• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제23권1호
• /
• pp.153-175
• /
• 2013

The issue of patent validity becomes a subject of dispute under the FTA and there is a definite difference of opinion between China, Japan, and Korea. In other words, the validity of a judgment on the patent was exclusively under the jurisdiction of the administrative agency at a particular patent office. Thus, the issue arises where there is a potential judgment on patent validity. In this case, the Supreme Court rather than the patent office can offer a judgment from a judicial institution and can make a judgment in the case of a medication. In China, however, the lowest possibility of judgment on patent validity is predicted to occur in judicial institutions. Such a judgment is recognized as the Grand Bench Decision in Korea, and the court can judge the patent validation rather than the patent office. That is just the case in the Kilby case-it is invalid for reasons obvious in Japan. Therefore, there is a substantial difference between the three countries. Especially in Japan, where after the Kilby case, they revised the patent law in 2004 to introduce Article 104-3, placing the judgment of patent validity in the court, even if the "Apparentness"is not requisite. Per this law, infringers can argue for patent invalidity not only the judgment of the patent invalidation but also the infringement lawsuit. From the point of view of Japan, Korea became the judgment of trademark validation by extension and obvious cases can become directly to judge through the Supreme Court about the right that needs to examinations and registrations. In terms of the mediation, it also provides a clue about the judgment of intellectual property validation and expands the scope of the mediation in the future. From now on, in order to have active mediation procedures in the three countries, China, Japan, and Korea would need to unify regulations and application scopes for mediation in the FTA negotiation and to look forward to achieve a vigorous mediation approach.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제15권2호
• /
• pp.225-261
• /
• 2005

Under Article IV of the United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (New York Convention), in order to obtain the recognition and enforcement of a foreign arbitral award, a party applying for recognition and enforcement of a foreign arbitral award shall supply (a) the duly authenticated original award or a duly certified copy thereof and (b) the original arbitration agreement or a duly certified copy thereof. In addition, if the arbitral award or arbitration agreement is not made in an official language of the country in which the award is relied upon, the party applying for recognition and enforcement of the award shall produce a translation of these documents into such language, and the translation shall be certified by an official or sworn translator or by a diplomatic or consular agent. In a case where a Vietnamese company which had obtained a favorable arbitral award in Vietnam applied for recognition and enforcement of a Vietnamese arbitral award before a Korean court, the recent Korean Supreme Court Judgment (Docket No. 2004 Da 20180. 'Judgment') rendered on December 12, 2004 has alleviated the document requirements as follows : The Judgment held that (i) the party applying for recognition andenforcement of a foreign arbitral award does not have to strictly comply with the document requirements when the other party does not dispute the existence and the content of the arbitral award and the arbitration agreement and that (ii) in case the translation submitted to the court does not satisfy the requirement of Article 4, the court does not have to dismiss the case on the ground that the party applying for recognition and enforcement of a foreign arbitral award has failed to comply with the translation requirement under Article 4, and instead may supplement the documents by obtaining an accurate Korean translation from an expert translator at the expense of the party applying for recognition and enforcement of the foreign arbitral award. In this regard, the author fully supports the view of the Judgment. Finally, the Judgment held that, even though the existence of a written arbitration agreement was not disputed at the arbitration, there was no written arbitration agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant and wenton to repeal the judgment of the second instance which admitted the existence of a written arbitration agreement between the parties. In this regard, the author does not share the view of the Judgment. The author believes that considering the trend of alleviating the formality requirement of arbitration agreements under Article 2 of the New York Convention, the Supreme Court could have concluded that there was a written arbitration agreement because the defendant participated in thearbitration proceedings in Vietnam without disputing the formality requirement of the arbitration agreement. Or the Supreme Court should have taken the view that the defendant was no longer permitted to dispute the formality requirement of the arbitration agreement because otherwise it would be clearly against the doctrine of estoppel.

• 의료법학
• /
• 제14권2호
• /
• pp.173-214
• /
• 2013

Traditionally, the Supreme Court has held that medical treatment agreements covered by national health insurance should be distinguished from other medical treatment agreements which are viewed as a consummation of the autonomous free will between doctor and patient. Namely, the Supreme Court views medical treatment agreements covered by national health insurance to be bound by the National Health Insurance Law with the intent to promote the applicability and comprehensiveness of the national health insurance scheme. Yet, issues of voluntary non-reimbursable treatments are triggered not only by the mistakes or moral hazard of medical care institutions but also by systemic limitations of national health insurance coverage criteria. Thus, there is a need for legislative measures that allow certain medical treatments to be included or reflected in the national health insurance coverage system so that patients may receive prompt and flexible medical treatments. To reflect such concerns, the Supreme Court made an exception for voluntary non-reimbursable treatments and developed a strict test to be applied in such cases in Supreme Court Judgment 2010 Doo 27639, 27646 (ruled on June 8, 2012 by the Grand Bench). Such judgment, however, is not a fundamental overturn of the Supreme Court's prior rulings that voluntary non-reimbursable treatments are not allowed under the law. It is only a slight revision of its previous stance for cases in which there is a lack of legislative measures to make coverage of a new yet valid medical treatment possible under the current national health insurance coverage system.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제23권1호
• /
• pp.1-23
• /
• 2013

When a court recognizes an arbitral award, it acknowledges that the award is valid and binding, and thereby gives it a set of effects similar to those of a court's judgment, among which res judicata is the most important. The res judicata effect of an arbitral award generally forbids parties to an action from subsequently litigating claims that were raised in a prior arbitration. In common law countries, res judicata may also preclude re-adjudication of issues raised and decided in a prior arbitration. The Korean Arbitration Act acknowledges the rights of parties to an arbitral award to seek not only an enforcement judgment but also a recognition judgment on an arbitral award. Therefore, the question arises whether or not the winning party in an arbitration must acquire a recognition judgment on the arbitral award in order to enjoy the effects of a recognized award. However, according to the case law and generally accepted views, an arbitral award is automatically recognized without any additional procedure, as long as it satisfies the requirements for recognition. Therefore, in order to resolve this question, it is desirable to eliminate the statutory clause that stipulates the right to seek recognition judgment.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제21권3호
• /
• pp.115-136
• /
• 2011

In the past, Chinese arbitral system and Chinese arbitral associations were avoided by international society due to the cases which Chinese court rejected the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards based on rural protection. Especially Chinese court adjudicated to reject the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards by interpreting public policy broadly. The abuse of public policy by court threats the existence of commercial arbitration system. Under this awareness, the author figured out Chinese court shows what kind of attitude about public policy of Chinese court in the present through analyzing the cases about rejection of enforcement in Chinese arbitral awards in order to analyze whether Chinese court still maintain the negative attitude like past or there exist changes with public policy which is one of the rejection reasons of recognition and enforcement in foreign arbitral awards as the central figure. Chinese court behaved in an uncooperative attitude about arbitral awards like that it reached a verdict to reject the enforcement of arbitral awards by reason of violation in public policy about several foreign arbitral awards at the beginning stage of establishing arbitration law. However, the situation of abuse in public policy was improved a lot by Chinese prime court which enforces pre-inspection system about judgment of rejection of enforcement in arbitral awards. So, there is no case about rejecting the approval and enforcement of arbitral awards by reason of violation in public policy by Chinese court except Yongning Co. case. Moreover, Chinese court got the trust and support from other countries through reinforcement of applied standard. However, Chinese court had been expressed concern from international society because they highly applied public policy and rejected to enforce arbitral awards in the recent case of Yongning Co.. Therefore, this study examined whether it is appropriate to apply public policy of Chinese court in the case of Yongning Co., and then I concluded that. Although Yongning Co. case is the first case which Chinese prime court agrees with public policy by reason of rejection of approval and enforcement in foreign arbitral awards, in my opinion, it doesn't mean that Chinese court has fundamental change in basic attitude and position about the approval and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. Chinese court keeps the cautious uses of public policy in legal judgment of foreign arbitral awards and it looks like implementing the obligation in regulation of New York Convention sincerely.

• 연구윤리
• /
• 제1권1호
• /
• pp.23-28
• /
• 2020

Purpose: Focusing on Supreme Court precedents, we intend to establish criteria for judging research misconduct. Research design, data and methodology: In addition, I would like to propose the criteria for judging research misconduct by the KODISA, which applies the court's standards well in practice, and guidelines for preventing research misconduct. Research design, data and methodology: After classifying the case of research misconduct into six cases, the court's judgment and practical application will be reviewed. Results: First, research misconduct that has passed the disciplinary prescription can be punished. This is because the state of illegality continues to this day. Second, even if there were no punishment regulations at the time of research misconduct, it can be retroactively punished with the current punishment regulations. This is because research ethics is a universal and common standard and does not change. Third, if there is a fact that infringes on intellectual property rights, it is presumed unwritten intentions. Therefore, the act of taking and using the work of another person without permission or proper citation procedure, even if it is unintentional and for the public interest, is a research misconduct. Fourth, if there is an inappropriate citation notation, the intention of research misconduct is presumed. It is the judgment of the court that even if a quotation is marked, if it is incomplete, it is recognized as plagiarism. Fifth, if the author uses the work of another person without proper source indication, it is plagiarism even if the other person who owns the copyright agrees to it. The understanding or consent of some parties does not justify research misconduct in violation of public trust. Sixth, it is a research misconduct to create a new work without citations for one's previous work. In addition, even if there is a citation, if the subsequent writing is not original, it is a research misconduct. Conclusions: Academia should clarify the scope of research misconduct by referring to the Research Ethics Regulations of KODISA, and deal with research results that lack the value as creative works similar to those of research misconduct.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제30권3호
• /
• pp.67-94
• /
• 2020

This paper examines the current enforcement regime of Korea and provides an overview of the same with focus on the changes before and after the 2016 revision of the Korean Arbitration Act. It briefly studies the pro-arbitration bias of the New York Convention, as well as the Korean judiciary's stance on the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. Some of the substantial issues discussed in the paper include the major procedural changes brought about by the 2016 amendment with respect to the enforcement of arbitral awards. The paper also discusses the rare instances where the Korean judiciary refused to recognize or enforce an arbitral award, and the reasoning behind the refusal. The paper discusses and analyzes four court judgments that reflect the Korean judiciary's position on the enforcement of foreign and domestic arbitral awards in Korea. It focuses on the NDS v. KT Skylife case, where the court of first instance refused the enforcement on grounds that the relief granted by the arbitral tribunal was not specific enough for enforcement. Ultimately, the appellate court, although agreeing on the specificity requirement, reversed the ruling and granted an enforcement judgment on grounds that the application for enforcement had the legal interest to request an enforcement judgment.

• 한국환경보건학회지
• /
• 제47권2호
• /
• pp.111-122
• /
• 2021

Objectives: There was a judgment of acquittal for the manufacturer SK Chemical and the vendor Aekyung regarding humidifier disinfectant (HD) containing 5-chloro-2-methylisothiazol-3(2H)-one/2-methylisothiazol-3(2H)-one (CMIT/MIT). The rationale used in this judgement is discussed here in the light of scientific consideration. Methods: The sentencing document for the judgements was obtained from the Korea Supreme Court Service. In particular, the judgements made by the court related to the risk of HD and external and internal exposure to CMIT/MIT are discussed based on scientific evidence. Results: Rendering a determination in a criminal trial of insufficient evidence of causation, the court dismissed the prosecution's motion that humidifier disinfectant-associated lung injuries (HDLI) and asthma were associated with the utilization of these products. However, CMIT/MIT, a strong sensitizing and corrosive substance, has been reported to be associated with brain toxicity, allergic contact dermatitis, and asthma. Furthermore, the judgment did not consider total consumption amounts or the cumulative dose of CMIT/MIT in the humidifier. Lastly, there are several cases supporting the fact that exposure to water-soluble substances including CMIT/MIT can cause lower respiratory tract diseases. In addition to cases of asthma among the workers exposed to CMIT/MIT, we identified lung injury victims who were exposed to HDs exclusively containing CMIT/MIT. Conclusions: We conclude that there is sufficient evidence supporting the assertion that HDs containing CMIT/MIT cause lung injuries, including asthma, contrary to the court's judgement.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제30권3호
• /
• pp.3-19
• /
• 2020

With the advent of the Free Trade Agreement between Korea and the U.S. and an increase in trade volume between the two countries, the possibility of commercial disputes has escalated among international merchants. It has been well-known that arbitration as an alternative dispute resolution is an efficient way to resolve international commercial disputes. When arbitral awards are enforced in the judicial system, the court will inevitably have to be involved with the enforcement procedures. The court is a typical legal entity to confirm arbitral awards. Through a confirmation process, the winning party obtains the same legal status of final judgment rendered by the court. However, a winning party in arbitration will have to overcome a legal hurdle in the enforcement process of arbitral awards. This article aims to investigate how the courts control the arbitration practices and what the basic legal issues in the enforcement of arbitral awards are. The US Federal Arbitration Act is investigated, while relevant cases are reviewed and updated for legal analysis.

• 한국산학기술학회논문지
• /
• 제21권11호
• /
• pp.291-300
• /
• 2020

대중음악의 표절에 대한 논쟁은 다양한 미디어 매체를 통해 끊이지 않고 있다. 최근 트로트 장르에 대한 표절이수가 상당수 발생하며 또다시 대중음악의 멜로디 관용구에 대한 관심이 높아지고 있지만 그 기준이나 해석에 대한 해답은 어디에서도 찾기 힘들다. 논란의 배경에는 표절음악에 대한 객관적인 기준 없이 각자의 생각을 Youtube나 그 외 SNS로 전달하며 미디어 상에서 표절작이라는 기정사실로 확대되어 이에 대한 피해 사례도 발생하고 있다. 본 사건은 미디어상에서 대중음악 표절논란으로 시작하여 대법원 판결까지 간 첫 번째 사건으로 그 의미가 크다. 1심과 2심 법원은 멜로디, 리듬, 화음부분을 비교 검토한 결과 실질적으로 동일하다고 인정하며 저작권침해를 인정하였으나 대법원은 서울고등 법원으로 사건을 파기 환송함으로서 음악저작물의 침해 판단에 대한 법적 판단을 달리 하였다. 대법원은 1심에서 제시한 음악이 전체적으로는 저작권법에서 보호되는 창작물이라도 창작성이 없는 표현의 부분에 대해서는 보호하지 않는다는 취지를 나타내었다. 대법원은 1심 법원 판결 중 "비교대상1 부분과 원고 음악저작물 부분을 대비해 보면, 두 부분의 가락은 현저히 유사하고, 리듬도 유사하다." 라는 판시를 인용하며 "원고 대비 부분에 가해진 수정·증감이나 변경은 새로운 창작성을 더한 정도에는 이르지 아니한 것으로 보인다." 고 판단하였다. 그러므로 원고 대비 부분에 대해서 창작성을 인정하지 않았고 이 부분에 대한 원고의 복제권 등의 효력에 대해서도 인정하지 않았다. 이에 본 사건을 바탕으로 대중음악의 침해판단에서 멜로디의 본질적 특성을 비교 분석하고 음악저작물의 침해판단에 기준이 되는 실질적 유사성 판단요소와 관용구 판단 요소를 연구해 보고자 한다.