩国从中国进口遗传资 源, 未来可能会进口更多。 惠益分享制度使得韩国企业, 特别是生物产业, 将承受更大的经济负担。 本文首先介绍了名古屋议定书、 ABS体系, 分析中国惠益分享制度的特征, 然后用数据分析中韩两 国关于遗传资源的交易现状, 重点探讨中国不同种类遗传资源的ABS法制及政策, 比如动物遗传资 源、 植物遗传资源以及微生物遗传资源等等。 文章最后一个章节预测中韩未来可能发生的问题和纠 纷, 并就韩国政府和非政府两个层面提出应对措施。

In “Outline of the National Intellectual Property Strategy” of P.R.China, it’s definitely prescribed that one of its the purposes is to improve China's capacity to create, apply, protect and administer intellectual property (IP), which positioned the capacity to apply IP at very significant status to illustrate that the utilization of IP is attached much more importance to in the national IP strategy. Therefore, the IP system with the mobile application-oriented objective, other than static ascertaining propriety-and-protectionoriented one, shall be established in China.

《国家知识产权战略纲要》 明确指出其制定的目的之一是 “为提升我国知识产权创造、 运用、 保护 和管理能力”, 将 “运用” 能力置于重要位置, 表明我国知识产权战略对 “运用”的重视。 实际上从知识 产权制度的产生、 知识产权的法定主义及其本质就可看出促进知识产权运用是知识产权制度的使 命所在。 为此, 在反思知识产权制度使命及明确知识产权价值重在运用的基础上, 我国应构建和完 善以促进知识产权运用而非静态的确权、 保护为目标导向的知识产权制度。

소수주주축출제도란 회사경영의 효율성 증대를 위해 공정거래의 조건하에 법정비 율이상의 주식을 보유하고 있는 지배주주가 합법적 절차를 통해 상대주주의 동의없 이 그 주식을 강제인수하여 회사로부터 퇴출시키는 제도이다. 본 제도는 회사경영의 효율성 증대와 이익최대화의 목표를 실현할 수 있는 장점이 있지만, 주주의사에 반하 는 퇴출이라는 특수성 때문에 각국의 제도도입 과정에서 쟁론이 분분하였다. 하지만 금융시장의 발달과 경제규모화의 과정에서 회사조직개편의 편의와 경영효율화의 요 구에 따라 많은 국가에서 본 제도를 입법화하게 되었다. 한국에서도 2011년 상법개정 을 통해 “지배주주의 매도청구권”이라는 이름으로 본 제도를 도입하여 규정하고 있 다. 이 같은 강제축출제도의 구체적 운영방식은 각 나라에 따라 약간의 차이가 있지 만 일반적으로 현금합병이나 공개매수의 방법을 통하거나, 또는 법률에서 절대적 지 배주주의 강제매수권을 인정하는 방법으로 나누어 볼 수 있다. 중국은 현재 법률에서 소수주주강제축출제도를 직접적으로 규정하고 있지는 않지 만, 실제로 현금합병의 방법을 통해 소수주주가 축출되는 사례가 발생되고 있다. 하 지만 중국 회사법은 합병거래와 관련해 원칙적 내용만 규정하고 있을 뿐, 구체적인 거래내용과 주주이익보호에 대한 미흡한 규제로 인해 합병거래당사자의 이익조정기 능을 제대로 발휘하지 못하고 있다. 중국에서도 2013년 회사법과 증권법등 회사조직 개편관련 법률의 대대적인 개정이 있었지만 소수주주강제축출제도에 대해서는 별다 른 개정움직임이 없었고, 학계에서도 소수주주의 강제축출에 대한 논의가 활발하지 않은 상황이다. 이는 지배주주와 소수주주간의 이익충돌과 회사조직개편에서 발생하 는 소수주주 처리문제를 위한 효과적인 이익조정시스템의 부재로 회사경영의 효율성 을 저해하고 나아가 회사조직개편의 비용증대에 따른 사회적 비효율을 낳게 될 수 밖에 없다. 이 글은 소수주주축출제도의 효율성과 이익조정기능에 입각하여, 먼저 소수주주축 출제도의 특성에 따라 현금합병형, 공개매수형, 절대지분확보형으로 구별하여 각각 의 운영형태와 입법례를 소개하고, 중국현행법상 각각의 축출형태의 현황과 제도의 부재에 따른 문제점을 도출하고, 그 도입 필요성에 대해 알아본다.

Squeeze-out system means that, in order to improve operating efficiency, while ensuring fair trading conditions, the controlling shareholder holds the legal ratio or more through legal procedures against minority shareholders, and squeeze the company’s system. For the purpose of improving operational efficiency and maximizing the profit, this system stripped of its majority shareholders and against shareholders’ will, consequently outweigh the traditional company laws. That is why so many countries had been disputed over the system while introducing it into their nations. Nevertheless, as the financial and economic scale, in order to facilitate organizational restructuring and enhancing operating efficiency of the company, this system has already been widespread throughout the world. Squeeze-out of specific contents and mode of operation of the system vary in nations, yet are generally presented in cash merger, takeover or laws to directly regulate the absolute shareholding rights. At present, there is no forced out of minority shareholders in the China's legal system, but actually it appeared in the way of cash-out merger similar to the practice in the United States to squeeze out minority shareholders。 But relevant laws on the merger only makes several principle-related provisions, specific details and measures of protection are not sound, which led to the argument of lack of fairness of the deal itself and the rationality of the means. Although China in year 2013 revised the company law and the securities law and other legal norms in connection with corporate restructuring, but regulations related to the shareholders are not flawless, especially provision of passive withdrawal mechanism. Academic theory on this subject is not comprehensive nor has in-depth research either. In fact, the controlling shareholders take on a variety of restructuring process to squeeze out minority shareholders, usually results in the interests-conflict between controlling shareholders and minority shareholders during the process; and various problems in the management, therefore reduce the company's operating efficiency.

少数股东强制挤出（Squeeze-out）制度是指, 为了提高公司经营效率, 在保证公正性交易的条件 下, 持有公司法定比率以上股份的控股股东通过合法程序违背少数股东的意愿将其挤出公司的制 度。 本制度虽然以提高经营效率、 实现利益最大化为目的, 但违背股东意愿强制剥脱其股东地位, 则突破了传统公司法理念, 因此各国在引入该制度时也颇有争论。 尽管如此, 随着金融和经济的规 模化, 为了便利公司组织调整及提高经营效率, 该制度已经在全世界普遍存在。 强制收购制度的具 体内容和运作方式各国不尽相同, 但是一般是以现金合并、 要约收购方式, 或者法律直接规定绝对 持股股东的挤出权利为方式运作的。 中国目前尚无强制挤出少数股东的法律制度, 而且与股东退出法律制度相关的法律仍不够健全, 同时学术界关于该制度的理论研究也不够全面和深入。 实际上, 控股股东通过各种重组技术挤出少 数股东, 其挤出过程当中往往发生这些控股股东和少数股东之间的利益冲突及处理余股股东等难 题, 且其代价往往是远远高于原来对价。 但是中国现行经济政策和各种改革措施乃是为了进一步推 进上市公司并购重组市场化进程, 促进上市公司深入推进行业整合和产业升级。 通过强制挤出少数 股东制度有利于上市公司增强竞争力、 提升公司价值, 有利于优化市场资源配置, 这符合目前中国 的政策方向。 本文主要关注本制度的效率性和利益调节功能, 首先概述强制挤出制度的意义和价值, 其次研 究各国强制挤出机制的运作模式, 最后, 分析中国现行强制挤出规则的局限性, 提出该制度的必要 性和改进意见。

후원방문판매 등 특수거래를 이용하여 재화 등을 구입하는 소비자를 보호하는 것을 주된 목적으 로 하는 방문판매법은 사법적 규율, 행정규제 및 형사규제를 병행하고 있다. 이 중 기본인 것은 사법적 규정이며, 방문판매법상 사법적 규정은 임의규정이 아닌 강행규정이다. 이는 사업자 가 우월적인 지위를 이용하여 소비자의 권리를 제한 또는 배제하는 것을 방지하기 위함이다. 그럼에도 불구하고, 후원방문판매에 있어서 소비자의 청약철회권에 관한 규정에 대하여 강행규 정성이 인정되지 않음으로 인하여 소비자의 청약철회권이 제한되거나 배제될 수 있다. 이는 입법과정에서 강행규정성을 인정하고 있는 동법 제16조 내지 제18조를 제29조에서 준용하고 있기 때문에 강행규정성을 갖는 것으로 오해한 것으로 추정된다. 그러나 제16조 내지 제18조를 준용하였다고 하여 제29조의 내용이 바로 강행규정성을 갖는 것이 아니라 제52조에서 이를 규정하여야 만이 비로소 강행규정성을 갖는다. 또한 강행규정성을 규정하고 있는 동법 제52조에 서는 소비자에 국한하고 있기 때문에 다단계판매 및 후원방문판매에서 판매원 및 사업권유거래 에서 상대방의 사법적 권리 역시 사업자의 개별약정에 의해 제한 또는 배제될 수 있다. 따라서 소비자 및 판매원의 권리에 대한 강행규정성을 부여하기 위해 동법 제52조의 개정이 필요하다. 물론 이 문제만을 본다면 동법 제52조를 개정하여 해결할 수 있다. 그러나 소비자계약에서 사업자가 개별약정을 통하여 불공정한 계약을 체결할 경우, 그 계약을 통제할 수 있는 방안이 없다. 이는 소비자보호에 관한 사법적 규율방식이 특수거래를 중심으로 이루어졌으며, 약관을 사용하는 경우에만 계약내용통제가 이루어지는 방식으로 입법을 하였기 때문이다. 따라서 특수거래 방식 또는 약관에 대한 내용통제에서 나아가 소비자계약 전반에 있어서 불공정한 계약내용을 통제할 수 있는 가칭 ‘소비자계약법’을 제정하여 근본적으로 해결하는 것이 필요할 것이다.

The purpose of the Door-to-Door Sales, etc. Act is to protect the rights and interests of consumers and raise the credibility of markets by providing for matters regarding fair transactions of goods and services through door-to-door sales, telemarketing, multi-level marketing, recurring transactions, transactions for soliciting business, etc., thereby contributing to robust development of the national economy. This act shall regulate special trading business through civil regulations, administrative regulations and criminal regulations. Also, Some of civil provisions are compulsory provisions. Therefore, a contract, which violates any provision of Articles 7 through 10, 16 through 19, or 30 through 32 of the act and which is unfavorable to consumers, shall be void(§52). However, article 52 does not contain article 29. As a result, civil provisions of the door-to-door sales under sponsorship are non-mandatory provisions. If door-to-door seller under sponsorship limits or excludes withdrawal right of consumer, consumers will not be able to withdraw the offer. These results are equally applicable to withdrawal right of salesperson(multi-level marketing salesperson, door-to-door salesperson) and counterpart in transactions for soliciting business. This is disadvantageous to consumers as compared to the other transactions. Therefore, it should be added to Article 29 to Article 52 of the Act.

이 글의 목적은 학교비행의 형사범죄화를 방지하는 수단의 하나로서 징계절차의 담당자와 외부 법질서의 집행자의 중간적 성격을 띠는 특별사법경찰제도의 학교현장에의 도입 가능성을 검토하는 것이다. 미국의 경우에는 무관용 정책이 급속하게 확산됨으로써 미리 정해진 규칙위반 행위에 대해서 는 경찰을 부르도록 의무화 되어 있다. 정책이 이러한 방향으로 발전한 결과 학생들은 예전에 비하여 학교비행을 이유로 체포되거나 기소당하는 사례가 증가하고 있다. 학교비행을 형사범죄화 하는 경우의 교육적 영향과 관련해서는, 엄한 처벌이 청소년에게 미 치는 결과를 설명하는 세 가지의 행동이론 모델이 있다. 억제이론, 경향성 이론, 그리고 낙인이 론이 그것인 바, 이 세 가지 이론 중에서 학교비행에 대하여 형사처벌이 교육적인 효과를 발휘할 것이라는 가정을 뒷받침하는 것은 억제이론이다. 그러나 지금까지의 사회과학적 연구의 성과는 학교비행을 일반 법집행기관으로 이첩하는 것이 청소년의 교육적 효과라는 측면에서는 부정적 효과를 미친다는 사실을 일관되게 보여주고 있다. 학교비행에 대한 사법적 대응의 타당성 분석과 관련해서는, 학교에 경찰력을 동원하는 문제 에 있어서 고려해야 할 점은 청소년 시절의 감옥 경험은 성인이 되어서도 단절되지 않는다는 것이다. 이러한 이유로 학교에의 경찰관 배치 또는 경찰력의 동원이 계속되어야 하는지에 대한 논의는 아직도 치열하다. 그러나 날로 심각해지고 있는 학교폭력문제에 대처하기 위해 교장, 교감, 학생부장 등 특정 직위에 있는 교사로 하여금 특별사법경찰권을 통한 청소년보호업무를 수행할 수 있도록 하기 위하여 학교현장에 특별사법경찰제도의 도입이 필요하다는 것이 본 연구의 결론이다.

The purpose of this article is to examine the introduction of special judicial police system into the public education field as a measure that would prevent criminalization of trifling school misbehavior. In the U.S. public schools, zero tolerance policy has proliferated over the recent years, making calling the police compulsory for the preconcerted violation of school regulations. With the development of school policy in this direction, the number of students who are arrested or indicted for school misconduct is on the increase. There three behavior model theory regarding the educational influence of the criminalization of school misbehavior that explains what a severe penalty effects on the juvenile. They are the deterrence theory, the propensity theory, and the labeling theory. Of the three theories, only the deterrence theory supports the p개position that the criminalization of school misbehavior would show the educational effect. However, in view of the research results of social science so far achieved, the referral of school misconduct to the judicial system outside of the school shows consistently that it creates a negative effect on educative results. Regarding the validity analysis of judicial response to the school misbehavior, the point to be considered in mobilizing the police into the public schools is the fact that experience of imprisonment in an adolescent period can not be broken off with his grown-up lives. This is the reason why the debate over the placement of police officer is developed fiercely. To cope with the school misbehavior including the ever intensifying school violence, in conclusion, it is the best way to introduce the special judicial police system into the field of public school education for the principal, vice principal, etc. to do the job of juvenile protection.

동산의 이중매도행위가 타인의 사무에 속하지 않음으로 인해 배임죄를 부정한 대법원 판례 이래, 부동산이중매매사안에서 중도금을 수령한 매도인에게도 배임죄 성립을 부정하여야 하는 가에 대해 논란이 되고 있다. 과거 통설은 매수인이 아무런 반대담보도 없이 중도금을 먼저 매도인에게 지급하여야 하는 현실에 비추어 계약 당사자가 대등한 위치에 놓여있다고 볼 수 없는 점을 고려하면, 중도금을 수령한 이중매도인의 도움 없이는 매수인이 등기를 이전할 수 없는 상태, 그 상태에서 다른 수단으로 대체할 수 없는 매도인에게 주어지는 의무를 ‘본질적인 의무’라고 보아야 한다고 한다. 그러나 배신설에서 말하는 신뢰위배라는 개념은 배임죄의 중요 한 논거가 될 수는 있을지 몰라도, 신뢰관계를 위배했다는 이유로 배임죄를 구성하는 것은 아니 다. 배임죄의 본질은 신뢰관계를 전제로 하고 있는 사무처리자의 배신행위에 있는 것이 아니라 사무처리자의 임무위배에 대한 비난에 있기 때문이다. 부동산 이중매매의 경우 등기협력의무 는 배임죄의 보호법익인 재산권의 보호를 위한 본질적인 것으로 이를 단순히 계약자간의 등기 절차이행을 요구하는 청구권으로 해석함이 타당하다. 따라서 부동산이중매도인의 경우에도 형 법상 배임죄로 처벌하는 것은 타당하지 않다. 그러나 매도인이 등기협력의무를 위배하여 제3자 에게 이중으로 부동산을 매도하는 경우 매수인은 단순히 계약상의 권리를 취득하지 못함으로 써 이를 회복하는 과정에서 막대한 추가 피해를 야기하고, 이러한 현상이 사회에 만연하게 되면 사회전반에 걸쳐 더 큰 경제적 손실을 부담하여야 한다. 부동산 이중매도인이 등기협력의무를 위배하는 경우 형사처벌이 가해지는 것에 대해 우리 사회가 일반적으로 받아들이는데 거부반 응이 없는 법감정이고, 형법에 의해 보호되어야 할 개인의 재산권의 범위에서 배임죄가 그 본연의 기능을 다하지 못하게 하는 것도 경계하여야 한다는 점도 고려하여야 한다. 부동산이중매도 행위에 대한 비난가능성을 간과할 수 없다면 배임죄 적용이외의 해결방법을 모색해야할 필요가 있다고 본다.

Precedents of the Supreme Court recognized that the breach of trust of the seller was established for the dual sale of the real estate. One of the major reasons for their arguments was that the seller was the main agent in the breach of trust case as the one who dealt with the work of another person cooperating in preserving the buyer's property, based on his or her duty of cooperating in the registration transfer. Against this view, the counter argument arose that the seller in the dual sale of the real estate could not be the main agent in the breach of trust case because he or she could not be viewed as the one who dealt with the work for another, and the Supreme Court decreed in this case that the court could not charge the seller with the breach of trust in the double sale of the movables for starters. The Supreme Court's view is appropriate in denying the breach of trust being established in the double sale of movables. Reference cases did not deal with the dual sale of the real estate, but they denied the breach of trust being established on the same ground as for the above case in the matters of the reserved payment in substitutes for real estate. In light of the basic view of the Supreme Court that the criminal law should be barred from intervening in the realm of a civil case dominated by the rigid interpretation of criminal constituent features of the breach of trust and by the private autonomy, in the future, it is likely to be inclined to deny the breach of trust being established for the matters of the double sale, whether their objects are movables or real estate assets. In particular, it is so obvious that the seller's duty in the double sale does not amount to what is referred to as another's work in the breach of trust case. However, the ruling in this case makes it necessary to reconsider driving the plan of relief for the victim of the double sale into the realm of a civil suit. It is a very rare case that the victim is practically compensated for his or her damage. Even if, with luck, the seller does not disappear without a trace, but faithfully attends a trial, it sometimes takes years depending on the occasions before the damages are executed and the damage is compensated for. It is thought that the idea disregards this social reality of ours that the malicious double seller could get away from the criminal punishment on the grounds of the principles of “the freedom of contract fulfillment” and “supplement of criminal penalty.” Thus, as mentioned in the dissenting opinions against the ruling in this case, the need in accordance with criminal policy that the malicious seller should be criminally punished is being recognized, and it is thought that there is need for a solution for this. To meet the necessity of punishing the malicious seller, there is need for establishing a new provision with which the matters of the double sale are separately dealt with and it is expected that serious discussions about this are to arise.

국민건강보험법에는 ‘보험급여를 받을 수 있는 사람이 고의 또는 중대한 과실로 인한 범죄행 위에 그 원인이 있거나 고의로 사고를 일으킨 경우에는 보험급여를 하지 아니한다’(제53조 ‘급여 의 제한’ 제1항 제1호)는 조항이 있다. 국민건강보험법의 전신인 의료보험법 제정 당시에는 이러 한 급여제한 규정이 없었으나 국민건강보험법으로 개편되고 여러 차례 일부 또는 전부 개정이 되면서 급여제한의 범위가 점차 확대된 것이다. 이로 인해 국민들의 보험급여 혜택이 줄어들고 이는 곧바로 민영보험회사에 가입하는 사보험에 영향을 미치게 된다. 그리고 이것은 또 민영보 험을 가입하는 보험가입자의 보험료 부담으로 돌아오게 된다. 그래서 이 논문에서는 국민건강보험법 제53조(급여제한)의 내용을 민영보험과의 관계를 중심 으로 연구, 검토해 보았으며 이를 위해 법조문의 개정연혁을 살펴보고 다른 법률 등과 비교해본 후 다양한 판례와 법률해석 등을 통해 이 조항의 타당성 여부를 살펴보았다. 그리고 국민건강보 험이 사회보험으로서 국민보건 향상과 사회보장 증진의 역할을 보다 더 충실히 할 수 있도록 급여제한을 축소하는 법률 개정안을 제시하였다.

According to the article 53 of the National Health Insurance Act, if a person who is eligible to receive insurance benefits falls under the case where he/she has intentionally, or through gross negligence, caused criminal conduct or intentionally contributed to the occurrence of an accident, the corporation shall not provide any insurance benefit. When the Medical Care Insurance Law as the forerunner of The National Health Insurance Act was legislating, there was not this kind of the regulation regarding restriction of benefits. However, the National Health Insurance Act has been reorganised and parts or all of this have been reformed several times, thereby the range of restriction of benefits has been gradually extended. From this, the benefits of insurance payment to people have diminished, which causes extra insurance premium of those who buy insurance. Therefore, this study focused on the relationship between restriction of benefits and private insurance. For this study, the history of legal provisions was examined and compared with relative provisions. Following this, the validity of the article 53 was investigated through various precedents and the interpretation of law. Moreover, this study suggested the revised bill of law on reducing the restriction of benefits in order for the National Health Insurance as a social insurance to play a role better of improvement of public health and social security.