Earticle

Advancement of communication infrastructures such as BcN and USN, revitalization of E-Commerce, advancement of location based services(LBS), radio frequency identification(RFID) technology, and home network elemental technology and propagation of services have driven our society to go beyond traditional life relationship put up in a domain limited by time and space to reach the so called 'ubiquitous society' where information can be accessed anytime and anywhere. However, as this rapidly advancing information and communication technology has not only been utilized and abused for new crimes like electronic infringements from hacking and virus but also as means of traditional crimes such as defamation of character and deception, it can be said that there needs to be new criminal justice paradigm different from existing one to control crimes that make use of this high technology. Hence, with only the foregoing evidence method at hand, troubles in demonstrating crimes recently generated by using information and communication technology have been occurring in large numbers; and from this critical mind, there have been academic and practical studies on 'Admissibility of digital evidence'. Regarding this, United States Maryland district court recently brought into the fore a meaningful judicial decision on the matter of admissibility of electronically-stored information as evidence; looking into recent United States ruling to analyze meaning of evidence law in admissibility of digital evidence such as electronically-stored information would provide us with plenty of implications; to this respect, the paper would advance on the examination of requisite for admissibility of electronically-stored information focusing on the above-mentioned ruling.

The liability insurance contract has developed in various forms to reduce the liability of offenders and to provide relief for victims(피 해자) in cases of accidents. The liability insurance is a property insurance, indemnity insurance and negative insurance in that the insured is responsible for the damage liability to the third party in the accident covered. Various legal issues may occur from the relations among the insured, the insurer and the victim regarding the liability. One example is the case where the insured(offender) is moneyless. In such cases, the victim cannot be compensated by the offender. In order to prevent situations as such, Clause 2 of Article 724 of the Korean commercial law stipulates the direct claim by the victim, thereby providing protection for the victim. According th the clause, the insurer takes over the liability for damage from the insured in a coexistent manner. The issue of extinctive prescription is also influenced by the way we define the characteristics of damage claim. For damage claim, the 2-year extinctive prescription as in insurance claim should be applied analogically to guarantee safe transaction and to induce swift conclusion. The insurer can oppose the victim using the plea which the insured has against the victim. Also, in the liability insurance contract with the limit of liability, the damage claim by the victim comes before the insurance claim by the insured.

A Special Law about the Property Reversion of Anti National Actors under the Rule of Japanese Imperialism lately was passed in the National Assembly on 29, Dec. 2005. The apparatus of the nation were composed by the law. The government body is going to investigate the Property of Anti National Actors under the Rule of Japanese Imperialism. And if it is proven that ownership was acquired unfairly, it will be take them back to the State. Of course, Somebody who has a complaint can institute administrative judgment or administrative litigation. In conclusion, Anti National Actors under the Rule of Japanese Imperialism must revert his property to the nation, but the relationship between a premodern ownership and a modern ownership(especially, existence matter of cooperation cost under Japanese Colonization) should be explained clearly. From this act, the substantial social unity is realized so that the rational clearance of the past could be achieved.

法律行爲의 解釋이란 당사자의 意思表示및 행위의 全趣旨로부터 법률행위 의 내용을 명확히 하여 당사자가 어떤 법률효과를 발생시키려는 것인가 라는 점을 확정하는 規範的作業을 말한다. 법률행위해석을 위한 방법으로는 보통 自然的解釋, 規範的解釋및 補充的解釋의 세 가지를 들고 있다. 법률행위 해석에 있어서 특히 문제가 되는 것은 계약서가 不動文字의 형태로 인쇄된 경우이다. 필자가 이 글에서 주장하고자 하는 논지중 중요한 것은 다음과 같 다. 첫째는, 有效解釋의 原則이 법률행위해석의 당연한 결론은 아니라는 점이 다. 유효해석의 원칙은 개별당사자의 의사표시의 해석에 있어서는 당연하지 만, 청약과 승낙이라는 두 개의 의사표시가 합치되어 성립하는 경우에는 법 률행위를 해석하는 자의 해석에 임하는 기본태도는 법률행위의 당사자가 해 석자가 형성하고자 하는 假定的意思나 보충된 법률행위의 내용을 법률행위 의 당사자가 그 당시에 알고 있었다면 그 법률행위의 형성에 나아갔을 것인 가 하는 점에 초점을 맞추어야 하는 것이다. 그리고 표의자가 가정적 의사와 보충된 내용에도 불구하고 법률행위로 나아갔을 것이라는 점에 대한 확신이 설 때, 유효해석의 원칙이 적용되어야 한다는 점이다. 둘째는, 진정성립이 인정된 처분문서는 그 내용을 계약내용으로 삼는다는 합의가 있었던 것으로 추정하는 판례의 법리는, 약관규제법이 시행된 후에도 사업자가 명시의무 및 설명의무를 이행한 것을 전제로 그대로 적용된다는 점 과, 완결조항이 포함된 계약서에서 완결조항 자체가 개별적으로 교섭되어 삽 입된 경우에는 약관의 내용에 대해서 명시의무 및 설명의무가 이행된 것으로 보아야 한다는 점이다. 셋째는, 약관규제법의 적용을 받지 아니하는 계약서에 기재된 부동문자를 例文이라고 하는 경우에 예문은 두 가지의 의미가 포함된다. 계약체결에 앞 서서는 단순한 계약의 초안에 지나지 아니한다는 의미에서 예문에 해당하지 만, 계약이 체결되었으나 계약에 편입되지 아니한 조항은 삭제되었어야 하는 데도 삭제되지 아니한 채 남아 있다는 의미에서의 예문이다. 이 경우에 예문을 적용하지 아니하였다고 하더라도 이를 修正解釋이라고 불러서는 아니 된다. 이러한 필자의 주장은 논란이 예상되는 부분이라 할 수 있다. 동료교수님 들의 많은 논의를 기대한다.

Three major points the writer asserts in this article is as following. The first is validating interpretation is not always the right way of interpretation of juristic act. It is natural to apply principle of validating interpretation in interpreting individual party's manifestation of intention in contract, but it does not follow the principle should be applied in interpretation of contract which is formed by meeting of two interest-conflicting parties' mind. The interpreter must focus his attention on the individual party's attitude whether he can formed the contract with the hypothetical intention construed by the interpreter, if he knew or was knowledgeable of the interpreter's construction. If interpreter cannot say affirmative, he should not applied the principle. The second includes two point. The one is precedent's rule that the content of authenticity-attested document is presumed to be incorporated in the document by the parties can be applied to the contracts even within the scope of Regulation of Standardized Contract Act under the premise of fulfilling obligation to specify and explain contractual terms and conditions. The other is if a merger clause is contained in the contract and the clause itself is individually negotiated, the drafter should be presumed to fulfil the obligation of specifying and explaining. The third is printed terms and conditions have two meanings. The position of these terms and conditions are only drafts before concluding contract, and meaninglessly remained terms and conditions not incorporated into the contract after the conclusion. We should not call exclusion of those meaningless terms and conditions as modified interpretation.

この事件は、被告人らの事業場施設の占拠行為が労働組合の争議行為とし て、その占拠した範囲、排他的に占拠したことなどと関連し、業務妨害罪及び 退去不応罪に成立可否を争った。これに対し、一審裁判所(ソウル中央地方法院 2006.10.12)は被告人の甲と乙が退去要求に不応し、威力でA協会の業務を妨害 し たと判決した。また、「原審」(ソウル中央地方法院2007.6.20)は原告(協会)の 主張を受け止め、労働組合の占拠行為が争議行為に当たるが、使用者側の出入 りや管理支配を排除するまま、これを全面的・排他的に占拠したもので、その 他に被告人らの争議行為を事前に書面申告を行わなかったので争議抗議の正当 性から逸脱することで、業務妨害罪の責任を認めた。また、原審は被告人らが 協会の協会長及び役人らの業務空間を排他的に占拠し協会側の退去要求に不応 することで、この事件、退去不応罪は成立するのであって、仮に協会側の職場 閉鎖措置が違法であるとしても、このような事情が被告人らの上記の退去不応 罪の成立に影響を与えるのではないと判断した。 これに対し、本評釈対象の判決である最高裁判所の判決では、原審判決に対 し認めた内容は、争議抗議の正当性と退去不応罪に関する法理を誤解したと し、原審判決を破棄し、原審裁判所(ソウル中央地方法院)に破棄差し戻しした 事 件であった。 今回の最高裁の判決では、労働組合の組合員らが事業場内の会議室を占拠し た 行為は、争議行為としての目的と手続き的正当性を整えたもので、その事業 場の施設を全面的・排他的に占拠したものと判断しにくく、むしろその占拠の 範囲が事業場施設の一部分であり、使用者側の出入りや管理支配を排除しない 部分的・併存的な占拠に過ぎない上、実質的に事業主の業務を中断するか、混 乱を招いたこともないと判示している。ここに、事業主の業務が実際に妨害さ れたり、またはせめてその業務妨害の結果を招く危険性が発生したとも見えな いとしながら、組合員らの事業場内会議室の占拠行為は労働関係法令による正 当な争議行為として違法性が阻却されたと判断した事例であった。また、この 事件の労働組合支部がストライキに突入したわずか4時間あまりに、事業主が す ぐ職場閉鎖の措置を取ったことは、労働者側の争議行為に対する対抗・防衛手 段としての相当性が認められないと判断した。よって、上記の職場閉鎖は正当 な争議行為と認められない。従って、事業主が上記の職場閉鎖を理由で労働者 である組合員らに退去するように求めたことならば、組合員らがそれに不応し たとしても、退去不応罪が成立しないとみた事例であった。このような判示の 内容は、従来の最高裁判例の立場の流れに沿った妥当な判決であったと見られ る。最後に、今回の最高裁の判決では、労働組合及び労働関係調整法施行令第 17条上の申告義務の効力に対し、初めて争議行為をするに当たって、その細部 的・形式的な手続きを規定したものの法的効力に対し争議行為に適法性を与え るために必要な本質的な要素ではないので、申告手続きの未順守だけを理由 で、争議行為の正当性を否定することができないと裁判所の立場を明らかにし た点で、その意義を探せる判決であった。