Earticle

Because of the real name policy law for the real estate, when a trustee has concluded a contract as an interested party with a good faith seller and completed the registration of the transfer of the ownership of the land, trusty agreement between a truster and trustee is void but the trustee gain the valid ownership according to sub-section 1 of section 4 of the real name policy law for the real estate. The trustee merely is in charge of returning an unjust enrichment equivalent to the price of the land instead of the land itself. If the trusty agreement contract, however, had been concluded before the enforcement of the real name policy law for the real estate and the trustee concluded a contract as an interested party with a good faith buyer and completed the registration of the transfer of the ownership of the land, the trustee externally purchase the valid the ownership of the land. Therefore, in spite of the period of the grace of the real name policy law for the real estate to lead people to register their real name, if they don't register and the period is over, the trusty agreement is void and also the trustee should return the land itself to the truster as an unjust enrichment. Because the truster pays the price of the land according to the trusty agreement and the truster purchases the ownership of the land so the truster can terminate the agreement and ask for the transfer of the ownership of the land. This is the attitude Supreme court precedents. However, like the court judgment in the study, trusty agreement has been concluded and the trustee concludes the contract with a good faith seller but the trustee can't have the land registered in the name of the truster because of the legal barrier, the trustee can't gain the valid ownership of the land, at the same time, the trusty agreement itself becomes void as the period of grace of the real name policy law of real estate is over. As a result of that, the trustee have to return not the land itself but the price of the land given by the truster. Because, the trustee has never gained the ownership of the land. For that reason, the court judgment in the study is consistent with the precedents of the Supreme court of Korea.

When there is competition between the Assumption of debt and the assignment of claim, it is possible to apply the Assumption of debt to the creditor or any third party together with the assignment of claim. Specifically speaking, the following cases can be applied; (1) When the grantee of bonds fails to acquire the resisting conditions even after the agreement for the assignment of claim is concluded and the guarantor of debts makes a payment prior to its due date after the agreement for the Cumulative Assumption of debt is concluded (the agreement for the assignment of claim - the agreement for the Assumption of debt - payment prior to the due date - preparation of resisting conditions), (2) When the payment is made prior to the due date without the preparation of resisting conditions for the assignment of claim even after the agreement for the assignment of claim is concluded after the conclusion of the agreement for the Assumption of debt (the agreement for the Assumption of debt - the agreement for the assignment of claim - payment prior to the due date - preparation of resisting conditions), (3) When the payment is made by the guarantor of debts prior to the due date even before the assignment of claim due to the agreement for the Assumption of debt (the agreement for the Assumption of debt - payment prior to the due date - the agreement for the assignment of claim - preparation of resisting conditions). In such cases, there is competition between the Assumption of debt and the assignment of claim. According to the current civil laws, the status of the guarantor of debts, who does not have a standardized way of proof, becomes unstable. As a result, it is necessary to protect the guarantor of debts. Therefore, it is thought that the following conditions might be required; (1) The resisting conditions possessed by the guarantor of debts regarding creditors in order to notify creditors of debtors, (2) The resisting conditions for the reversion of debts in terms of the preferential recovery of bonds through the effective argument or setoff for the payment made by the guarantor of debts to creditors in regard to the relationship with any third party, including the grantee of bonds and the execution creditors.

If a victim suicides after injurer's tort, injurer should compensate him for damages due to his suicide. In generally speaking, there is no reasons to compensate for the damages, Because Suicide is taken by victim's choice. If his suicide stem from physical or mental hurt and he have no choice but to day, it should be compensated for his death. It is natural that assailant compensate him for damages, if victim's suicides spring from his tort. But what means "spring from his tort"? Korean Supreme Court say that it decided from viewpoint of 'justice and fairness'. But the conception of 'justice and fairness' is too ambiguous to restrict personal liability. It is necessary to decide according to relevant degree of 'riskiness of suicide and result of prevenient tort'. Korea Civil Code prescribe that the scope of damages due to other person's tort is restricted by obligee's probability of foreseeability. But the substantive enactment is not applied in the damages suit of tort, because a large number of tort arise from carelessness and negligence person cannot foresee the victim's damage. Only person committing intentional tort is responsible for damages without relevant degree of 'riskiness of suicide and result of prevenient tort'. The reduction of damages is decided by considering suicide and his member of family.

An electronic document is not denied the effect as a document just for being in the electronic form unless there is a special regulation by the Framework act on electronic commerce. However, while an actual document is investigated for evidence through the method of documentary evidence, but there is no regulation on how the evidence investigation should be conducted for electronic documents. That is, the legal procedure law for electronic documents rely on the provisions of the civil procedure law which is a general law, and there is no special regulation regarding the probative force as such is yielded to free non-concrete evidence. Therefore, even if the basic conditions of an electronic document are present, such must be verified individually in case the authenticity is in doubt. Therefore, apart from the conditions to secure authenticity of the electronic documents, the method and procedure for authenticity verification are needed. This is a very practical and urgent matter, and thus this report intends to propose a direction in verification and identification of forgery and falsification regarding the forgery/falsification potential of the electronic documents. The verification method of forgery and falsification of an electronic document is first approached from the perspective encompassing the document originally formed electronically and digitalized document, but the detailed verification methods shall be typed. The document originally formed electronically can employ a special system or electronic signature for identification of forgery and falsification to type the verification method. For digitalized documents, such can be classified into those following the notification of Ministry of Knowledge and Economy and those that are not, and the verification method can be typed accordingly. Especially for digitalized documents, if the document has been scanned into an image file, there is the potential to confirm the authenticity of the document through the characteristics in the document scan process and imaging process other than the certification information such as electronic signatures, and moreover, the normal document verification method can be applied to the identification of electronic documents, further improving the authentication of authenticity for electronic documents.

As the number of International Bilateral Treaties and Free Trade Agreements increases, the Investor-State Arbitration has now grown in importance. Procedural reformation of international arbitration is critical to enhance coherence and consistency of the arbitrational decision. ICSID investor-state arbitration is unique in its system because of its mixed nature of international commercial arbitration and public law realms. Discussion about adopting an appellate system in the international arbitration system seems to be a meaningful option even though it seems to be an controverted idea to introduce ad hoc arbitration system. The 2002 US Trade Promotion Authority Act and the 2004 ICSID working paper commonly considered adopting an appellate body in the international dispute settlement regime. WTO Appellate Body can be a desirable model for ICSID. Adopting an appellate system in ICSID can establish more coherent and consistent arbitration tribunal in the long term perspective. Enhancing transparency in ICSID tribunal is another measure to further develop the arbitration system. The cases in the NAFTA regime such as Methanex case show that public participation and the use of amicus briefs are useful tools to improve transparency. Enhanced transparency in the investor-state arbitration system will ultimately lead to better arbitration rules. Procedural reform measures in international arbitration are important tools to create more consistent and legitimate international arbitration.

随着社会的发展，民事关系也变得日益复杂。这种民事关系的复杂化与密切化趋势更加突出了侵权责任法的重要性。另外，在该种侵权行为责任理论中，产生了关于由谁来承担责任的所谓责任范围问题。关于对某人造成的非人身损害或物的损害，其纯粹经济损失能否构成侵权行为法上的救济对象的问题，成为现今侵权行为法中最重要的问题之一。虽然该问题作为合同责任与侵权行为责任之间的界线历来存在诸多争议，但是随着经济损失问题在侵权行为法上的比重逐渐增加，相关地探讨也日益激烈。同该种纯粹经济损失赔偿相关，存在几个无法被忽视的问题。纯粹经济损失随着合同和侵权行为的多样化而逐渐得以类型化。这些类型包括反射损失、转移损失、公共设施的封锁以及因专家错误提供情报导致的损害等，但是，各国并没有对这些纯粹经济损失的类型予以普遍认可。如果扩大纯粹经济损失的因果关系范围，这样的结果会导致潜在的侵权行为人的数量多到无法想像，那么受害人的数量也会增多。对此，各国基于政策性的考量，对各种类型的纯粹经济损失，或缩小对其的认可范围，或对相关责任予以排除。那么，究竟是依据何种根据对纯粹经济损失的责任进行排除的呢？这可以通过从经济学角度对纯粹经济损失相关问题进行分析而得到答案。通过经济学角度的分析，我们可以看到各国对纯粹经济损失的类型都采用了不同的态度。在合同法和侵权行为法相交叉的领域中，通过比较各国所采取的对纯粹经济损失的应对方案，能够提高我们从全局上对侵权行为法体系予以理解和把握的水平，在这种理解的基础上，就韩国法如何针对各种损失类型进行解释和适用便会容易许多。

Bei der Verwertung des im voraus gekauften Werkes handelt es sich darum, wie der Öffentlichkeitsbegriff ausgelegt ist. Der Fachbegriff von der Öffentlichkeit im UrhG erfasst wie immer nicht nur ein quantitatives, sondern auch ein qualitatives Merkmal. Die Wiedergabe muss zum einen an eine Mehrzahl von Personen gerichtet sein und zum anderen der Öffentlichkeit angehören. Daher ist sie durch die fehlenden persönlichen Beziehungen charakterisiert entweder zu demjenigen, der das Werk verwertet, oder mit den anderen Personen, denen das Werk in körperlicher Form wahrnehmbar oder zugänglich gemacht wird. Für eine Mehrzahl von Personen sind zwei Personen mehr als genug, die sich auch in Privaträumen aufhalten können. Darüber hinaus hat der Urheber bezüglich seines Originalwerkes sowie dessen Vervielfältigungsstücke oder bei der Veröffentlichung des Werkes das Recht, dessen Namen oder Beinamen zu wählen. Diejenige Person, die das Werk verwertet, muss dann seinen Namen oder Beinamen geben, soweit keine besondere Willensäußerung des Urhebers vorhanden ist.

The inducement rule accomplished many of the objectives that inspire expansive liability with far fewer negative consequences. This approach made it possible to protect innocent defendants from bearing responsibility for the misdeeds of others and substantial noninfringing uses while making it possible not to protect defendants inducing in bad faith bearing responsibility. Grokster decision, however, includes several defects. The matter that future courts should, therefore, bear in mind is as follows. Future courts should avoid interpreting contributory liability in expansive ways that expose innocent defendants to liability and suppress noninfringing behavior. Additionally, Future courts should restrict the application of vicarious copyright liability, perhaps to the general contours of respondeat superior, in order to avoid contradicting Grokster’s reliance on fault. Future courts should, moreover, apply inducement narrowly. For example, inducement should be found only when the defendant acts for the express purpose of encouraging infringement. Plaintiffs should not be, therefore, allowed to recover when a defendant simply knows with substantial certainty that his behavior will support infringement. The use of willful blindness should be limited to serving as a substitute for constructive knowledge in order to preserve Sony’s safe harbor, which has been a cornerstone of the Court’s balancing of content-owners’ rights with technological development. The broader distribution plus intent theory, which is premised on a standard that can be satisfied with little difficulty, could have a chilling effect on research and investment into potentially useful technologies. The active step theory could therefore be in the ascendant. The most recent copyfight culminated in the defeat of illicit file-sharing networks in Grokster, and Perfect 10 suggests that the next great battleground will be over technologies characterized by the inverse Grokster scenario. Since the Supreme Court of Grokster declined to elaborate on the relevance of actual knowledge of specific infringing acts in the case of a good-faith innovator, it is suggested to reconcile its jurisprudence under Napster with the Supreme Court’s guidance in Grokster on the proper role of Sony in the contributory liability analysis.