φ-features and Discourse-agreement features

( Sungran Koh ) 대한영어영문학회 2013 영어영문학연구 Vol.39 No.2

Agreement is one of the most familiar and well-studied parts of grammar. Many languages have distinct patterns depending on a range of language families. In general, some languages have been identified as an agreement-based language, whereas others are discourse-configurational languages. Miyagawa (2005) has categorized languages as agreement or focus prominent, depending on the type of grammatical features (discourse or agreement) they allow to inherit from C to T. Some languages have been identified as agreement-based languages, highlighting agreement markings such as in English. On the other hand, other languages are discourse-configurational languages, emphasizing on discourse functions such as in Japanese. Miyagawa (2010) argues that in agreement languages, the φ-probe triggers movement at T, whereas in discourse-configurational languages, topic/focus triggers movement at T. The φ-feature agreement and topic/focus are computationally equivalent in narrow syntax. Miyagawa (2010) claims that Korean is considered as a discourse-configurational language. However, in this paper, I claim that there is a third category which has both agreement and discourse features and that Korean is an example of this type of language. To support this, I analyze Korean as a discourse-prominent language by using Miyagawa's (2010) proposal. The analyses are based on the following: Subject agreement, Inheritance of topic/focus features from C to T, and Pro-drop. At the same time, I suggest that Korean is also an agreement-prominent language through imperatives and promissives, honorification, and the blocking effect. My analyses justify my theory of combination languages which are based on both agreement features and discourse features. (UC Santa Barbara)

Thirty Years of the Moon Agreement : its retrospect and prospect

KIM Han-Taek(김한택) 대한국제법학회 2010 國際法學會論叢 Vol.55 No.1

국제법상 달에 대한 관심은 1979년에 제정된 ‘달협정’(Moon Treaty; 원래명칭은 “달과 다른 천체에 관한 국가활동을 규제하는 협정”, Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies)의 제정에서 시작되었는데 이는 5개의 우주관련조약 중에서 중요한 부분을 차지하고 있음에도 불구하고 제정된 지 30년이 되어 가는데 우주개발국가들에게 외면당해 왔다. 2009년 12월이 마침 달협정 제정의 30년이 되는 해이므로 이 협정의 국제법적 의미를 분석하고 그것을 전망해 보는 데에 그 의미가 있을 것이다. 현재 달협정의 비준국은 호주, 오스트리아, 벨기에, 칠레, 카자흐스탄, 레바논, 멕시코, 모로코, 네덜란드, 파키스탄, 페루, 필리핀, 우루과이 등 13개국 정도이며, 프랑스, 과테말라, 인도, 루마니아가 서명국인데 우주개발국 중 프랑스만이 유일하게 서명국이고, 가입국 대부분이 비우주개발국이라고 할 수 있다. 따라서 미국과 러시아, 영국을 비롯한 선진우주개발국들은 가입하지 않았고, 한국, 중국, 일본도 아직 가입하지 않고 있다. 이 연구에서는 우선 달협정의 주요내용과 그 의미를 설명하였고 특히 1967년 우주조약(Space Treaty)과의 관계를 분석한 후 달협정에 명시된 ‘인류공동유산’(Common Heritage of Mankind)개념이 국제법상 어떠한 의미를 가지는가를 살펴보았다. 아울러 달협정의 국제법적 의미와 전망에 관하여 그리고 한국이 현재 달협정에 가입하고 있지 않은데, 달협정에 가입하는 것이 국익에 유리한가 하는 문제도 다루었다. 달협정의 핵심은 인류공동유산개념인데 이와 관련된 조항은 제11조이다. 우선 제11조 1항에서 달과 그것의 천연자원은 ‘인류공동의 유산’이라고 명시하고 있고, 제11조 2항은 1967년 우주조약 제2조와 동일하게 달은 주권의 주장, 사용이나 점령, 기타 어떠한 수단에 의해서도 국가전유의 대상이 될 수 없다는 ‘비전유원칙’(principle of non-appropriation)을 재확인하고 있다. 또한 제11조 3항에서 달의 표면 또는 그 지하, 달의 어느 부분이나 달에 위치한 천연자원은 어느 국가, 정부 간 또는 비정부간 국제기구, 국가기관, 비정부간 기관 또는 어떠한 자연인의 재산이 될 수 없으며 달의 표면이나 그 지하에 사람, 우주차량, 장비, 시설물, 기지 및 군사시설은 달의 표면이나 지하를 연결한 구조물과 함께 달의 표면이나 지하 또는 어느 지역에 대한 소유권을 창설하지 않는다고 하고, 이는 제11조 5항에 언급된 ‘국제제도’(international regime)를 손상하지 않는다고 규정하고 있다. ‘달의 천연자원의 개발이 가능해질’(exploitation of the natural resources of the Moon is about to become feasible)시기에 국제제도를 수립해야 한다는 제11조 5항의 규정은 국제제도의 수립 전에는 자원개발을 금지하는 것을 의미하는가? 그러나 달협정의 제정과정을 살펴보면 국제제도의 수립 전에 달과 다른 천체의 천연자원에 대한 개발유예는 예정되지 않았다고 해석해야 된다. 그러나 이것은 그와 같은 개발에 어떠한 제한이나 한계가 없음을 의미하는 것은 아니고 달과 다른 천체는 인류공동유산영역이므로 모든 개발가는 그들이 인류공동유산인 천연자원을 개발하고 있음을 명심할 것이 요구된다. 필자는 작년에 한국외교통상부에「달 협정의 내용 및 우리나라의 비준가능성 검토」라는 보고서를 통하여 달협정에 가입하는 것이 국익에 유익하다고 밝힌 바 있는데 그 이유는 달의 천연자원의 개발이 가능해질 시기에 국제제도를 수립해야 한다는 규정은 국제제도의 수립 전에는 자원개발을 금지하는 것을 의미하는 것이 아니므로 국가들로서는 달협정에 가입하고 자원개발을 추구하는 방법이 좋을 것 같다는 의견이다. 오히려 달협정 제11조 7항에서 동 자원으로부터 파생하는 이익을 모든 당사국에게 공평하게 분배하되 달의 개발에 직접 또는 간접적으로 공헌한 국가의 노력은 물론 개발도상국의 이익과 필요에 대한 특별한 고려가 있어야 한다는 규정을 보면 우선 달협정 가입을 적극적으로 고려하고 달개발에 착수하는 방법이 국익에 도움이 될 것으로 생각한다. The United Nations General Assembly approved the text of an international agreement to govern the activities of States on the Moon and other celestial bodies, and opened the agreement for signature and ratification on 18 December 1979. The title of that agreement is "Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies (so-called Moon Agreement or Moon Treaty)". On that date, the agreement was signed by 6 nations -Chile, France, Romania, the Philippines, Austria and Morocco - at the United Nations Headquarter in New York. The year 2009 marks the 30th Anniversary of the conclusion of the 1979 Moon Agreement. Although the Moon Agreement is one of the 5 major space-related treaties, it has been accepted only by 13 states - Australia, Austria, Belgium, Chile, Kazakhstan, Lebanon, Mexico, Morocco, Netherlands, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Uruguay - which are non-space powers, and so could not have had much influence on the field of space law. France, Guatemala, India and Romania have signed, but have not ratified it. Neither the United States, nor Russia, nor China, nor United Kingdom signed the treaty. Indeed, international acceptance of the Moon Agreement has been so weak that in the opinion of most jurists, the norms enshrined in that treaty failed to attain the force of customary international law. This article analyses the relationship between the 1979 Moon Agreement and the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, and discusses the meaning of the "Common Heritage of Mankind (CHM)" stipulated in the Moon Agreement, together with the prospect and future of the Moon Agreement. Article 11(1) of the Moon Agreement stipulates that "[t]he Moon and its natural resources are the common heritage of mankind, which finds its expression in the provisions of this Agreement and in particular in paragraph 5 of this article." According to Professor Bin Cheng, the concept of CHM stipulated in the Moon Agreement created a whole new territory in international law. This concept basically conveys the idea that the management, exploitation and distribution of natural resources of the area in question are matters to be decided by the international community, not something left to an initiative and discretion of individual States and their nationals. Similar provision is found in the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention for the International Sea-bed Authority created by the concept of CHM. According to the Moon Agreement, international regime will be established as the exploitation of the natural resources of the celestial bodies other than the Earth is about to become feasible. Before the establishment of an international regime, we could imagine moratorium upon the exploitation of the natural resources on the celestial bodies. But, considering the drafting history of the Moon Agreement, there would not be any moratorium on the exploitation of natural resources, prior to the setting up of the international regime. So, each State Party could exploit the natural resources with bearing in mind that those resources are CHM. Because the Moon Agreement stipulated that the efforts of those countries which have contributed either directly or indirectly the exploitation of the Moon shall be given special consideration, the possibility of acceptance of the Moon Agreement by states would be increased with the development of exploration and exploitation of the natural resources of the Moon. In this respect, it would be better for Korea, which currently is not a party to the Moon Agreement, to be a member state thereto in the near future. In 2008, I proposed Korean Government to accept the Moon Agreement in “[t]he Report concerning the Contents of the Moon Agreement and Korean Government's Ratification” which was submitted to Korea Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade. If Korea accept the Moon Agreement, it will encourage other Asian countries to accept that treaty.

다자간 협정과 2국간 협정에 관한 비교연구 -일・ASEAN EPA와 일・태국 EPA를 중심으로-

후쿠다 신야 한국무역경영학회 2023 한국무역경영연구 Vol.- No.31

This paper conducted a comparative study on multilateral and bilateral agreements, taking AJCEP and the Japan-Thailand EPA as examples. Japan has concluded bilateral agreements with more than half of ASEAN member states, but the EPA with ASEAN as a whole has been under negotiation for about three years. In December 2008, the EPA finally came into effect between Japan and ASEAN as a whole, enabling Japan to benefit greatly through AJCEP. Reading through the agreement between the two EPAs, it was confirmed that AJCEP recognizes regional origin as a major advantage. As a result, trade activities between Japan and ASEAN countries will become smoother and will have a significant impact on the business strategies of many Japanese companies, including Japanese companies operating in ASEAN countries. About 15 years have passed since the AJCEP came into effect, and new agreements are being concluded one after another with countries and regions around the world. 1990년대 이후, 전세계에서 다자간 협정이 활발히 체결되고 있다. 최근에는 2022년 1월에 동남아시아국가연합(Association of Southeast Asian Nations: ASEAN) 10개국(브루나이, 캄보디아, 인도네시아, 라오스, 말레이시아, 미얀마, 필리핀, 싱가포르, 태국, 베트남)과 한국, 일본, 중국, 호주, 뉴질랜드의 총 15개국이 참여한 역내포괄적경제동반자협정(Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement: RCEP)이 발효되는 등 일본에서도 적극적으로 다자간 협정을 체결하고 있다. 일본은 그동안 세계무역기구(World Trade Agreement: WTO) 정책을 우선으로 생각해 왔다는 점에서 자유무역협정(Free Trade Agreement: FTA)을 체결하는 것에 대해 소극적인 입장을 취해 왔다. 그러나 WTO에서의 다자간 무역 협상이 정체되는 한편, 전세계에서 활발하게 FTA가 체결되고 있는 추세에 촉발되는 흐름 속에서 점차 경제동반자협정(Economic Partnership Agreement: EPA) 체결 건수를 증가시켜 왔다. 2022년 2월 현재, 일본이 서명 및 발효한 협정은 21건이다. 2국간 협정뿐만 아니라 RCEP를 비롯한 일·ASEAN EPA(Agreement on Comprehensive Economic Partnership among Japan and Member States of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations: AJCEP)과 포괄적・점진적 환태평양경제동반자협정(Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership: CPTPP, 통칭 TPP11), 일·EU EPA과 같은 다자간 협정도 적극적으로 체결하고 있다. 다른 국가와 지역에서도 다양한 형태로 무역권이 형성되고 있다. 1992년에는 ASEAN 국가 간에서 ASEAN 자유무역협정(ASEAN Free Trade Area: AFTA)이 형성됨으로써 동아시아 지역에서의 지역경제협력이 가속화되고, 1995년에는 남미에서 남미 공동 시장(MERCOSUR)이 발족됨으로써 남미 역내 무역권이 형성되어 더욱 경제성장을 이룰 것으로 전망된다. 또한, 1993년에 마스트리히트 조약에 의해 형성된 유럽연합(European Union: EU)은 점차 참가국을 확대시켜, 많은 국가 및 지역 간에서 FTA를 체결하고 있다. 또한, 1994년에는 북미에서 북미 자유무역협정(North America Free Trade Agreement: NAFTA)이 발효되어, 미국 시장을 중심으로 한 큰 경제권이 형성되었다. 2020년 7월에는 주로 환경 및 노동에 관한 법제를 강화하는 형태로 미국·멕시코·캐나다 협정(United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement: USMCA)으로 대체되어 더욱 공고한 협정으로 거듭났다. 전세계에서는 그 이외에도 많은 FTA가 발효되고 있으며, 2023년 1월 현재, WTO에 통보된 FTA는 386건에 달한다. 상기에서 언급한 바와 같이, 최근에는 전세계 각국・각 지역에서 활발히 FTA가 체결되고 있다. 일본이 AJCEP와 ASEAN 각국과의 2국간 협정을 체결한 것처럼, 전세계에는 한 국가와 2개 이상의 협정을 체결하고 있는 국가들이 많다. 이러한 경우, 해당 협정 간에서 품목에 따라 관세 철폐 시기와 관세 삭감률이 유동적이라고 할 수 있다. 본 논문에서는 한 국가와 2개 이상의 협정을 체결하고 있는 국가가 상황에 따라 적절한 협정을 적용할 수 있도록 각 협정 내용들을 파악하는 것을 목적으로 하여, AJCEP와 일·태국 EPA 협정문을 비교하는 방법으로 연구를 수행하고자 한다. 본 논문에서 연구를 수행하는데에 있어서는 관세율, 특혜세율, 원산지 규정에 대해서도 언급하도록 한다.

M&A계약상 불가침협약과 이사의 신인의무 -미국법상 불가침협약의 준수와 신인의무 위반의 상관관계를 중심으로-

김범준 ( Beom Joon Kim ) 홍익대학교 법학연구소 2016 홍익법학 Vol.17 No.1

Standstill agreements have become a common standard features of the public company sales process but, despite this prevalence, courts and academics have seemed that they have not fully addressed the role of standstills in the sales process or whether they contribute in maximizing shareholder value. That is, despite their functions and advantages, standstill agreements can create a conflict between a target board’s duty to maximize shareholder value in a sale of control, or Revlon duty, and the board’s ability to protect an executed agreement as permitted by the Delaware Supreme Court’s decision in Unocal and its progeny. The conflict is particularly apparent after the target has executed a merger agreement with a winning bidder and a losing bidder makes a higher offer for the target in violation of the standstill agreement. Thus, this article tries to draw a legally and practically reasonable resolution by reviewing and analyzing the U.S. related theories and case laws. In sum, although the Delaware courts have ruled that standstill agreements are not per se inadmissible, the court may consider them invalid, especially when the observance of standstill agreements conflicts with the target board’s Revlon duty. In this context, this article suggests that if deal makers continue using certain standstill agreements, then they should be paired with a fiduciary out and a termination fee so that a bidder bound by such standstill agreements should be able to request a waiver if it can set forth compelling and clearly delineated reasons that it would like to increase its bid. Through this approach, using standstill agreements could be consistent with the precedents as well as the rule of the maximization of shareholder value (Revlon duty). Moreover, in determining whether the target board may consider a third party’s higher offer in contravention of the standstill agreement, we need to consider the purpose of the board’s action under the circumstances of each case. Specifically, the board should articulate a valid value maximization purpose and is not acting to further its own self-interest, be reasonable in its decision-making regarding how many bidders submitted offers and the board considered in pre-signing stage, and the third party’s offer should be a bona fide one grounded with its real intent and ability to close the transaction. As shortly mentioned in Part Ⅰ., the M&A market is expected to extend globally and nationally in Korea in the near future and, thus, the number of M&A contracts that adopt standstill agreements and the number of disputes due to them would increase. Therefore, it is desirable and would provide us with some significant implications in construing and applying Korean law to explore and analyze the U.S. related theories and case laws in order to prepare future disputes in Korea and draw a reasonable conclusion with regard to using those standstill agreements.

리스금융에 있어서 중도해지에 대한 고찰

윤창술(Yoon, ChangSul) 한양법학회 2009 漢陽法學 Vol.27 No.-

Lease agreement, a new form of commercial activity, so far has no legal specifics stipulated on the basis of the Commercial Law as to prescribe the rights and duties of both parties and relied solely on stipulations and interpretations, which in consequence generated a variety of disputes. To deal with this problem, amendments were made to the Commercial Law with regard to lease agreements, and notice of legislation was advanced in August 6, 2008. That is, in order to stipulate legal specifics on lease agreements in the Commercial Law, which has so far relied on practical stipulations, separate chapters and sections were newly incorporated into the amendments to specifically provide such concerns as the basic rights and duties of both principals of an agreement. By stipulating the amendments in the Commercial Law as such, an attempt was made to secure a legal stability in commercial transactions. Concerning the classification of lease agreement, the amendments, while reflecting No. 19 of Article 46 in the current Commercial Law, perceive it as a financial transaction (physical finance), which is different from a rental agreement, so as to confine the definition of financial lease business to a finance lease on the basis of the Commercial Law, and, by interpreting operating lease as ‘rental agreements for other property’ in No. 2 of Article 46 in the Commercial Law, distinguish finance lease and operating lease clearly according to their legal properties. Regarding finance lease, however, a problem remains where ownership in terms of taxation and accounting and ownership in a legal sense disagree. So, as an effort to coordinate with the classification system of taxation and accounting, it seems that ownership in terms of taxation and accounting had better be awarded to the lease company in a finance lease agreement. In the mean time, as it was pointed that most of the current stipulations for lease agreement fail to properly protect the users of lease agreements by not allowing them to cancel the agreements before maturity, exceptions have been made to the stipulations so as to allow cancellations before maturity if the user has an acceptable reason for cancellation. For operating lease, the conflicts involving cancellations before maturity are being settled according to the legal principles of rental agreement. However, as far as the defects liability and the maintenance liability for the object of operating lease is concerned, if the current stipulations were followed, which reflect the characteristics of lease agreement and, as a result, differ from those in the Civil Law, there comes a problem in which the stipulations become inconsistent with the legal principles of the Civil Law behind rental agreement. A further discussion on this matter would be necessary in the future.

국제법의 법원(法源)으로서 1992년 남북기본합의서의 성격

류병운 ( Byung Woon Lyou ) 홍익대학교 법학연구소 2012 홍익법학 Vol.13 No.4

The Agreement on Reconciliation, Non-aggression, and Exchanges and Cooperation between South and North Korea (``the Basic Agreement of South and North Korea`` or the ``Inter-Korean Basic Agreement``) is a frame convention of inter-Korean relationship to go the way of unification. The Administrative Government and Courts of South Korea are denying the binding effect of the Agreement as a gentlemen`s agreement. Even though North Korea recognized legal binding effect of the Agreement at its early stage, it declaimed to abolish the Agreement in 2009. Particularly the North abrogated the provisions of the Agreement concerning the Northern Limit Line, a kind of military demarcation line between the South and the North in the Western (Yellow) Sea. The Agreement was adopted by South and North Koreas in 1991, is the legal frame to administer the whole process for the peaceful unification through the accomplishment of national reconciliation by removing political and military confrontation, avoiding armed clash or invasion, and datente as well as peace security. For example, under the current relationship between South and North Koreas, the approaches to the issues about North Korea`s nuclear test and development or the issues about NLL in the Western (Yellow) Sea would be regulated more effectively based on the Agreement and the (local) customary international law against NLL. However, the government and courts of South Korea has denied the legality of the Agreement just after the agreement was signified. The reasons for denial were generally that neither the Agreement was intended as a legal binding treaty by the creators of both South and North Koreas, nor the procedure for a treaty has be completed due to the absence of domestic ratification process. The Agreement, however, could be recognized as a simplified treaty because the Agreement became effective as at Feb. 18th, 1992 and qualified for a perfect treaty form such as specific regulation for rights and obligations, the existence of preamble, the expression of agreed on the preamble, the form of provisions, effectiveness provision in article 25, correction and supplementary provision in article 24. Particularly, the Agreement was negotiated and agreed in the furtherance of the Declaration on Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula of South Korea in 1991, a unilateral act of state, which could be considered a legally binding source. Therefore the Agreement, as agreement in simplified form Like an executive agreement of the United States which would become effective only by a signature, is a treaty and accordingly legally binding to South and North Koreas. Based on international law sources, the Administrative Government and Courts of South Korea should rebuild the legal effect of the Agreement.

북아일랜드의 평화구축 과정: 평화협정을 중심으로

황수환 한국외국어대학교 국제지역연구센터 2017 국제지역연구 Vol.21 No.4

Peace agreements are high-degree political results that aim to solve conflicts that exist between opposing parties in various forms. To understand the resolution process of conflicts, it is necessary to analyze peace agreements. This paper takes readers through peace agreements that were signed in the midst of the resolution process in Northern Ireland including Anglo-Irish Agreement, Downing Street Declaration, A New Framework Agreement, Good Friday Agreement, and Agreement at St. Andrews for the purpose of understanding the peace building process. This paper also attempts to formalize the peace agreements. When formalized, the peace agreements forged in the midst of the peace building process in Northern Ireland shows several characteristics. First, through numerous preliminary basic agreements and revision during the peace building process, trust was built between the parties. Second, the Northern Ireland case reveals that peace building needs several agreements between concerning parties through multiple steps rather than being finalized by a single peace agreement. Third, for the disarmament of the paramilitary forces to take place, which was the main issue, action agenda was defined in the actual fundamental agreement after implementation organizations were managed by complementary agreements. This paper also concludes that the peace process proceeds through normalization process for mutual trust building and consensus, institutionalization process to resolve main conflicts, and practical process of executing the implementation organization. 본 논문은 분쟁을 해결하고 평화를 구축하기 위한 목적으로 체결된 북아일랜드의 평화협정들을 유형화하는 데 목적이 있다. 이에 북아일랜드 분쟁의 해결과정에서 체결된 평화협정문인 ‘앵글로-아이리쉬 협정’, ‘다우닝가 선언’, ‘북아일랜드 신 기본협정’, ‘성금요일 협정’, ‘성앤드류 협정’ 등을 통해 평화구축 과정을 살펴보고 평화협정에 대한 유형화를 시도했다. 북아일랜드의 평화구축과정에서 체결된 평화협정을 유형화하여 분석한 결과를 보면 첫째, 다수의 예비적 기초협정을 통해 평화를 이행하는 과정에서 시행착오를 보완, 수정하여 충분한 상호 신뢰 구축 과정을 진행했다. 둘째, 평화구축의 과정이 어느 하나의 평화협정 체결로 완성되는 것이 아니라 이해관계가 있는 각 당사자 간 여러 협정이 체결되는 과정을 거듭해야 함을 발견했다. 셋째, 분쟁의 핵심 쟁점인 준군사조직의 무장해제와 관련하여 실질적 기본협정에서 실천사항을 규정한 뒤 보완적 이행협정을 통해 이행기구를 관리하는 방식으로 해결했다. 북아일랜드의 평화협정 체결 사례를 통해 평화구축의 과정이 어느 하나의 평화협정 체결로 완성되는 것이 아니라 이해관계가 있는 각 당사자 간 여러 협정이 체결되는 과정을 거듭해야 함을 확인했다. 또한 평화의 과정은 상호 신뢰 구축과 공감대 형성을 위한 규범화 과정, 핵심문제 해결을 위한 제도화 과정, 제도의 이행기구를 실행하는 실천화 과정으로 진행된다는 점을 발견했다.

변호사(辯護士) 선임계약(選任契約)의 고찰

가정준 ( Ka Jung-joon ) 한국외국어대학교 법학연구소 2005 외법논집 Vol.18 No.-

An agreement on the attorneys fee is a subject of contractual relationship between the attorney and his or her client. There are three forms of attorneys fee agreement and its classification depends on how the client pays for the legal service his or her attorney has performed. Generally, attorneys fee is classified into fixed fee, contingency fee, and modified contingency fee. In Korea, modified contingency fee is the most popular form of attorneys fee agreement and it consists of fixed fee and contingency fee. Traditionally, use of contingency fee agreement has been widely criticized because of its unethical nature, although the Korean courts have not ruled that it is a void contract itself. The basic legal aspect of attorneys contract is delegation. However, the legal aspect of attorneys contract made by the contingent fee agreement can be differently classified into undertaking contract if focusing on the accomplishment or winning of legal works. The modified contingency agreement can be classified into either delegation or undertaking contract, depending on the nature of attorneys contract. The important issue involving delegation and undertaking contract is whether the attorney has fiduciary duties in his or her contract. However, such argument is not practical because normally, most contents of the contract are already covered and particularized by the parties involved. The use of contingency fee agreement causes some problems. First of all, it has a negative impact on the traditional role of attorney. An attorney who represents his or her clients is also obliged to play a public role and it is very important for achieving social justice. Many legal scholars have been concerned with this matter while they have also emphasized the negative effects of using contingency fee. However, the contingency fee in legal service market has been commonly used and widespread under the modified contingency fee agreement. Such agreement has been made between attorney and the client without any limitation. The fixed fee agreement also causes several problems. More seriously, most of legal scholars have overlooked these problems from the fixed fee agreement. The nature of relationship between attorney and the client is not equal because of the asymmetry of information. The unequal nature of relationship is likely to render moral hazard by attorney. The problem of moral hazard is unlikely to disappear under the fixed fee agreement. A designed contract preventing moral hazard or solving the asymmetric information is likely to resolve the problems from the fixed fee agreement. The contingent fee agreement is alternative to pass away these problems. However, the nature of the contingent fee agreement has its limits to prevent them. That is why the contingent fee agreement is not allowed in criminal and domestic cases in the United States. In Korea, few legal scholars have argued both problems of fixed fee and contingent fee agreement. That causes contingent fee agreement widespread in most cases with the combination of a fixed fee. Legal scholars should reconsider the effects of attorneys fee on legal service market and clients.

한반도 평화협정과 안전보장 프로세스

이헌경 ( Hun Kyung Lee ) 한국세계지역학회 2018 世界地域硏究論叢 Vol.36 No.3

한반도는 정전협정 체결 이후 남북한이 법적으로 적대관계를 일시 멈춘 전시 상태에 머무르고 있다. 이러한 상태를 주지하면서 본 논문은 한반도 평화협정과 안전보장 프로세스를 비핵화와 연관해 그 쟁점과 방향을 고찰하고 있다. 이를 위해 조약, 협정, 합의, 성명, 선언, 정전협정, 평화협정, 평화조약의 개념과 사례 그리고 한반도 평화와 평화협정의 의미, 북한의 대미 잠정협정과 평화협정 체결 주장, 한국의 종전선언 제외와 평화협정 체결 주장 등을 분석하고 있다. 그리고 평화협정과 전쟁예방을 위한 협정, 조약의 실패가 주는 교훈을 사례 분석을 통해 진단하고, 평화협정과 연관된 쟁점과 사례 분석을 통해 얻어진 내용을 토대로 한반도가 나아가야 할 방향을 제시하고 있다. The Korean Peninsula remains in a state of war after signing of the armistice agreement with North and South Koreas legally suspended hostile relations. Keeping in mind the situation, this paper discusses the issues and directions of the peace agreement and security process on the Korean Peninsula in relation to denuclearization. To do so, this analyze the concepts and cases as to treaty, agreement, statement, declaration, armistice agreement, peace agreement, and peace treaty as well as meaning of the Korean Peninsula peace and peace agreement, North Korea's interim and peace agreements with the U. S., and South Korea’s claim to signing of the peace agreement and offering of declaration ending of Korean war. And this diagnoses the lessons of the peace agreement, agreements for the war prevention, and failure of the agreements and treaties through case analysis, and suggests the direction that the Korean Peninsula proceeds based on the information obtained issues and case studies in connection with the peace agreement.

화해계약에서 창설된 법률관계상의 의무에 대한 불이행의 효과 - 영미법상 executory accord와 substituted contract 법리의 시사점 - - 대법원 2018. 6. 28. 선고 2018다201702 판결 -

천병주,김제완 법조협회 2020 法曹 Vol.69 No.1

The Supreme Court Decision in case no. 2018Da201702 brings into focus the constitutive effects of settlement (or comprise) agreement and the enforceable legal remedies for noncompliance in the case of failure to fulfill the legal obligations established by the settlement agreement. In the subject supreme court decision making process, the court interprets the 'special agreement' as a 'condition precedent', which allows to deny the validity of the settlement agreement itself. The current results may reflect a technique used as a mean to rescue to the other party's rights in the case that legal obligations established by the settlement agreement are not fulfilled. While 'condition precedent' has the advantage of simplifying the legal relationship by the nullification of the legal relationship in settlement agreement, it leaves the processing of the implemented parts unsolved, and is not in alignment with respecting the nature of the reconciliatory system in performing end-to-end resolution of a dispute. Here, we propose an alternative approach in decision to this case, where the 'special agreement' is made to partially limit the constitutive effects of the settlement agreement. We argue that the current alterative of a partial limitation may allow relief for the other party while simultaneously confirm the validity of the 'special agreement'. Considering the limited ongoing discussion regarding enforceable legal remedies and subsequent constitutive effects in the case of noncompliance to legal obligations in settlement agreement, we hope that the current case discussed may lead to more active research on settlement agreement. Our current alternative proposal in decision making processes provide a practical approach to similar cases in the future, and contribute to further research on settlement agreement. 대상판결은 화해계약의 창설적 효력 및 화해계약에 의하여 창설된 법률관계상의 의무를 이행하지 않은 경우 상대방의 권리구제수단에 관하여 많은 점을 생각하게 하는 사례이다. 대상판결에서는 이 사건 합의서의 특약을 정지조건으로 해석하였는데, 화해계약에 의하여 창설된 법률관계상의 의무를 이행하지 않은 경우 상대방의 권리구제수단으로 화해계약의 효력 자체를 부인하는 기법으로 정지조건을 활용한 것으로 이해될 수 있다. 그러나 이와 같이 정지조건은 화해로 인한 법률관계를 무효화시키는 점에서 법률관계를 간명히 한다는 장점이 있는 반면, 기이행부분의 처리 문제가 남고 분쟁의 종국적 해결이라는 화해제도의 본질적 특성을 제대로 존중하지 않는 기법이다. 사견으로는 이와 같은 상황에서 상대방의 구제수단으로 화해계약의 창설적 효력을 부분적으로 제한하는 의미로 이 사건 특약을 둔 것으로 해석하는 한편, 이와 같은 특약이 유효함을 확인하였더라면 더 좋았을 것으로 생각한다. 화해계약상 합의사항을 당사자 일방이 이행하지 않는 경우 그 법적 효과 및 상대방의 구제수단은 어떠한지와 관련하여, 그동안 학계에서는 활발한 논의가 이루어지지 않았다. 이 판례를 계기로 하여 그간 매우 빈번히 활용되면서도 실무상으로나 학술적으로 깊이 있는 논의를 하지 못하였던 화해계약에 관하여 좀 더 활발한 연구가 이루어지기를 기대한다.