http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
- 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
- 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
RISS 인기검색어
- 검색키워드
- 저자 : 조경임 (검색결과 3,438 건)
- 무료
- 기관 내 무료
- 유료
-
-
-
협력적 공무원 노사관계 규칙 모색 : 미국 정부의 경험과 시사점
조경호(趙慶鎬) 한국정책과학학회 2003 한국정책과학학회보 Vol.7 No.2
본 연구는 미국 연방정부와 지방정부의 협력적 공무원 노사관계 발전 방향을 노사파트너십위원회와 이해기반교섭 두 가지 차원에서 설명하였으며, 미국 인디아나폴리스시의 협력적 노사관계 형성사례를 분석하여 어떤 규칙이 작용할 때 노사관계가 협력의 방향으로 나아가는지를 검토하였다. 분석결과 협력적 노사관계에 지대한 영향을 미치는 규칙들은 노사 양자의 실질적 참여, 노사 상호간 이해의 교환, 적극적 사실 노정, 노사 신뢰 등으로 나타났으며, 노사파트너십위원회 등 사회협의시스템의 도입이 협력적 노사관계의 정착을 위해 필요한 것으로 제시되었다.
-
책임보험금청구권의 우선순위 - 독일 보험계약법(VVG) 제118조를 중심으로 -
조경임 한국사법학회 2024 비교사법 Vol.31 No.2
대법원 2023. 4. 27. 선고 2021다309576 판결과 대법원 2023. 4. 27. 선고 2017다239014 판결은 화재로 인해 여러 피해자가 발생한 경우 피해자의 직접청구권과 다른 피해자에게 화재보험금을 지급한 손해보험사가 그 피해자를 대위하여 행사하는 직접청구권 사이에서 전자가 우선한다는 새로운 법리로 제시하고 있다. 그밖에도 위 두 건의 판결은 다양한 쟁점에 대해 새로운 해석을 내리고 있는데, 피해자를 대위하는 손해보험사(직접청구권자)가 가해자의 책임보험사(직접지급의무자)인 경우, 책임보험금의 지급을 구하는 이가 다른 피해자인지 아니면 그 다른 피해자를 대위하는 손해보험사인지에 따라 혼동의 효과 발생 여부가 달라질 수 있다는 판단이 대표적이다. 하나의 보험사고로 인해 다수의 피해자가 발생한 경우, 책임보험금만으로는 모든 피해를 보상하지 못하는 상황에서 여러 청구권자들 사이의 우열에 관해서는 명문의 규정이 없고 그동안 별다른 논의가 이루어지지 않았다. 위 대법원 판결들은 책임보험제도 및 보험자대위(상법 제682조)제도, 피해자의 직접청구권(상법 제724조)을 규정한 취지 등을 논거로 삼아 비교적 합리적인 결론을 이끌어 내고 있으나, 동시에 현행법의 해석으로는 해결하기 어려운 여러 문제점이 상존하고 있는 현실을 보여준다. 독일 보험계약법(VVG) 제118조는 의무책임보험금을 여러 보험금청구자들에게 어떤 순서로 지급하여야 하는지에 대해 규율하고 있다. 그리고 의무책임보험자에게 여러 피해자들의 청구권을 조사하고 그 액수를 계산하여 책임보험금을 적절히 분배할 의무를 지우고 있으며, 제119조는 피해자의 책무에 대해서 정하고 있다. 이러한 독일 보험계약법의 규정들은 우리의 입법 방향을 고민하는 데에 유용한 길잡이가 될 수 있을 것이다. The Supreme Court's ruling(2021 DA 309576) and the Supreme Court's ruling(2017 DA 239014) set forth a new legal principle that if a fire causes multiple victims and the liability insurance fund cannot cover the damages of all the victims, the victim who exercises the right of direct claim will be paid in priority to the fire insurer who pays the fire insurance fund to the other victims and then subrogates the victim. The two decisions also shed new light on a variety of issues, including the determination that where the insurer on behalf of the victim (the direct claimant) is also the liability insurer of the perpetrator (the direct payer), whether confusion may occur depends on whether it is the other victim or the insurer on behalf of the other victim who is seeking payment of the liability insurance proceeds. In the case of multiple victims of a single insured accident, the priority of the various claimants in a situation where the liability insurance proceeds alone do not cover all the damages is not clearly defined and has not been discussed. The above Supreme Court decisions have drawn relatively reasonable conclusions based on the purpose of the liability insurance system, the system of insurer subrogation (Article 682 of the Commercial Code), and the victim's direct claim (Article 724 of the Commercial Code), but at the same time, they have identified a number of problems that are difficult to solve through the interpretation of the current law. Article 118 of the German Insurance Contracts Act (VVG) governs the order in which compulsory liability insurance proceeds must be paid to multiple claimants. It obliges the insurer to investigate the claims of the various victims, calculate their amounts, and distribute the liability insurance proceeds appropriately. Article 119 provides for the liability of the victim. These provisions of the German Insurance Contracts Act can serve as a useful guide for our own legislation.
-
-
-
-
조경임 한국민사법학회 2015 民事法學 Vol.73 No.-
The Supreme Court has traditionally ruled that the pledgee has preferential right to payment, and thus the holder of opposite-demand (the third debtor) cannot contest pledge using setoff. This shows that the court recognizes the fact that setoff functions as a means of private enforcement and thus considers holders of setoff rights as a competing creditor. This is a reasonable standpoint. As setoff functions in reality as a means of private execution, this reality should be considered when granting or denying setoff rights. However, the ruling in question(2013da91672) states that provided that the expectation of setoff is reasonable, it can be used to contest pledge granted by way of security to pledged claim. Pledge has priority over credit, regardless of the timing of their formation. Therefore, it is natural to concluded that even if the expectation of setoff was established before the pledge, setoff cannot be given priority over pledge. The ruling in question states that as long as a creditor’s expectation of setoff is reasonable, it cannot be damaged by ex post facto grounds such as the establishment of pledge granted by way of security. However, it is disputable that “reasonable expectation of setoff" is a concept with any factual substance that cannot be damaged once established. Until now, this issue has been discussed in relation to the interpretation of Article 498 of the Civil Act where said interested parties are (provisional) seizure obligees. The ruling in question appears to be based on such existing discussions of Article 498 of the Civil Act. However, interested parties shoud be distinguished between (provisional) seizure obligees and real right holders. If the enforcement function of setoff is not disregarded, the priority of real right to credit should also be considered as ground to limit setoff rights. Thus, the correct ruling in the case in question should be that the loan creditor cannot contest the lease right(chonsegwon)-mortgagee with setoff.
-
조경임,전동운,Ahn Hyo Seung,진동규,이현상,Lee Jong-Young,Lim Hong-Seok,Manolis Athanasios J.,Rha Seung-Woon,Park Sang Won 대한고혈압학회 2021 Clinical Hypertension Vol.27 No.2
Background: BENEFIT-KOREA (BEnefits after 24 weeks of NEbivolol administration For essential hypertensIon patients wiTh various comorbidities and treatment environments in Korea) study, an observational study in South Korea, demonstrated the efficacy and safety of nebivolol in Asian patients with essential hypertension with and without comorbidities in real-world settings. We present a subanalysis of the efficacy and safety of nebivolol across age and sex in the BENEFIT-KOREA cohort. Methods: Adult South Korean patients with essential hypertension participated in the prospective, single-arm, open, observational BENEFIT-KOREA study; 3011 patients received nebivolol as monotherapy or add-on therapy. Changes in systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP), and pulse rate at 12 and 24 weeks were evaluated. Participants were divided into three age groups—young males and females: < 50 years; middleaged males and females: ≥50 years to < 70 years; and older males and females: ≥70 years. Results: The mean age of study participants was 63.5 ± 12.9 years; majority were between 50 and 69 years of age and 40.4% were females. A significant decrease was observed in mean SBP, DBP, and pulse rate from baseline at 12 and 24 weeks in males and females across all age groups analyzed (all P < 0.001 vs. baseline), with no significant difference in mean reduction in SBP and DBP from baseline between sex within the age groups. Majority of reported adverse events were mild. The incidence of adverse events was lower in young participants versus middleaged and older participants. Conclusions: Our subanalysis from the real-world BENEFIT-KOREA study in Asian patients with essential hypertension demonstrated the efficacy and safety of once-daily nebivolol across age groups with no between-sex differences. Trial registration: Name of the registry: clinicaltrials.gov. Trial registration number: NCT03847350. Date of registration: February 20, 2019 retrospectively registered.
-
연관 검색어 추천
이 검색어로 많이 본 자료
활용도 높은 자료
