Earticle

In the year 2008 the European Union legislated in the area of temporary agency work by issuing Directive 2008/104/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of November 19, 2008 on Temporary Agency Work. The purpose of this Directive is: To ensure the protection of temporary agency workers and to improve the quality of temporary agency work by ensuring that the principle of equal treatment ... is applied to temporary agency workers, and by recognising temporary work agencies as employers, while taking into account the need to establish a suitable framework for the use of temporary agency work with a view to contributing effectively to the creation of jobs and to the development of flexible forms of working. Thus, the Directive contains a quid pro quo: on the one hand it aims at doing away with existing statutory restrictions. Accordingly, Article 4(1) of the Directive states that:Prohibitions or restrictions on the use of temporary agency work shall be justified only on grounds of general interest relating in particular to the protection of temporary agency workers, the requirements of health and safety at work or the need to ensure that the labour market functions properly and abuses are prevented. On the other hand, the Directive establishes the so-called principle of equal treatment, “The basic working and employment conditions of temporary agency workers shall be, for the duration of their assignment at a user undertaking, at least those that would apply if they had been recruited directly by that undertaking to occupy the same job.”According to 3(1) no. 3 and 9 no. 2 of the Act on Temporary Agency Work, a temporary agency is, in principle, obliged to grant the agency work “the same basic working conditions including pay ”that apply in the establishment of the hirer-out for the period of assignment to that establishment. However, there were exemptions to the application of this principle from the beginning. Under the old law, the temporary was not obliged to obey the principle of equal treatment if the agency hired a worker who was unemployed immediately before being hired, was at no point of time a worker of the agency, and received a net salary which was at least equivalent to the amount of unemployment benefits which the worker received before (3(1) no. 3 sentence 1 and 9, no. 2 sentence 1of the Act on Temporary Agency Work). This exemption, however, justified the nonapplication of the principle of equal treatment for no longer than six weeks. The according provision was introduced in 2002 in order to provide an incentive to offer jobs to unemployed persons and to mark it easier for such persons to reenter the labor market. In practice, this provision soon proved to be of almost no relevance. As a consequence, it was abolished by the legislature and does not form part of the new Act on Temporary Agency Work anymore. The second, and by far more important, exception applied and still applies to collective bargaining. According to 3(1) no. 3 sentence 2 and 9, no. 2 sentence 2 of the Act on Temporary Agency Work, the principle of equal treatment may be disposed of on the basis of a collective bargaining agreement. As a result, working conditions are fixed by collective agreements instead of being derived from the principle of equal treatment for all temporary agencies and workers who are bound to collective agreements. On the basis of a pure grammatical construction of the law, the power of the parties to a collective agreement to dispose of the principle of equal treatment is not subject to any restrictions, which has been criticized by many from the outset. n21In addition, the Act on Temporary Agency Work allows for so-called references to collective agreements by parties who are not bound to the collective agreement. At a consequence, temporary agencies and workers can dispose of the principle of equal treatment by simply referring to the according collective agreement in their employment contracts (the so-called “reference clause”), the only prerequisite being that the employment relationship falls within the area of the collective agreement's application. As a result of such “reference clause,” the collective agreement becomes an implied term of the employment contract.

2000년도 이래 그 명칭은 국가마다 달리하나 입법에 대한 영향평가, 영향분석 제도가 도입되었고, 우리의 경우도 국내 연구기관 등에서 여러 해 동안 시범작업을 거친 끝에 2021년 3월부터 시행 중인 ｢행정기본법｣에 입법영향분석에 대한 근거가 마련되어, 이듬해인 2022년 5월부터 현행 법령을 대상으로 입법의 효과성과 각종 영향에 대하여 입법영향분석을 실시할 수 있게 되었다. 그런데, 「행정기본법」에 따른 입법영향평가는 “행정 분야의 법제도 개선을 위하여 필요한 경우에 현행 법령을 대상으 로 하는” 사후적 영향분석이다. 이에 반해 프랑스는 2008년도 개정 헌 법에 영향분석(étude d'impact)을 명문화하여 사전적 방식에 의한 입법 평가를 실시해오고 있다. 본 연구에서는 다음의 두 가지 사항에 대해 중점을 두고 살펴보았다. 첫째, 프랑스의 입법, 입법절차, 정부와 의회와의 관계 등을 고려할 때 사전영향분석 제도의 특징 및 의미가 무엇이고, 우리에게 시사하는 바가 무엇인지를 검토하였다. 프랑스 영향분석은 정부제출법률안에 한정되어 적용되며, 법률안을 제출한 부처에서 직접 작성한다는 특징을 갖고 있 다. 따라서 본질적으로 공정성이 결여된 채 출발했다고 볼 수 있고, 시 행 이후 영향분석은 법안에 대한 자기옹호로 자주 이어졌다는 비판을 받 았다. 또한 의회입법안과 법률명령 등이 평가대상에서 제외된다는 점도 입법영향의 사각지대 및 우회입법의 가능성을 열어 놓는 결과를 낳았다. 그러나, 영향분석 제도는 정부형태는 물론 법령체계, 입법절차 등의 맥 락에서 이해되어야 하며, 특히 프랑스의 영향분석은 꽁세이데따와 국무 조정실의 관계 및 기능에 대한 이해가 전제되어야 한다. 즉, 「행정기본 법」에 명시된 사후적 입법영향분석과 구조적으로 차이를 안고 있기 때문 에 두 제도의 수평비교는 어렵다고 할 것이다. 다만 우리나라는 영향분 석이 형식화되지 않기 위해서 대상법률의 선별기준 및 평가기준이 구체 적으로 확립되는 것이 요청된다. 둘째, 프랑스 영향분석의 최근 논의 가운데 2016년도에 도입된 이른 바 “청년영향조항”에 관한 것이다. 기존의 영향분석 방식에 추가하여 청 년에 대한 특별한 고려가 이루어진 것인데, 어떠한 기준으로 입법에서 청년에 대한 영향을 분석하고 평가하는지 살펴보았다. 청년영향평가 제 도의 시행 초기에는 청년담당 부처는 기대만큼 활발한 의견을 개진하지 못했는데, 여기서도 국무조정실의 막강한 권한이 드러났다. 즉, 국무조정 실의 협조가 없으면, 청년영향평가를 담당 부처에서 원활하게 할 수 없는 구조이기 때문이다. 다만, 이를 풀어나가는 과정에 있어 해당 부처의 “청년정책국”이 조정 역할을 적극적으로 하면서 사문화되는 것을 막을 수 있었다. 무엇보다 청년영향조항은 “청년세대”, 특히 오늘날의 청년뿐 아니라 미래세대의 청년까지 고려하고 있다는 점에 주목해야 한다.

The present paper attempts to deal with the effects of a given legislation in practical as well as academic perspectives, commonly called as legislative impact analysis, or legislative assessment as in case of pilot works in Korea. Yet the law and practice in this particular area differs from nation to nation, as the case of France exemplifies in this article. It is to be noted that various works on the works relating to the legislative impacts were largely incorporated in an act of the National Assembly in March 2021. That is the Framework Act on Administration which targets the current laws and regulations if necessary to improve the legal system in the administrative field, obviously including the subject matter. On the other hand, France has been conducting legislative evaluation in a reserved manner by stipulating the subject in a broad way, that is in the revised constitution in 2008. Thus the writer proposes in the present paper to focus on the following two points : First, considering French legislation, legislative procedures, and the relationship between the government and the National Assembly, attempts were made to pinpoint the characteristics and meaning of the impact analysis system and the possible significance. The French impact analysis is limited to the government-submitted legislation. Therefore it is characterized by the fact that it is prepared directly by the relevant department of the Government that submitted the bill. Criticism has always been targeted for lack of fairness. However, the impact analysis system should be understood not only in the form of government but also in the context of legal system and legislative procedures. In other words, horizontal comparison of the two systems, France and Korea for that matter, is difficult because it has a structural difference from the post-legislative impact analysis, as specified in the Framework Act on Administration in case of Korea. Second, among the points raised in the discussions on the French impact analysis, frequently pointed areas concern the so-called "Youth Impact Clause" introduced in 2016. In addition to the existing impact analysis method, special attentions were given to young people, and to the basis of the legislative analysis. At the beginning of the implementation of the Youth Impact Assessment System, the Ministry of Youth Affairs did not put forward active an opinion as expected. Above all, the issue was preempted rather by the general observation, such as “today’s youth-future generation” than the specific and technical points in legislation.

이 논문은 국립대학 자치입법권의 범위와 한계를 각 국립대학의 학칙에 규정되어 있는 임기중 정년도래시 총장후보자 지원자격제한규정을 중심으로 검토한다. 각 개별 국립대학에서 총장후보자 선정과 관련하여 임기중 정년도래시 총장후보자 지원자격을 부정하는 규정을 두거나 총장연임을 금지하는 규정을 두는 경우가 있다. 특히 임기중 정년도래시 총장후보자로의 지원자격제한규정은 9개의 지역거점국립대학중에서 8개의 대학에서 총장후보자의 자격기준으로 임기중 정년도래시 입후보자격을 제한하는 규정을 두고 있다. 국립대학의 학칙제정권은 학문의 자유와 대학의 자율성을 보장하는 헌법 제22조 제1항과 제31조 제4항의 당연한 논리적 귀결이라는 점에서 대학의 학칙제정권에 관한 고등교육법 제6조는 대학의 학교규칙제정권을 확인하는 규정으로 이해하는 것이 타당하다. 이런 점에서 대학의 자치입법권에 관하여 지방자치단체의 자치입법과 달리 헌법에 명문의 근거규정을 두고 있지 않지만, 헌법 제22조 제1항의 학문의 자유와 헌법 제31조 제4항의 대학의 자율성 보장의 취지를 고려하여 폭넓게 인정되어야 한다. 그런데 국립대학의 자치입법권이 학문의 자유와 대학의 자율권을 보장하는 헌법규정으로부터 당연히 인정되고, 그리고 고등교육법이 국립대학의 자치입법권을 포괄적으로 인정하고 있으며, 교육공무원법 제24조 제3항에서 “해당 대학에서 정하는 바”에 따라 해당 대학 총장임용후보자를 선정하도록 규정하고 있다고 하여 국립대학이 학칙으로 어떤 내용의 규정이든 제정할 수 있다는 의미는 아니다. 국립대학은 학문의 자유와 대학의 자유의 주체이기도 하지만 공권력 행사의 주체이기도 하다. 헌법 제10조는 우리 헌법질서에 국가권력은 국민의 기본권을 보장하기 위한 수단으로서의 존재라는 점을 명확히 규정하고 있다. 따라서 국립대학이 학칙을 정할 때, 특히 학칙으로 교원, 학생, 직원, 조교 등의 권리를 제한하고 의무를 부과할 때에는 항상 법률유보원칙, 과잉금지원칙, 평등원칙, 신뢰보호원칙 등의 헌법원칙과 더불어 위임입법의 취지 등 대학자치입법의 한계를 준수하면서 이들의 권리가 최소한으로 침해될 수 있도록 하여야 한다. 총장임기중에 정년이 도래하는 경우 총장후보자 지원자격을 제한하는 학칙은 위에서 살펴본 것처럼 법률유보원칙과 과잉금지원칙 및 평등원칙에 위반되어 위헌이며, 이로 인하여 총장후보자가 되고자 하는 사람의 공무담임권을 위법하게 침해하고 있다고 판단된다. 또한 총장임기중에 정년이 도래하는 경우 총장후보자 지원자격을 제한하는 학칙은 총장후보자의 범위를 확대하기 위한 시도가 아니라 축소하기 위한 시도라는 점에서 유능한 인사가 총장이 될 수 있도록 교육공무원법상의 결격사유외에는 총장자격에 특별한 요건을 요구하고 있지 아니한 교육공무원법의 취지에도 위반될 뿐만 아니라 고령화사회에서의 인력 활용방안에 관한 일반인의 상식과 연령을 이유로 하는 고용차별을 원칙적으로 금지하고 있는 국가의 정책방향에도 역행하는 규정으로 판단된다. 진리 탐구와 교수를 본업으로 하는 대학 교원들은 진리탐구의 자세에서 요구되는 보다 개방적인 자세를 총장후보자 선정과정에서도 견지하여 학내외의 다양한 총장후보자가 등장하여 학교 발전을 위하여 공정하게 경쟁할 수 있는 제도를 마련하여야 한다.

This article deals with the scope and limit of a self-legislative power of national university in reference to the statute of national university, the man or woman, who can not serve as university president for a full four-year of the president’s mandatory term on reaching retirement age, is not eligible to run as a candidate for a university president(retirement age clause as ineligibility for a university president). A self-legislative power of national university is guaranteed by the freedom of academy(section 22 subsection 1 of Korea Constitution) and the autonomy of university(section 31 subsection 4 of Korea Constitution). Section 6 of korean Higher Education Act(kHEA) confers a legislative power about university administration on a president of national university. Section 6 of kHEA confirm the autonomy of university guaranteed by Korea Constitution. The autonomy of national university about university administration should be highly guaranteed to actualize freedom of academy. But a self-legislative power of national university is not an unlimited power. It should comply with the fundamental principles of he constitutionalism, like principle of statutory reservation, supremacy of law over administrative legislation, doctrine of parliamentary reservation, the principle of proportion, and principle of equality, etc. There is no regulation about the candidate’s age as ineligibility for a university president in kHEA and korean Educational Officials Act(kEOA). So retirement age clause as ineligibility for a university president has no legal basis. Therefore I believe, it violates the principle of statutory reservation. And it dose not correspond to the purpose of kEOA to expand the scope of candidate for university president. So I believe, it violates supremacy of law over administrative legislation. Besides retirement age clause as ineligibility for a university president causes the people, who can serve as a university president for 3 years and 11 months, is not eligible to run as a candidate for a university president. I believe, it violates the principle of proportion, which public power should obey, when public power tries to restrict human rights. And it pursue age discrimination, which can not be justified with regards to mordern aged society phenomenon and national policy to abolish the discrimination based on the age in employment, not only in public sector, but also private sector. So I think, retirement age clause as ineligibility for a university president shall be abolished.

Transitive resultative predicates in Korean have nonfinite CP structures which contain a null pro. It is replaced as an overt inalienable possessum or partitive constituent, which is deficient in Satık’s(2022) term. The deficient pronoun must be picked over overt pronouns when there is a choice between the two in the subject position of the nonfinite clause. This is accordance with Cardinaletti and Starke’s(1999) economy constraint to minimize syntactic structures. This paper extends Lee’s(2023) argument that the deficient subject of transitive resultative predicates should be semantically connected to the higher accusative element to the ECM constructions. The inalienable possessum or partitive constituent in the deficient subject position of the nonfinite clause has a semantic relationship with the matrix accusative argument. The deficient subject may not be definite because it should be either a bare noun or null pro. This is why acceptability is deteriorated when the bare noun is modified by the demonstrative ku ‘the’. The current paper proves this phenomenon through a survey of speakers.

민희진 사건은 ‘기관구성에 관한 중요 조항’을 주주간계약 뿐만 아니라 정관에 반영하는 것이 단체법상 효력 혹은 이사에 대한 효력을 확보하는데 필수적이라는 것을 잘 보여준다. 또한 일정한 경우 정관에 반영하지 못한 주주간계약이라도 단체법 상 효력이 인정되는데, 어떠한 근거에서 단체법상 효력이 인정되는가에 관한 기준 혹은 가이드라인을 확립할 필요가 있다. 예를 들어 주주전원이 찬성하면 정관에 준하는 것으로서 회사규범성이 인정되는가, 회사가 주주간계약에 당사자로서 참여 하면 회사규범성이 인정되는가, 폐쇄회사에서는 사적자치가 우선되어야 하는 것 아닌가 등등이 회사규범성 인정 기준으로서 먼저 확립되어야 한다. 회사법은 주총결의의 소집절차 혹은 결의방법이 “현저하게 불공정”하거나, 이사 의 업무집행이 “임무해태”에 해당하거나, 신주발행이 “현저하게 불공정”하여 “주주 에게 불이익”하면 회사규범의 위반을 인정하고 구체적인 회사법적 구제수단을 인정 한다. 따라서, 어떤 주주간계약이 규범성인정기준을 충족하여 회사규범으로 작동하 는 경우 그 위반행위가 구체적인 회사법상 구제수단을 작동시키는지 여부는 (i) 문제된 주주간계약의 성질상 인정기준이 충족되었는지 여부 및 (ii) 주주간계약을 위반한 위반의 모습이 회사법상 구제수단을 작동시키는 “불공정성” 혹은 “임무해태” 요건 등을 충족시키는지 여부에 의해 결정될 것이다. 따라서, 먼저 전체주주가 참여한 주주간계약 등이 규범성인정 기준을 충족시키는 주주간계약으로 회사규범력을 인정할 수 있는지 여부를 판단해야 하고, 그 다음 단계로 그 주주간계약을 위반한 특정행위가 회사법상 구제수단을 촉발할 정도로 “현저하게 불공정”한지, “임무행태”에 해당하는지, 혹은 “주주에게 불이익”한지 등 규범위반의 모습을 판단하여 규범위반에 대한 구체적 회사법상 구제수단을 작동 시킬 수 있다. 회사법상 구제수단은 주주전부가 참여한 주주간계약의 경우 정관 위반에 준하여 취급할 수 있으므로 정관위반에 준하는 구제수단을 준용할 수 있고, 폐쇄회사 맥락에 서 체결한 주주간계약의 경우 사적자치의 우선성이 고려될 수 있으므로 사적자치를 고려한 구제수단이 인정될 수 있다. 앞으로 구체적인 사건에서 문제된 주주간계약이 회사규범의 인정기준을 충족하는 지 여부, 나아가 이러한 주주간계약 위반의 주총결의가 “현저하게 불공정“한지, 이사의 계약위반의 업무집행이 이사의 ”임무해태“에 해당하는지, 혹은 계약위반의 신주발행이 ”현저하게 불공정“하여 ”주주에게 불이익“한지 등에 대하여 많은 학설 과 판례가 축적되기를 기대해 본다.

The Min Hee-jin case shows that stipulating the “important provisions on governance structure” not only in shareholder agreements but in the articles of association is critical to securing their binding effect upon internal directors. Because the shareholder agreement will in principle bind the individual parties but not reach internal directors. But in certain cases, even shareholder agreements not stipulated in the articles of association can be declared as binding upon directors and other internal organs, and thus it is necessary to establish on what standards or guidelines the courts recognize their binding effect on the directors: If all shareholders sign in their shareholder agreement, can it be equivalent to the articles of association? If the company participates in a shareholder agreement as a party, can the fact make the agreement binding upon internal directors? In a closed company, should the shareholder autonomy through such a shareholder agreement should be put prior to the companies Act? If any shareholder agreement meets the above-mentioned standards or guidelines for the binding effect upon director, then the next question is to answer whether any director's specific action breaching the shareholder agreement shall trigger any company law remedy, and if so which company law remedy is available. It is hoped that many theories and precedents will be accumulated by the courts on whether the shareholder agreement in question meets the criteria for recognition of the binding effect, and then whether any directors’ action violating the shareholder agreement is “significantly unfair”.

대통령제 국가에서 의회는 견제와 균형의 원리에 따라 대통령의 공무원 임명권 행사를 견제한다. 이에 따라 의회는 대통령의 공무원 임명에 의회의 동의를 요구하거나 공무원 임명권자 및 임명 절차를 규정하는 법률을 제정하기도 한다. 그러나 아무리 의회가 공무원 임명 절차에 관여하는 것이 정당하다 하더라도 여기에는 일정한 헌법적 한계가 있다. 예컨대 의회가 임명 동의권을 행사하면서 공무원의 자격까지 법률로써 제한하는 것은 견제와 균형의 범위를 넘어 대통령의 공무원 임명권을 지나치게 침해하는 것이다. 또한 의회는 임명권자 및 임명 자격을 법률에 정할 수 있으나 공무원의 자격을 극단적으로 제한하는 것은 헌법적으로 정당화되기 어렵다. 이 글에서는 미국 헌법상 공무원 임명권 조항의 해석론을 중심으로 공무원 임명 절차에 의회가 관여할 수 있는 범위와 한계를 헌법적으로 정립해보고자 한다. 공무원 임명 절차에 관하여 미국 헌법과 우리나라 헌법은 구조적으로 유사하므로 미국에서의 논의는 우리나라 헌법 문제에 여러 가지를 시사할 수 있다고 본다.

Article Ⅱ of the U. S. Constitution prescribes the president as head of the executive branch, giving him the executive power. In order to enable him to exercise this power, it grants him the power to appoint major officers. A president who chooses executive officers and has authority over them can be held responsible for their action. But U. S. Constitution limits presidential appointment power in several ways. First, presidential nominees for most major officers must be confirmed by the Senate. Also, Congress by statute can require Senate approval for appointment to them. Second, Congress can vest the appointment of inferior officers in the president, the courts, or the heads of executive departments. Although there are congressional restrictions on presidential appointment power, legal qualifications for offices that require the advice and consent of the Senate are unconstitutional. The Senate's confirmation in presidential appointments is functioned as a safeguard against an abusive exercise of presidential appointment power. Legal qualifications for confirmation in all presidential appointments can decrease political accountability. On the other hand, in presidential appointments that do not require the Senate's advice and consent, legal qualifications can be good substitutes for the Senates' confirmation as a reasonable check on presidential appointment power. The discussion on the Appointments Clause in the U. S. Constitution gives suggestions to the presidential appointment process in the current Korean Constitution.

This article addresses the liability for non-performance of obligations under an international construction contract and a rule of law for exemption from such liability with reference to the Force Majeure clause of FIDIC Conditions of Contract. To this end, first the similarity and dissimilarity between common law and civil law in terms of the liability for non-performance of obligations and a rule of law for exemption will be reviewed from the comparative law perspective by classifying the types of non-default into delay in performance and incomplete performance, in other words, defects and then the Force Majeure clause of FIDIC Conditions of Contract will be in detail reviewed under both some common and civil governing laws. There is a huge gap in respect of the liability for non-performance of obligations between the common and civil law jurisdictions. In particular, in regards to an international construction work contract, it is widely known that a strict liability principle is commonly applied in common law jurisdictions, whereas a fault-based liability principle has been adopted in civil law jurisdictions. However, although the common law jurisdictions have opted for the strict liability doctrine in respect of the liability for non-performance of obligations under a contract, it is not absolute. The application of the strict liability principle in respect of the liability for the non-performance of obligations under a contract in the common law jurisdictions often inflicted a harsh consequence on the obligor. It was a rule of law for exemption from such liability that came into being in order to alleviate such harshness called frustration doctrine. However, in the civil law jurisdictions where the principle of fault-based liability is applied, there is no specific need to mitigate such harshness on the obligor unlike in the common law jurisdictions. Nonetheless, however, there are various kinds of rules of law for exemption in civil law jurisdictions, such as force majeure under French law, höhere Gewalt under German law and 불가항력 under Korean or Japanese law. Here, there arises a question of how the relationship between these rules of law for exemption and the fault-based liability principle should be defined and understood in civil law jurisdictions. Above all, this issue is far more complicated because both German and French laws take different approaches even when they belong to the same civil law system. Hence, the nature of the liability for non-performance of obligations under a contract in both the civil and common law jurisdictions can be properly identified by examining their respective rules of law for exemption. It is more useful, in the context of international construction contracts where people often encounter the issues of the delay in performance and defects, to examine the liability for non-performance of contractual obligations by classifying them into delay in performance and incomplete performance, which are two major types of non-performance of contractual obligations. While there is a significant difference in views between the common and civil law jurisdictions in connection with the rule of law for exemption for the delay in performance, both jurisdictions take similarly a strict liability principle in respect of incomplete performance, i.e., defect, which may lead one to conclude that they are on the same page in that regard. However, there are many differences in views between these two jurisdictions in terms of details. In common law jurisdictions, the English courts have quite strictly adhered to the frustration doctrine in connection with the rule of law for exemption from the liability of non-performance of contractual obligations, whereas, in the U.S., the doctrine of frustration has been expanded to doctrines of frustration of purpose, impracticability and commercial impossibility. The U.S. courts applied the principle of frustration in a more broad scope than the English ...

his paper claims that particles and endings in Korean should be independent syntactic units from a typological perspective. And through the examination of the grammatical status of particles this paper shows that the concept of ‘nominative case’ and that of syntactic function ‘subject’ have been much entangled in Korean grammar. One of the problems derived from the conceptual entanglement is the so-called ‘predicate clause’. The main objective of this paper is to clarify the origin of the misconception of ‘predicate clause’. This paper uses three diagnoses to verify the misconception of predicate clause. The first one is a diagnosis through ‘do-so test’. The second one is a diagnosis related to ‘equi-subject constraint’. The last one is a diagnosis on the basis of ‘valency’. These diagnoses lead us to the conclusion that the so-called ‘micro subject’ kho-ka ‘nose-Nom’ and holangi-ka ‘tiger-Nom’ in double subject constructions such as Khokkili-nun kho-ka kil-ta ‘Elephants have a long nose’ and Na-nun holangi-ka mwusep-ta ‘I’m afraid of tigers’ is no more subject, but a sort of object and that the real subject is the ‘macro subject’ Khokkili-nun ‘elephant-Top’ and Na-nun ‘I-Top’ in above-mentioned examples.

The present study aims to investigate the effects of the intonations on the syntactic interpretation of the interrogatives with a wh-expression in the Daegu-North Gyeongsang Korean and the Seoul metropolitan Korean. To this end, it analyzes the syntactic and prosodic structures of the interrogatives with an embedded wh-clause or a yes/no-question with an indefinite pronoun. Two types of perception tests, one with unmodified intonations and the other with transplanted intonations, were carried out to analyze the respondents’ interpretations of the three types of the interrogatives. The results of the test with unmodified intonations were as follows. First, more than 90% of the respondents chose appropriate answers to the three types of the wh-interrogatives with no statistically significant differences. Second, the respondents’ reaction times demonstrated with statistically significant differences that the processing load of wh-questions with matrix scope was heavier than that of wh questions with narrow scope or yes-no questions with an indefinite pronoun. Third, embedding verbs of the question-selecting predicate class such as gunggeumhada ‘wonder’ led to longer reaction time than those of the proposition-selecting predicate class such as saenggakada ‘think’. In addition, the results of the perception test with transplanted prosodies revealed two decisive factors. First, the interrogative-endings -ka/na were more influential factors in the respondents’ syntactic interpretations of wh-questions than the other endings such as ?ko/no or the prosodies were. Second, wh-questions with such embedding verbs as saenggakada ‘think’ were interpreted in close accordance with the transplanted prosodic structures, but not so much so in the case of wh-questions with such embedding verbs as gunggeumhada ‘wonder’ irrespective of the prosody transplants.