헤이그협약에 따른 가족합의에 관한 실무지침 연구

이병화(Lee, Byung Hwa) 한국국제사법학회 2019 國際私法硏究 Vol.25 No.1

오늘날 아동의 최선의 이익보호는 헤이그국제사법회의를 비롯하여 일반적인 국제협력에 있어서 가장 주요한 관심사 중의 하나가 되었다. 특히 본고에서는 2017년에 채택된 ‘헤이그협약에 따른 가족합의에 관한 실무지침’을 중심으로 구체적인 내용을 살펴보고 있다. 동 헤이그가족합의 실무지침은 아동을 포함하는 가족법의 영역에서 성립된 합의가 어떻게 외국에서 승인되고 집행될 수 있는가에 관하여 상세한 근거정보를 제공하려는 데 그 목적이 있다. 여기서는 헤이그가족합의와 관련하여 세 가지 주요 헤이그협약, 즉 1980년 헤이그아동탈취협약, 1996년 헤이그아동보호협약, 2007년 헤이그아동부양협약을 중심으로 검토하고 있다. 본고는 우선 헤이그가족합의 실무지침의 목적과 적용범위, 배경과 구성등을 개괄적으로 고찰하고, 합의의 유형에 따른 기본적 검토를 하고 있다. 또한 국제가족법 합의에서 논의되는 여러 주제들을 살펴보고, 세 가지 주요 헤이그협약이 제안하는 바를 구체적으로 다루고 있다. 다음으로 전형적인 국경을 넘는 가족갈등 상황에 대한 접근방법을 논의하고, 끝으로 관련국에서 합의에 법적구속력과 집행가능성을 부여하기 위한 체크리스트 및 합의작성을 위한 권장사항에 대하여 설명하고 있다. 그러므로 헤이그가족합의에 있어서 아동탈취, 아동보호, 아동부양을 중심으로 살펴보되, 다른 국제가사사건과 관련된 헤이그협약들과의 비교법적 분석을 통해 상호 간의 연관성을 올바르게 파악하고자 한다. 헤이그가족합의 실무지침은 국경을 넘는 가족분쟁의 우호적인 해결을 권장하려는 취지에서 합의의 성립을 작성하는 방법에 초점을 맞추고 있을 뿐만 아니라, 현존하는 글로벌한 국제사법제도(1980년, 1996년 및 2007년 헤이그협약)의 협조를 통해 분쟁에 관련된 둘 이상의 국가에서 법적으로 구속력을 갖고 집행할 수 있는 합의의 기회를 증진시킬 수 있도록 가능한 조치에 중점을 두고 있다. 본고를 통해 헤이그아동협약들과 관련된 국내외 자료를 포괄적으로 수집하여 체계적으로 분석하는 계기가 마련될 것으로 기대하며, 실무에서 가족합의의 통일된 법적구속력과 집행가능성 및 그 필요성을 재인식하는 출발점이 되길 바란다. The protection of the best interest of the child these days became one of the most primary concern in general international cooperation including the Hague Conference on Private International Law. Especially, this study is examining the specific contents focusing on Practical Guide to Family Agreements under the Hague Conventions, which was adopted in 2017. The said Practical Guide to Family Agreements under the Hague Conventions aims to offer the detailed basic information on how the agreement, which was established in the realm of family law including children, can be recognized and enforced in a foreign country. The consideration is being made here centering on three major Hague Conventions pertinent to the Hague Family Agreements, namely, Hague Child Abduction Convention in 1980, Hague Child Protection Convention in 1996, and Hague Child Support Convention in 2007. First of all, this study is comprehensively considering the objective, scope, background and structure of the Practical Guide to Family Agreements under the Hague Conventions, and is making a basic review in accordance with an agreement type. Also, it is inquiring into many topics that are discussed in the international family law agreements, and is specifically addressing the suggestions of being made by three main Hague Conventions. It is sequentially discussing an approach to a situation of family conflict that typically crosses the border, and is finally explaining about recommendations for the checklist and the written agreement in order for the relevant country to give the legal binding force and the possibility of execution to the agreement. Therefore, the aim is to rightly grasp a mutual correlation through a comparative analysis with the Hague Conventions relevant to other International Family Cases while looking into the Hague family agreements focusing on child abduction, child protection and child support. The Practical Guide to Family Agreements under the Hague Conventions is concentrating on a method of preparing the establishment of agreement in an attempt to recommend the amicable solution of a family dispute, which crosses the border. In addition, it is focalizing on a measure for over two countries regarding a dispute to possibly promote an opportunity of consent available for executing with having a legal binding force through the cooperation of the existing global Private International Law systems(Hague Conventions in 1980, in 1996 and in 2007). Through this study, an opportunity is expected to be likely arranged that makes a systematic analysis through comprehensively collecting materials at home and abroad pertinent to Hague Child Conventions. It is desired to be a starting point for practical affairs to newly understand the unified legal binding force, the execution possibility and its necessity concerning family agreement.

SPS협정 제8조 및 부속서 C의 해석과 적용에 관한 연구: WTO 분쟁사건을 중심으로

이성형,전정기 한국무역연구원 2023 무역연구 Vol.19 No.3

Purpose – This is a study of the adjective law of the SPS Agreement, which has recently attracted attention in the field of the WTO SPS Agreement, and the purpose of this study is the interpretation of Art. 8 and Annex C. Design/Methodology/Approach – Although there are many ways to interpret the SPS Agreement, this study analyzed the arguments of the parties and the interpretations of the panel and appellate body that appeared through WTO dispute cases related to this provision. Findings – The main issues in disputes related to Art. 8 and Annex C of the SPS Agreement were related to the interpretation of 'unreasonable delay' and 'like products'. ‘Unreasonable delay’ is interpreted as ‘unreasonable delay’ or ‘excessive delay’. The Judgment Criteria was not the duration of the delay, but whether the reasons for the delay were justified. Regarding the interpretation of ‘like products’, in the case of Korea - Radionuclides (DS495), for the first time among disputes related to the SPS Agreement, the interpretation of like products was an issue. The panel and the Appellate Body applied the same criteria to SPS Agreement and GATT 1994 Art. 3(4). Research Implications – Since the entry into force of the WTO Agreement, most disputes of the SPS Agreement have been related to substantive law, but recently, disputes related to adjective law have increased. Therefore, compliance with procedural law is required when adopting SPS measures.

A Stratified Agreement Measure among Multiple Raters for Multivariate Interval Data

엄용환(Yonghwan Um) 한국자료분석학회 2005 Journal of the Korean Data Analysis Society Vol.7 No.4

A stratified agreement measure among multiple raters for multivariate interval data is proposed. The proposed measure is based on Um s(2004) multivariate extension of Cohen s kappa. We consider assessment of inter-rater agreement with subjects grouped into strata on the basis of confounding variables. A stratified agreement measure is obtained by summing weighted individual agreement measures. Comparisons among stratified and unstratified agreement measures are made using hypothetical data set.

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.

남북 군사합의에 대한 평가와 정치 -전략적 대응방안

박창희 ( Park Chang-hee ) 한국군사학회 2018 군사논단 Vol.96 No.-

Evaluations on the 9·19 military agreement have shown great discord in our society. Some support it with much expectation on improvement of South-North relations and establishment of peace regime on the Korean peninsula. They think that North Korea now has shown sincerity on denuclearization as its leader promised to international society, and that, if well implemented, the agreement will contribute to the peace and stability on the peninsula. Others, however, with discredit of North Korean regime, raise concerns on the possibility of security instability that the agreement will bring about. Considering the past behaviors of North Korea, Kim Jong-en regime can use the agreement as a political tool, and, if it does not satisfy compensation, change its attitude for denuclearization at any time. Overall, the pros and cons on the military agreement have their own logic and reason, whose differences are not matter of right or wrong but that of viewpoints―optimism or prudence. It would be inappropriate, therefore, to be indulged in the wasteful debate on whether the military agreement is valid or not. Rather, at this point, it would be more important to contemplate how to implement the items that already consented between the South and the North, and search for future strategy preparing for additional consultations with the North afterwards. We should make every efforts of confidence building and arms control measures to shape current situation more favorable to the peace on the Korean peninsula. For that purpose, it is recommendable to approach the agreement with big picture and more balanced way. That is, we should avoid the fault to be buried in the tactical-operational level of logic, and instead take a comprehensive view in the political-strategic level. Also, we should seek strategic measures considering both dangers that the pros overlook and possibilities that the cons do not expect in the 9·19 military agreement.

웨이블릿 변환을 이용한 딥러닝 기반 단기 풍력발전 출력예측 개선에 관한 연구

김지후(Jihoo Kim),김재경(Jae-Kyeong Kim),이상호(Sang-Ho Lee),허진(Jin Hur) 대한전기학회 2022 대한전기학회 학술대회 논문집 Vol.2022 No.4

탄소강관 수입에 대한 미국의 세이프가드 조치 분쟁사건

정명현(Chung Myung-Hyun) 한국국제경제법학회 2004 국제경제법연구 Vol.2 No.-

The safeguard measures taken on February 11, 2000 by the U.S. against the imports of circular welded carbon quality line pipe ("line pipe") from Korea were found to be violation of the Article XIII and XIX of GATT 1994 and several provisions of the Agreement on Safeguards. Korea had brought a complaint respectively to these measures before WTO Dispute Settlement Body (DSB). The panel was established on October 23, 2000 and the DSB adopted the Appellate Body Report (ABR) and the Panel Report modified by the ABR on March 8, 2002. This case raised a number of significant issues related to the interpretation and application of provisions of safeguard measures, The main legal issues are as follows: (ⅰ) determination of serious injury or threat of serious injury; (ⅱ) parallelism; (ⅲ) non-Attribution of the injurious effect of other factors; (ⅳ) GATT Article XXIV defense. Regarding determination of serious injury or threat of serious injury issue, the Panel found that an investigating authority must make a discrete determination of either serious injury or threat of serious injury, and USITC violated Article 4 of Agreement on Safeguards, The Appellate Body reversed the Panel's finding, concluding that determinations by investigating authorities may take either approach: they may either combine the two standards as done by the ITC, or they may make separate findings of either serious injury or of threat of serious injury. Under the Appellate Body's ruling, a majority may be formed based on the support of those who find serious injury and those who find threat of serious injury. Regarding the requirement of parallelism, the Appellate Body reversed the Panel' s finding and concluded that line pipe safeguard measure violated the parallelism requirement because there was a gap between imports covered under the investigation and imports falling within the scope of the measure. With the recognition that Korea made a prima facie case of the absence of parallelism, the Appellate Body considered whether the ITC provided a reasoned and adequate explanation that imports from non- NAFTA countries satisfied the condition for application of a safeguard measure and concluded that the parallelism requirement was not met since ITC did not provide that explanation expressly. Regarding the requirement of non-Attribution of the injurious effect of other factors, the Appellate Body reversed the Panel's finding and provided some guidance on how to determine whether this requirement has been met. It observed that Article 4.2(b) of Agreement on Safeguards established two legal requirements for the application of a safeguard measure: (ⅰ) there must be a demonstration of the existence of the causal link between increased imports of the product and concerned serious injury or threat there of: (ⅱ) the injury caused by factors other than the increased imports must not be attributed to increased imports. In this regard, it stated that investigation authorities must establish explicitly, through a reasoned and adequate explanation that injury caused by factors other than increased imports is not attributed to increased imports and found that the ITC has not met this requirement. Regarding GATT Article XXIV as a defense in the application of safeguard measures, Korea argued that the U.S. violated the MFN principle by excluding Canada and Mexico from the safeguard measures. The U.S. responded that the exclusion of Canada and Mexico was permitted under GATT Article XXIV since they were partners in the NAFTA. The Panel concluded that the U.S. is entitled to rely on Article XXIV as a defense to Korea's claims under Articles I, XIII and XIX of GATT 1994, and Article 2.2 of the Agreement on Safeguards. The Appellate Body, however, stated this issue briefly at the end of the parallelism section and concluded that there was no need to address the Article XXIV defense because this question would become relevant only where the parallelism requirement

WTO에서 환경보호를 위한 무역제한조치의 범위와 한계

이석용 ( Lee Seok Yong ) 한남대학교 과학기술법연구원 2016 과학기술법연구 Vol.22 No.3

제2차 세계대전 이후 GATT를 중심으로 이루어져 온 다자간무역협상의 결과 세계 각국 특히 선진국들의 관세는 대폭 낮아졌으며 무세화에 관한 합의도 확산되었다. 그 결과 무역에 대한 관세장벽이 전반적으로 낮아지면서, 국가들은 자국산업 보호를 위해 갖가지 비관세무역장벽(nontariff trade barrier: NTBs)을 도입하였다. 비관세장벽에는 다양한 조치들이 포함되지만, 그 중에서도 특히 중요하고도 관심을 끄는 것은 환경과 건강관련 조치이다. 오늘날 국제사회에서는 국제적인 환경보호를 위해 많은 국제협약을 채택하고 있는데, 그러한 국제협약이 직접 무역규제에 관한 규정을 두고있는 경우에는 관련 규정에 따라서 무역규제는 이루어질 수 있다. 본고에서는 지구환경의 보호를 위하여 주로 전지구적 관점에서 국가들에게 부과된 무역규제조치와 의무를 대기오염방지, 야생동식물보호, 유해폐기물 이동규제에 관한 국제협약을 중심으로 고찰하였다. 국제협약이 환경보호를 위한 무역규제에 관하여 규정을 두지 아니한경우에는, 그러한 무역규제조치를 발동하기 위한 조건과 그 한계를 둘러싸고 국가 간에 다양한 문제가 제기될 수 있다. 특히 우루과이라운드 협상을 통해 출범한 WTO에서는 무역자유화를 농ㆍ수ㆍ축산물 분야로 확대하면서 환경보호를 위한 협정들을 채택하였는바, 관련 협정상 어느 범위에서 무역규제조치를 취할 수 있는가 하는 문제가 중요해졌다. 1947년 채택된 GATT 협정은 제20조에 일반적 예외에 관한 규정을 두었으나, 그것이 환경보호에 관련된 규정으로 해석될 수 있는가 하는데 대해서는 논란이 있었다. 그러나 WTO에서는 분쟁해결기구의 판정 등을 통하여 GATT협정 제20조 (b)와 (g)항의 규정이 환경보호와 건강보호에 관한 규정이라고 보는데 대해 컨센서스가 이루어졌으며, 문제의 조치들이 차별적이거나 위장된 제한을 과하는 것이 아닌가 하는데 대한 추가적인 평가가 필요한 상황이다. SPS 협정은 인간과 동식물의 생명과 건강을 보호하기 위한 무역조치의 기준을 확립하기 위한 국제적인 합의이다. 이 협정은 인간과 동식물의 생명 또는 건강을 보호하는데 필요한 조치를 취할 수 있는 국가들의 권한은 인정하되, 그러한 조치들이 부당한 차별 또는 위장된 제한이 되면 아니 된다는 입장에서 제정된 것이다. SPS협정에서는 국제표준과 국내법상 관련조치 간의 관계 및 과학적 정당성에 대한 판단기준을 둘러싸고 갈등이 발생할 소지가 있다. GATT시절 동경라운드에서 마련된 TBT협정은 적용범위가 상품에 국한되었지만, 우루과이라운드 협상을 통해서 마련된 WTO의 TBT협정은 그 적용범위가 크게 확대되었다. 특히 새로운 TBT협정은 환경보호와 안전을 위하여 국가들이 상품은 물론 생산에 관해서도 기준을 마련하는 것을 허용하였다. 따라서 회원국들은 자국민의 건강과 환경보호를위하여 자국의 실정에 맞는 기술규정을 채택할 수 있는바, 적용과정에서 환경보호와 자유무역 간에 균형을 맞추는 일이 중요해졌다. International Society has adopted numerous international conventions for environment protection. If an international convention has provisions regulating international trade for the goal, trade restrictive measures can be applied according to the provisions. This article examined various restrictive measures included in international conventions relating to atmospheric pollution protection, natural resources conservation, and hazardous waste disposal. If there is no provision allowing trade restriction for environmental protection, various legal issues could arise from the perspective of legitimacy and justification. As the Uruguay Round concluded several agreements to reconcile interests between free trade and environmental protection, member states should examine the provisions before they take trade restriction measures. Original GATT Agreement did not have any mention on environment, so there were controversies over the range of application of the article 20. As the Dispute Settlement Body ruled repeatedly to recognize that the article is applicable to environmental issues, the controversy was solved. SPS Agreement is an international agreement concluded to establish standards of trade restriction measures for the protection of life and health of humans and animals. This Agreement recognize member states` right to introduce measures for the protection of life and health of humans and animals, but unjustified discrimination and disguised restrictive measures are not allowed. Original TBT Agreement concluded at Tokyo Round limited its range of application only to goods, but the new TBT Agreement adopted at the Uruguay Round expanded the range to cover not only goods but also production. Although WTO member states are able to establish technical regulations appropriate for them, striking a balance between free trade and environment is another problem.

평가자간 일치도에 대한 퍼뮤테이션 P값

엄용환(uyh@sungkyul.ac.kr) 한국컴퓨터정보학회 2015 韓國컴퓨터情報學會論文誌 Vol.20 No.12

Permutation p-values are provided for the agreement measures for multivariate interval data among many raters. Three agreement measures, Berry and Mielke’s measure, Janson and Olsson’s measure, and Um’s measure are described and compared. Exact and resampling permutation methods are utilized to compute p-values and empirical quantile limits for three measures. Comparisons of p-values demonstrate that resampling permutation methods provide close approximations to exact p-values, and Berry and Mielke’s measure and Um’s measure show similar performance in terms of measuring agreement.

지적재산권 관련 국경조치에 관한 연구

윤종수 사법발전재단 2010 사법 Vol.1 No.12

Considering the recent global trend to protect IPR(intellectual property rights) and related issues, there have been intense efforts to ensure enforcement of the IPR law. As a provisional measure in the customs procedure, the border measure occupies a important part of these efforts. The border measure based on TRIPs and related treaties enables to take more efficient and prompt action against the IPR-infringing goods. However, each country is reacting harshly to the content and operation in other countries’ legislation of the border measure, because it can be abused as a hidden tool in a trade war. Especially because TRIPs, a basis of the border measure, has a somewhat uncertain attitude in the competent authorities and leaves many parts to each member's discretion, the legislation regarding the border measure differs from country to country and causes uncertainty about whether each country's legislation comes up to the standard of TRIPs. In Korea, the border control system for protection of IPR is divided into two schemes, the suspension of release by the custom office and the judgment on the unfair trade action by the International Trade Commission. Even though this dual system covers most IPR obligated by TRIPs, it has difficulties in keeping consistency and coping efficiently with IPR-infringement. Also, Korea-EU FTA will require amendment of some parts of the provisions regarding the border measure. Therefore, it is time to have an in-depth discussion to improve related legal regulations on the border measure. In this aspect, unified procedures need to be applied to all the border controls, while the scope of IPR covered by the border measure and the dual system regarding the competent authorities is maintained as they are now. The most important thing is that all of the strategical and legislative policy change is based on setting a prompt and effective method and balanced regulations without arguments on fairness and reliability. 최근의 지적재산권의 국제적 보호와 관련된 조약의 체결 및 입법 동향을 살펴보면 지적재산권 집행절차의 강화에 많은 논의가 집중되고 있다. 통관단계에서의 잠정조치라 할 수 있는 국경조치는 그러한 논의에서 중요한 비중을 차지한다. TRIPs 및 관련 조약에 근거한 국경조치는 일반적인 잠정조치에 비해 요건, 관할기관 등에서 완화되어 있어 효율적이고 신속한 집행을 가능하게 한다. 그러나 한편으로는 숨겨진 무역전쟁의 수단으로 남용될 위험성이 있는 것도 사실이어서 각국은 자신들의 국경조치를 강화하는 한편 다른 나라의 국경조치의 내용과 운영에 대해서도 예민하게 반응하고 있다. 국경조치의 기초가 되고 있는 TRIPs가 많은 부분을 회원국의 재량에 맡기고 있는데다가 관할기관이나 운영방식에 관해서도 다소 애매한 입장을 취하고 있어, 각 회원국의 국경조치는 서로 다른 모습을 가지고 있을 뿐만 아니라 TRIPs에의 합치 여부가 문제되기도 한다. 국내법상 국경조치는 관세법의 통관보류조치와 불공정무역행위조사법의 불공정무역행위에 대한 조치로 이원화되어 운영되고 있는데, 대체로 TRIPs의 규정과는 합치되지만 일관성 있는 법적 규제가 곤란하여 수출입 되는 침해물품에 대한 효과적인 대응이 어려울 뿐만 아니라 국경조치의 원래 취지에도 다소 어긋나는 점이 있어 개선의 여지가 있다. 또한 한-EU 자유무역협정이 발효되면 국내의 국경조치에 관한 제반 법률규정도 상당부분 손질이 필요할 것으로 보인다. 따라서 국경조치 관련 법제도의 개선방향에 관한 심도있는 논의가 필요하다. 그런 점에서 현재의 이원화된 국경조치제도를 관할기관과 그 대상인 지적재산권의 범위는 그대로 둔 채 세관이 집행하게 되는 국경조치의 절차와 내용을 통일시키고 일부 누락되거나 불명확한 규정을 보완하는 쪽으로 개정방향을 제시해본다. 중요한 것은 이 모든 논의는 자국의 지적재산권을 보호하기 위한 신속하고 효율적인 수단을 도입하는 한편 공정성이나 신뢰성의 면에서 다툼의 여지를 최대한 없애는 균형있는 제도의 수립을 목표로 하여야 한다는 점이다.