간행물

외법논집 update

HUFS Law Review

  • : 한국외국어대학교 법학연구소
  • : 사회과학분야  >  법학
  • : KCI등재
  • :
  • : 연속간행물
  • : 계간
  • : 1226-0886
  • :
  • :

수록정보
38권3호(2014) |수록논문 수 : 6
간행물 제목
38권3호(2014년) 수록논문
권호별 수록 논문
| | | |

KCI등재

1EU법에서의 지속가능한 발전 - 암스테르담 조약을 중심으로 -

저자 : 김진현 ( Jinhyun Kim )

발행기관 : 한국외국어대학교 법학연구소 간행물 : 외법논집 38권 3호 발행 연도 : 2014 페이지 : pp. 1-14 (14 pages)

다운로드

(기관인증 필요)

초록보기

The provisions related to sustainable development principle in Amsterdam treaty are integration of economic, ecological and social aspects. EU treaty and EC treaty provide it as an anchor provisions of purposes with sustainable development. It means that the sustainable development principle is more important when compared with other purposes in EC Art. 2. Therefore, it's appropriate to consider first the purpose of sustainable development principle to maintain consistency which is needed for the community.
Astrid Epiney and Marin Scheyli says that the concept of sustainable development is still evolving principle of international law.
According to the opinion of Epiney and Scheyli, that sustainable development, as a principle of international customary law, imposes the obligation to every country in the world to develop international environmental law. Such obligation possibly exists when there is a guaranteed legal interests by the whole world society prohibiting certain conduct. And every country has the rights to such benefits penetrated. Those sustainability concept and its components already exists as standards to understand international legal norms and as starting point for a new international agreements.
Although it probably must be considered premature to expect from the inclusion of the principle of sustainable development in the European Law urges rapid and profound changes in the national law, the EU law system maintains positive attitude to the principle of sustainable development. From this point each domestic law has a duty to provide regulations related to sustainable development. The Art. 2 EU, Art. 2 EC and Art. 6 EC of the Amsterdam treaty have been giving a profound influence to each parties and their domestic law system.

KCI등재

2동물원 동물의 보호를 위한 입법적 제언 - 영국의 동물면허법을 중심으로 -

저자 : 유선봉 ( Yu Seon-bong )

발행기관 : 한국외국어대학교 법학연구소 간행물 : 외법논집 38권 3호 발행 연도 : 2014 페이지 : pp. 15-34 (20 pages)

다운로드

(기관인증 필요)

초록보기

근래에 들어 동물쇼에 이용되는 동물에 대한 학대사건과 동물원 사육사 사망사건 등이 연이어 발생하면서 동물쇼와 동물원 동물의 복지 및 관리 등에 관한 사회적 관심이 높아지고 있다. 그동안 우리사회는 동물원 관련사건이 발생할 때 마다 사회적 관심과 일부 논의는 있었지만 문제해결을 위한 근본적인 법적, 제도적 장치가 아직 마련되어 있지 않아 동물원 동물들은 법의 사각지대에 놓여 있다. 이에 따라 동물원의 설립, 운영관리 및 동물의 복지 그리고 사육사, 관람객의 안전 등에 관한 동물원 관련법의 제정이 시급히 필요한 실정에 있다.
이에 필자는 본 논문에서 국내동물원의 문제점을 알아보고 이를 개선할 수 있는 방안을 영국의 동물원 면허법과 EU 동물원 지침의 분석을 통하여 살펴본 후 국내 동물원 관련법 제정을 위한 입법적 제안을 하고자 한다. 이를 위하여 우선먼저 현대동물원의 역할과 국내동물원의 현황 및 문제점을 알아보고 이어서 제기된 문제점들에 대한 법제도적 개선방안을 도출하기 위하여 동물관련법의 입법방향과 영국 및 EU의 관련 법규를 고찰하고 그 시사점을 논의한다. 그리고 이를 참고하여 향후 국내동물원 관련법의 입법방향 및 주요내용 등에 관한 입법적인 제안을 한다.


The majority of Koreans will visit a zoo or similar facility that exhibits animals at some point in their lives. However, many live animals in Korean zoos are not always kept under acceptable conditions. Therefore, it is important to improve or enact laws concerning the keeping of animals in zoos to ensure the protection of wild animals and the preservation of biodiversity while retaining a role in education of the public and scientific research. The first part of this paper briefly examines definition, historical development and recent roles of zoos. At the same time, it deals with current situation and problems of Korean zoos. The second part of the paper discusses two approaches to the laws relating to animals. The rationale for the regulation of the treatment of animals can be divided largely into two categories: human-centric justifications and the animal-centric justifications. The human-centric approach regulates the treatment of animals for our own purposes. On the other hand, central objectives of the animal-centric approach are the interests and well-being of animals. The third part of the paper examines the Zoo Licensing Act 1981(United Kingdom) and the European Zoos Directive on the Keeping of Wild Animals in Zoos. The Zoo Licensing Act 1981 requires the inspection and licensing of all zoos in the United Kingdom. The Act aims to ensure that, where animals are kept in enclosures, they are provided with a suitable environment to provide an opportunity to express most normal behaviour. The last part of the paper, the main part of this paper, suggests several legislative proposals for the protection of zoo animals. The laws currently in place to protect zoo animals have proved inadequate. That is, the existing laws relating to zoo animals, such as the Korea Animal Protection Law seem to be ineffective in truly protecting zoo animals. Therefore, the most desirable solution is to enact a new law for the protection of zoo animals.

KCI등재

3장래의 퇴직급여채권에 대한 재산분할청구에 관한 고찰 - 대법원 2014. 7. 16. 선고 2013므2250 전원합의체 판결 -

저자 : 김자영 ( Kim Ja Young ) , 백경희 ( Baek Kyoung Hee )

발행기관 : 한국외국어대학교 법학연구소 간행물 : 외법논집 38권 3호 발행 연도 : 2014 페이지 : pp. 35-48 (14 pages)

다운로드

(기관인증 필요)

초록보기

Until now, the Korean Supreme Court has judged that already acquired retirement benefits must be divided between the divorced couple. However, the Court has also judged that retirement benefits planned to be received after one of the divorcees retires cannot be the object of property division merely due to the chance of receiving it, and has only considered this retirement benefits as a factor in choosing the amount and the means of division.
There has been much criticism on these kinds of judgments, and the Supreme Court decided to embrace these opinions and accepted retirement pay that was not yet received as an object of property division. In other words, the Court acknowledged the fact that these unattained retirement pay actually has an economic value. This case can be considered appropriate from three aspects. First, it perfectly suits the purpose of property division which is to liquidate and distribute the wealth that both of the divorcees have made during their marriage according to the degree of their contribution. Secondly, it also corresponds to the meaning of retirement pay, which is supposed to be paid afterwards. Finally, it regards the substantial equality between the divorcees and the equality between men and women.
In addition, unattained retirement pay must be divided between the couple only when it satisfies the condition of future performance claims. This is correspondent to the numerous cases accepting the purpose of property division, character of retirement pay, and further execution claims. However, only the retirement pay accumulated until the day of the argument closing must be divided according to the idea of property division.

KCI등재

4한국의 사회적 기업에 관한 개괄적 검토 - 주식회사와의 비교를 중심으로 -

저자 : 고재종 ( Koh Jae-jong )

발행기관 : 한국외국어대학교 법학연구소 간행물 : 외법논집 38권 3호 발행 연도 : 2014 페이지 : pp. 49-68 (20 pages)

다운로드

(기관인증 필요)

초록보기

A social enterprise is an organization that applies commercial strategies to maximize improvements in human and environmental well-being, rather than maximizing profits for external shareholders. Social enterprises can be structured as a for-profit or non-profit, and may take the form of a co-operative, mutual organization, a disregarded entity, a social business, or a charity organization. Many commercial enterprises would consider themselves to have social objectives, but commitment to these objectives is motivated by the perception that such commitment will ultimately make the enterprise more financially valuable. Social enterprises differ in that, inversely, they do not aim to offer any benefit to their investors, except where they believe that doing so will ultimately further their capacity to realize their social and environmental goals.
In korea, by the outline of Social enterprise of Social enterprise Promotion Agency, there were about 1,010 companies of Korean social enterprises certificated by the same agency and were about 950 companies of the companies operated as the social enterprise Until November, 2013. Furthermore, the development of social enterprise has been started by the enact and the revision of related law on promotion of social enterprise in our countries at Jan. 2007. The same law is in force and the certification system was introduced in July after the time. Also, at the same time, the first social enterprise was came into our country and the 36 companies certificated by the Social Enterprise Promotion Agency. Common agreement was concluded for the growth of management activity of social enterprise among governmtn - enterprise - civic association in July 2008. The basic plan of the promotion of social enterprise was announced and the memorial day of the social enterprise enacted in November of the same year. Also, the pushing plan was announced for activating the social enterprise and the exhibition was opened in 2013. Specially, by the basic plan for promotion of social enterprise prepared for realizing the warm common group, the government has been proceeding the concrete policy task of four parts on the focus of growth on sustainable possibility of social enterprise and spreading the its value.
Therefore, in the first place, I will study on the operating present condition of several countries and inspect on the definition and system of social enterprise. In the next steps, I will generally exercise on the difference between the social enterprise and the company of related law in our country, the formation of the social enterprise, in case of formating the social enterprise, the difference on the applying to the related law in case of comparing with the corporate law.

KCI등재

5FRAND 표준특허 침해에 대한 금지청구의 타당성 검토 - 미국법과의 비교를 중심으로 -

저자 : 김창화 ( Kim Chang-hwa )

발행기관 : 한국외국어대학교 법학연구소 간행물 : 외법논집 38권 3호 발행 연도 : 2014 페이지 : pp. 69-92 (24 pages)

다운로드

(기관인증 필요)

초록보기

표준특허는 타인에게 필수적인 사용이 요구되는 표준 기술로서의 특징과 타인의 사용을 막는 배타적인 권리인 특허로서의 특성 둘 다를 갖고 있으며, 이러한 두 특성은 상충될 수밖에 없기 때문에 이에 대한 조정이 필요하다. 그리하여, 특허권자의 배타적 권리를 제한하고, 타인의 사용을 보장하기 위하여 특허권자에게 프랜드 선언을 하도록 한다. 그렇다면, 이러한 프랜드 선언이 표준특허가 침해된 경우, 특허권자의 침해금지 청구도 제한하는 것인지가 문제된다. 특허권자의 부당한 실시료 청구나 표준의 실행에 지장을 줄 수 있다는 이유로 금지명령이 내려져서는 안 된다는 주장이 있기도 하며, 반대로 모든 프랜드 표준특허에 대하여 일괄적으로 금지명령을 인정하지 않는 것은 사안에 따른 구체적인 사정이 무시될 수 있다는 점과 협상의 원동력을 상실하고, 표준특허의 상업적 가치를 약화시키기 때문에 부당하다는 주장이 있다.
여기서, 문제의 핵심은 프랜드 선언의 법적 성질과 침해금지를 청구하는 행위의 특성을 규명하는 것이라 할 것이다. 이를 위해서는, 프랜드 표준특허와 관련된 법 영역 즉, 계약법, 특허법, 그리고 경쟁법에서의 그 법적 성질들을 살펴보아야 할 필요가 있으며, 이에 따라 프랜드 표준특허 침해에 대한 금지청구의 타당성을 결정하여야 할 것이다. 먼저, 계약법 측면에서, 각 표준제정기구들의 정책들은 프랜드 선언을 구속적인 것으로 규정하고 있지 않으며, 프랜드 선언에 대하여 관련된 사람들의 법적 관계를 살펴볼 때, 계약의 여러 요소들을 결하고 있어 계약이 성립을 인정하기 어렵다. 따라서 프랜드 표준특허가 침해된 경우, 침해금지 청구에 대하여 계약위반을 이유로 금지청구를 부정하기는 어려울 것이다. 다음으로, 특허법에서는 금지청구를 판단하는 형평법적 4요소가 마련되어 있어, 이를 기준으로 판단이 이루어지며, 그 요소들은 프랜드 표준특허가 침해된 경우 금지명령을 부과하는 것이 일반 특허에 비해 상당히 제한적일 수밖에 없을 것이다. 따라서 프랜드 표준특허가 침해된 경우, 특허법을 바탕으로 금지명령의 부과가 이루어지는 것은 쉽지 않을 것이다. 마지막으로, 경쟁법 측면에서는 비록 견해들이 나뉘고 있지만, 프랜드 표준특허에 대한 침해를 이유로 침해금지를 청구하는 것이 경쟁을 저해하고 부당하게 권리를 행사하는 것으로까지는 이른다고 볼 수 없다. 따라서 금지청구의 행위가 부당하게 경쟁을 해하거나, 타인의 영업행위를 부당하게 방해하는 행위가 없다면, 침해금지 청구가 경쟁법에 위반으로 부정되지는 않을 것이다.
사실, 침해금지 청구는 특허권자의 권리이지만, 프랜드 표준특허의 경우에는 프랜드 선언이라는 제한이 있어, 일반적인 특허와 같이 폭넓게 허용될 수는 없고, 다른 일반 특허권에 비해 제한적일 수밖에 없다. 하지만, 이러한 제한이 구속적인 계약으로 성립되지도 않고, 경쟁을 해하는 것으로 인정되기에도 쉽지 않은 면이 있다. 그렇다면, 일반적인 특허법의 원칙으로 돌아가 침해금지 청구를 판단하는 것이 타당하며, 그 판단에서 프랜드 선언의 요소를 고려함으로써 제한적으로 해석하는 것이 옳을 것이다. 특히, 우리나라의 경우, 이러한 판단 방법이 존재하지 않기 때문에, 이러한 방법들을 도입하고 정립하여 문제의 발생에 대비하는 것이 필요할 것이다.


Standard Essential Patents(SEPs) have two characteristics: first, as a standard technology, the patent is required to be used by anyone; second, as a patent itself, it can exclude the use of others. Due to these two features that are conflict, it is necessary to make a balance between patent owners and its performers. This makes patent holders declare FRAND commitment in order to limit the exclusive rights and guarantee others' use. Then, the main issue is whether injunction can be issued when FRAND-encumbered SEPs (hereinafter, FRAND SEPs) is infringed.
First of all, it is necessary to explicate the legal nature of FRAND and injunction for solving the above problem. This problem is directly related to three laws: contract, patent, and competition law. Firstly, in terms of contract law, standard-setting organizations do not provide the policies related to FRAND commitment as the binding contract, and when considering the situation of parties, contract relationship is not established. Thus, it is difficult to deny the injunction for the reason of the breach of contract when FRAND patent is infringed. Secondly, since patent law has established the 4 factors to decide whether the injunction can be issued, courts can judge it by interpreting the elements in specific situation. When considering the features of FRAND patent, the 4 factors may be interpreted against patent owners and thus, it is not easy to issue the injunction. Thirdly and lastly, although entities who construct and apply competion law don't come to an agreement, just claiming the injunction may not be considered as an unfair competition activity. Thus, unless claiming the injunction excessively hamper fair competition or interrupt the conduct of others business, it would not be denied as the violation of competition law.
Actually, even though injunction exist for patent holders, the injunction for FRAND patent infringement cannot help being limited because it is encumbered FRAND which restricts the right of patent owners. However, this limitation is not included in a breach of contract and competition laws. Then, we have to turn to the principle of patent law, which decide whether the injunction can be issued by the 4 factors of principle of equity. In doing so, courts can consider the characteristics of FRAND patent and the specific circumstances, and this can lead the decision more reasonably. In addition, our country needs to introduce and establish the way to decide whether the injunction can be issued for preparing the relative disputes more appropriately.

KCI등재

6법원의 공소장변경요구제도에 대한 비판적 고찰

저자 : 이창현 ( Lee Chang-hyun )

발행기관 : 한국외국어대학교 법학연구소 간행물 : 외법논집 38권 3호 발행 연도 : 2014 페이지 : pp. 93-107 (15 pages)

다운로드

(기관인증 필요)

초록보기

Though Indictment Modification System is an element of adversary system, Indictment Modification Requirement System is an element of inquisitional system prepared to acknowledge authoritative intervention of the court in order to supplement Indictment Modification System. To discuss the legal nature of the system, it should be decided by Indictment Modification Requirement System itself, and unlike existing theories or precedents, Indictment Modification Requirement should be considered as a right and duty of the court at the same time through reviewing revision object of the Criminal Procedure Law which introduced the system, and comparing the regulations of Japanese Criminal Procedure Law.
In the view of Indictment Modification Requirement System as a right and duty of the court, if the court required for modification of an indictment within the recognition range of criminal fact and identity, the required criminal fact becomes the substantive subject of judgment, and the defense right of the accused is considered to be exercised; therefore, considering if there is a substantive disadvantage or not in exercising defense right of the accused, it is possible for the court to make a decision on the criminal fact that required modification of indictment.
In respect of adversary system, as it is true that indictment modification requirement of court is an exception of adversary system, it is necessary to be circumspect in indictment modification requirement of court respecting the chance of application for indictment modification of prosecutor during the trial examination; however, to declare innocent on the criminal fact in a situation of no application for indictment modification, even if there is admissible criminal fact, with a passive demeanor that regards indictment modification requirement as discretion of court, gives the accused an unfair profit, and results in against finding of substantial truth.
Thus, it is expected to contribute the requirement system to perform appropriate role in accordance with the purpose of criminal suit, which is finding substantial truth according to reasonable procedure by reviewing the legal nature and effect of Indictment Modification Requirement System of court critically.

1

내가 찾은 최근 검색어

최근 열람 자료

맞춤 논문

보관함

내 보관함
공유한 보관함

1:1문의

닫기