Earticle

The clan is one of important systems, which has long been practiced by common law in the area of Korean indigenous law. This study hypothesized that a clan is a corporation without status for a juristic person, and limited its scope to the analysis and review of common laws related to clans centering on problems surrounding clans and the formation of legal principles for resolving disputes over clan properties. For this, we performed legislative analysis and review for overcoming the limitations of the interpretive approach. This study reviewed existing legislative theories related to the foundation of incorporated associations and those on clans in order to overcome the limitations of the interpretive approach in solving legal problems related to clans, and then analyzed and reviewed the draft of amendment on corporations made during the amendment of the Civil Code (Property Part) in progress, and through these, this study suggested a special act on clans as a legislative solution. For this, we looked for a solution through analyzing social evolution, changes in clan customs, problems in clan properties nominal trust, etc. In the conclusion, I suggest a number of considerations for the legislation of “The Special Act on Clans and Clan Properties” for solving these legislative problems: a) With regard to the defining of clan, the objectives of a clan are the preservation of common ancestors' graves, memorial services, and friendship among clan members as in clans in the original sense. b) With regard to the registration of clans and their status for a juristic person, it is necessary to induce clans not to avoid registration by stipulating the procedure of clan registration minutely in the special act. Moreover, through clan registration, clans, which have been corporations without status for a juristic person, should be able to acquire the status for a juristic person. In addition, clans with the status for a juristic person should be treated more favorably by law than clans without. That is, clans without the status for a juristic person should be restricted in legal action as the plaintiff, application for registration as a registration right holder, and claim for the payment of deposit, etc. c) With regard to restriction on clans' acquisition of real estate, clans' real estate acquisition should be limited to lands for graves. That is, clans' acquisition of real estate is restricted in order to remove the possible causes of disputes over clan properties. Then, what should be done for real estate that has already acquired by clans? As a registered clan acquires the status for a juristic person, such properties are owned solely by the clan. Accordingly, real estate under nominal trust should take ownership transfer registration to the clan for the reason of the termination of nominal trust. Such real estate acquisition by clans should be permitted exceptionally. Then, nominal trust real estate of clan properties under the Real Estate Real Name Act is all resolved, and at the same time, the rule prohibiting nominal trust by the Real Estate Real Name Act will be applied as it is. d) With regard to the foundation procedure and institution, first, permission from the competent authority and registration are required of special clans, the procedure and required documents may be more complicated than those for ordinary clans. Next, as to the institution of clan, special clans should have directors, the chief director and the auditor and regulate the appointment, rights and duties of these positions. Ordinary clans have the general clan meeting and executives but, as in special clans, the executives include directors, the chief director and the auditor. In addition, in order to have such executives perform their clan‐�related jobs sincerely, it is necessary to stipulate penal provisions against clan executives who raise profits from clan properties or help a third party raise profits, and consequently, inflict a loss on the clan, who give or take, demand or promise monetary profits in return for an illegal request related to their job at the general clan meeting, the exercise of voice or voting right, filing a lawsuit, etc. e) Concerning inspection, supervision, etc. special clans should be inspected and supervised by the competent authority, but ordinary clans may not need that. However, it may be necessary to allow an ordinary clan to become a special clan.

In der sowohl deutschen als auch sudkoreanischen juristischen Praxis bereitet die rechtliche Erfassung der Problematik des Schadensersatzes fur das unerwunschte Kind nicht zuletzt deshalb erhebliche Schwierigkeiten, weil hier zwei entfernt liegende Teile des Privatrechts in Konflikt geraten: Haftungsund Familienrecht werden im Hinblick auf ihre bereichsspezifischen Verbindungslinien nur selten untersucht. In diesem Aufsatz werden die Argumente gegen Anspruche auf einen Schadensersatz hinsichtlich des 'unerwunschten' Kindes untersucht: Erstens ist es deutlich, dass eine Kindesexistenz selbst auf keinen Fall als Schaden anzusehen ist. Zudem kann Menschenwurde geachtet werden, wenn ein Anspruch auf den Schadensersatz fur ein Kind zugestanden ist. Zweitens ist ein Argument fur Eltern-Kind-Beziehung. Der Unterhaltspflicht der Eltern kann zweierlei Arten verteilt werden. D.h. der monetare Unterhalt und non-finanzielle Unterhalt. Abwalzbar ist der finanzielle Unterhalt ausnahmsweise auf eine Dritte. Drittens ist ein Argument fur Jugendtrauma. Dieses Argument ist auch verfehlt, weil ein solches Trauma moglich, jedoch wenig wahrscheinlich sei. Letzens ist Argument fur Segnung des Gottes. Ahnlich wie Jugendtrauma-Argument ist dieses Argument fehlgeschlagen, wenn man die Verantwortung bei unschuldige Eltern anstatt z.B. schuldigem Arzt bleiben lasst.

Many scholars see pre-1839 English child custody law as consisting of near-absolute paternal rights. These historians believe that the weakening of fathers’ rights began with the 1839 Custody of Infants Act, which created certain maternal custody rights. Other historians have noted that paternal custody was qualified even before 1839 by the Court of Chancery's application of the doctrine of parens patriae. This paper tells a different story and argues that the origin of incursions into the so-called ‘empire of the father’ was the 1660 Tenures Abolition Act, a statute that ironically seemed designed to strengthen fathers’ rights. The Tenures Abolition Act granted fathers the right to appoint guardians to their children by will. According to Blackstone, the effect of the Act was to extend the father’s empire ‘even after his death.’ But by involving courts in child custody -even as enforcers of fathers’ rights- the Tenures Abolition Act created a tradition of judicial intervention that would eventually undermine those rights. This paper traces the development whereby court supervision of testamentary guardians led to court supervision of fathers themselves, transforming the ‘empire of the father’ into the empire of the judge. For the purpose of screening the history of English law, this paper focused three factors; prevailing views of the history of English Child Custody Law(Ⅱ), the source of judicial power-the regulation of testamentary guardians(Ⅲ), the regulation of fathers(Ⅳ). The notion of Parental Responsibility which was adopted in English Children Act 1989 led to spread the change of ‘parental right’throughout the Global Society rapidily. It’s about time, I think, we gave serious thought to revise the notion of ‘parental right' in the Korean Civil Law.

Der koreanische Gesetzgeber hat durch das "Gesetz, betreffend die realen Rechtslagen entsprechenden Grundbucheintragungen" den sog. "Titeltreuhand", bei der durch die Titeltruehandsvereinbarung der Name des Treuhanders als Eigentumer eines Grundstucks im Grundbuch eingetragen wird und der Treugeber immer noch unter diesen beiden das Eigentums-, Verwaltungs-und Ertragsrecht behalt, als nichtig geregelt. So ist auch die Grundbucheintragung in der Regel nichtig, so dass der eingentliche Eigentumer, namlich der Treugeber sich als Eigentumer eintragen soll. Jedoch regelt der Gesetzgeber bei der sog. “Gutglaubiger Verkaufer-Vertragstiteltreuhand” ausnahmsweise die Grundbucheintragung als wirksam. Das heißt, wenn der Verkaufer des Grundstucks nichts von der Titeltreuhansvereinbarung weiß und mit dem Treuhander einen Kaufvertrag schließt und den Eigentum ubereignet, der Treuhander das Eigentum des Grundstucks wirksam erhalt. Somit wurde heftik diskutiert was der Treuhander in diesem Fall als ungerechtfertigte Bereicherung an dem Treugeber zuruckerstatten muß. Die koreanische Rechtsprechung ist in der festen Ansicht, daß in diesem Falle das Geld, das fur den Kauf des Grundstucks ubereicht wurde, der Inhalt der Bereicherung sei. In diesem Aufsatz besprochener Fall hatte das Gericht jedoch zu entscheiden, ob uber den Kaufgeld hinaus andere Gelder, die fur die Beschauffung des Grundstuckseigentums benotigt worden sind(z. B. Eintragundsgeld), herauszuzahlen sind. Die Rechtsprechung war schon lange beim Standpunkt, daß nicht nur die Titeltruehandsvereinbarung, sondern daruberhinaus die damit verbundene Auftragsvereinbarung als nichtig angesehen werden soll. Somit sei der gesamte Betrag als ungerechtfertigte Bereicherung zuruckzuzahlen. Dieser Aufsatz versucht durch die teilweise Anwendung der Regelungen der Geschaftsfuhrung ohne Auftrag die Zuruckbezahlung dieser Auftragsgelder zu verneinen. Wenn der Treuhander im Interesse des Treugebers tatsachlich gehandelt hat, soll diese Beziehung dieser Beiden als GoA anerkannt werden und durch die spezielle Ausgleichordnung der GoA die Geschaftsbesorgung des Treuhanders berucksichtigt werden.

The duties of providing information for the contracting party have been acknowledged by scholars, although that is not stipulated in substantive enactment of Korean Civil Code. However there have been no discussions on the means of compensating damages and calculating the amount of damages yet. Without proper compensation of damages, it would be insufficient to protect victims even though the liability of the violation of duties are recognized. Setting a boundary of damages is a difficult task when the duties of providing information are violated, especially in the field of securities Investment Trust. As there are many recent cases on the issue of liability on the violation of duties, this paper will investigate this issue. The Korean civil law has solved the problem regarding the scope of protection through excluding injury of legal rights from legal components that is generally required in torts. So it would be a reasonable approach if we regard this accountability as tortious liability. Moreover, this approach gains more reasonable grounds because strict conditions such as fraud and error required by the provisions of discharging contract, hinder the sufficient protection of victims. However, calculating the amount of damages still remains as a question. Though Capital Market Law, which has been revised recently, tried to solve this problem legislatively by adopting provisions on presumption of damages, it still remains a possibility of unfair conclusion in specific cases if these provisions are interpreted strictly. Therefore, in calculating the damages of violation of information providing duties, it would be a helpful reference to examine the method adopted by US courts which regard the total financial losses as the amount of damages and adjust the amount of damages with the floating rates of stock market.

前任者賃金支給可否は原則的に労使自治により解決しなければならない問題であるので勤労時間免除の限度を超えた労働協約の司法的な效力が問題になる。それは立法政策で勤労時間の免除の限度に対して強行的效力を与えたものと解釈される。勤労時間免の除対象の業務を法律で定めているが、その業務の範囲が明確ではないという問題がある。さらに勤労時間免除の対象業務を法律上有給・無給の規定がある業務と、労使対立的な事項に関する業務や労使協力的な事項に関する業務に区別し法令上有給業務と労使協力的な事項に対しては勤労時間の免除の規律の対象業務に含むことなく有給なものと処理し、それ以外の業務に対しては勤労時間免除の規律の対象になるように、業務の性格によってそれを区別し適用する方案を提案する。勤労時間免除者という別途の概念を定義するより労使が法律で定めた勤労時間の免除の限度内で勤労時間免除の総量のみを決め、その使用方法は労働組合の裁量事項にし不必要な規制を避ける必要があると思われる。勤労時間免除の限度は事業別に組合員数などを考慮し決めることが原則であるが、複数労組の勤労時間免除の限度を決める場合においては組合員数以外に労働組合の組職形態、業種、勤労形態、交渉単位の分離などの要素が考慮されなければならない。企業別組合が大部分である我が国の場合に個別企業ごとに業務の特性、経営政策、労社関係、事業場の分布、雇用形態、勤務形態などによって労組専従者の役割とその占める割合がことなわざるをえない。それにもかかわらず政府が勤労時間免除の限度を設定して、それをすべての企業にこれを一律的に適用させるということは政府の直接的に介入するこることは裁量権の範囲を超える労動政策であるといういうほかない。

The people’s mediation is the mechanism of dispute resolution participated by both state and society. Compared to judicial remedies and private relief, the people mediation is the intermediate zone between the national official authority and the folk unomcia1 authority, which reflects the harmonious relationship between the state and the society. Therefore, the people’s mediation is the third realm of dispute resolution. Importance has always been given to people’s mediation. Being a historical approach to solve the disputes with a solid organization foundation, people’s mediation is supposed to play an important role in alternative dispute resolution. However, in recent decades, the power of people’s mediation has been declining. Also, in the context of building a harmonious society, much importance has been attached to the efficiency of people’s mediation system. However, the intrinsic problems of the system itself and the new ones born with the reform all require immediate solutions. Therefore we must improve people’s mediation by strengthening its effect, constructing its system and guaranteeing its funds.

9년동안 3차 심의를 거쳐 "중화인민공화국섭외민사관계법률적용법"은 2001년 10월28일에 통과되었고 2011년4월1일자로부터 실시하였다. 섭외민사관계법률적용법은 8장52조로 구성되어 법률적용규칙만을 규정하고 있으며 국제민사소송과 국제상사중재에 관한 내용을 미치지 않는다. 입법방식에 있어서는 분산적으로 입법하는 방식으로부터 단행법규로 바꾸었고 구제적인 내용에 있어서는 많은 결여도 보완되었다. 이외에도 원래의 중국국제사법의 입법에 비하여 섭외민사관계법률적용법은 아래 몇 가지 특징이 보인다. 즉 1."상거소지"는 중요한 연결요소가 되었다. 2. 당사자자치원칙의 적용범위가 확대되었다. 3.가장 밀접한 관련원칙은 중요한 보총적인 원칙으로 되었다 4. 약자의 이익을 보호하는 원칙은 충분하게 구현되었다. 2010년 섭외민사관계법률적용법을 2001년 한국국제사법에 비하면, 양자가 입법체제나 구체적인 내용에 유사한 점 또는 동일한 점이 많다. 그럼에도 불구하고 이 2가지 입법은 차이점도 현저하다. 예컨대 전자는 국제민사소송에 관한 문제에 대하여 아무런 규정도 두지 않는 데 반하여 후자는 총칙에 국제민사관할권을 위해서 한자리를 남겨 두고 있다. 또한 전자는 상사영역에 관한 법률적용에 미치지 않으며 후자는 "어음·수표" 및 "해상"에 관한 법률적용에 대하여 특별히 규정하고 있다; 속인법에 관하여 전가는 상거소지법을 주된 연결원칙으로 하면서 본국법을 보총적인 연결원칙으로 하는 입장을 취하는 데 반하여 후자는 본국법을 주된 연결원칙으로 하는 입장을 유지하면서 상거소지법을 보조적인 것으로 한다. 섭외민사관계법률적용법은 특별적인 국제사법의 단행법규로서 그가 할 수 있는 역할과 존재하는 의미가 물론이다. 그러나 부인할 수 없는 것은 이 입법에 일부 문제점이 존재하고 있다. 예컨대 입법용어는 규범적이지 않고 일부 조항은 엄밀하지 않다. 또한 입법내용이 상사영역에 미치지 않는 점, 관련된 사법해석이 포함되지 못하는 점 등이 적절한지 여부에 대해서는 더 이상 논의의 여지도 있다.

Law of Application of Law for Foreign-related Civil Relations of P. R. China (“CPIL”) was promulgated on October 28th, 2010 and came into force on April 1, 2011. CPIL consists of 52 provisions which are divided into 8 Chapters. As the first special Act on Conflict of Law in China since 1949, CPIL has following characteristics: habitual residence is regarded as a major point of contact; second, Party Autonomy is widely applied in determining applicable law; third, the principle of most significant relationship becomes an important supplementary principle; last but not least, protection on socio-economically weaker party is highly accepted. Though it could not be denied that CPIL has a few flaws, there is no doubt that CPIL will play an important role in settling foreign-concerned civil disputes. There are some difference between CPIL and Private International Law Act of Korea (KPIL), as well as some similarity: CPIL has no provision concerning international civil litigation, as KPIL includes provision on International jurisdiction; CPIL excludes conflict rules for commercial matters, but KPIL possess special provisions regarding bill of exchange, promissory notes, checks and maritime commerce; while CPIL taking habitual residence as the major connecting factor of lex personalis, KPIL keeps lex partiae and makes habitual residence as supplementary point of contact.