자동차운행자의 민사책임에 있어서 면책사유에 관한 연구

고명식 한국재산법학회 1990 재산법연구 Vol.7 No.1

新聞의 反省

高明植 관훈클럽 1962 관훈저널 Vol.- No.3

「캐릭터」의 商品化權

高明植 釜慶大學校 2000 釜慶大學校 論文集 Vol.5 No.-

(1) The merchandizing right of character is the right to exploit the image or name of the character that appears in the cartoon or animation. For example, the owner of the right can make and a doll by making use of the image of Popeye and sell it. And he can make a trade mark by making use of the image and name of Popeye. Typically, the author of the cartoon or animation is the owner of the merchandizing right. If the author of the cartoon or animation grants a licence to other person, allowing it to apply the image or name of the character to articles or services supplied by him, he is the owner of the right. If a third party exploits the image of the character without permission of the owner of the merchandizing right, there may be copyright issues. And, if a third party exploit the name of the character without permission of the owner of the right, there may be issues about passing off or trade mark. (2) There may be raised other legal issues by the exploiting the image or name of the famous person who is an entertainer or a sports man. A person generally has the right to avoid intrusion into his private affair. This right is the privacy right and the use of the name or image of a person without his permission can result in the infringement of the privacy right. But, if a famous person merchandizes his image or name, he can obtain the economic profits from his image or name. The famous person’s right to obtain the economic profirs from his image or name is called the publicity right. The publicity right has the nature of the property right. And, if a third party exploits the image or name of the owner of the publicity right without his permission, there may be issues about passing off or trade mark.

自動車事故에 있어서의 運行者責任과 無斷運轉

고명식 釜慶大學校 1996 釜慶大學校 論文集 Vol.1 No.1

This thesis is concerned about the responsible person for the damages raised by the automobile accident. Particularly, the damages raised by the unauthorized dirving is the most important subject of this thesis. The author of this thesis treats of the responsible person for the damages raised by the general accident in the first place, and he treats of the responsible person for the damages of the accident caused by the unauthorized driver in the second place. As a general rule, the automobile-user is responsible for the damages raised by the automobile accident. The automobile-user is the person that is using the automobile for his own. Because the automobile-user has the right of control over the automobile, he is responsible for the damages raised by the automobile accident. The damages raised by the automobile accident is the damages caused by the danger of the automobile, and to control the automobile is to control the danger of the automobile. Therefore the automobile-user has to bear the liability for the damages caused by the danger of automobile. The right of control over the automobile is the objective concept. Hence we have to construct this right with the objective facts that are existent between the user and the automobile, and we have to exclude the subjective facts like the consciousness of the usr. And this right is the normative concept. Therefore the automobile-user has this right when the possibility of exercising this right over the automobile is existent, although he is not exercising this right over the automobile directly. By the way, many difficult problems occur when the accident is caused by the unauthorized driver. Because the act about the automobile accident does not have the provision about the unauthorized driving, and because we have to solve the problems raised by the unauthorized driving theoretically. The unautho-rized driving is that a man uses the automobile without the consent of the owner. When a man uses the automobile with the consent of the owner, the owner is liable for the damages raised by the accident, because the owner does not lose the right of control over the automobile. But when a man uses the automobile without the consent of the owner, he alone has the right of control over the automobile and the owner loses this right. Therefore the unauthorized driver alone becomes the automobile-user, he alone has the liability for the damages raised by the automobile accident, and the owner is not liable for that damages. Finally, not only the unauthorized driver but also the automobile-owner is liable for the damages caused by accident, when the unauthorized driving is caused by the fault of the automobile-owner. Because the damages is raised by the unauo-thorized driving and the unauthorized driving is raised by the fault of the automobile-owner, this damages is caused by the fault of the automobile-owner after all. Therefore we can impose the liability for the damages on the automobile-owner.

프라이버시의 權利

高明植 관훈클럽 1961 관훈저널 Vol.- No.2

新聞의 誠實

高明植 관훈클럽 1965 관훈저널 Vol.- No.8

外信雜感

高明植 관훈클럽 1973 관훈저널 Vol.- No.19

逸失利益算定의 諸問題 : 自動車事故를 中心으로 In the Compensation for the Automobile Accident Damages

高明植 釜山工業大學校 1993 論文集 Vol.35 No.-

It is the most controversial head of the pecuniary damages compensation for the personal injury in the tort law to assess the loss of earnings. Ordinarily it makes a great difference whether the pecuniary damages in the future are expressed as the compensation for the loss of earnings or ear-ning capacity. Therefore it is the aspect calling for the most examination whether we grasp the meaning of the pecuniary damages in the future as the loss of earnings or as the loss of earning capacity. For example, the distinction between the loss of earnings and the loss of earning capacity attains the practical significance in connection with claims by the persons who at the time of the accident were not gainfully employed. Another difficult question arises in the case of when the victim has been died at the accident. In that case, it becomes doubtful whether the victim's dependents inherit the victim's right to sue or not. If the victim's dependents do not inherit the victim's right to sue, it is also a question whether the victim's dependents have the right to sue for the compensation of his own benefits lost by victim's death or not. This study deals with mainly the problems as we have seen above. And it also deals with the problems about the concrete criterions for the assessment of loss of earnings and the deduction of interests in determining the victim's income.

自動車事故損害賠償에 있어서의 過失相計의 法理

高明植 釜山工業大學校 1993 論文集 Vol.35 No.-

It is the comparative negligence in the tort law that thee amount of the claim for the compensation may be reduced to the extent to which the plaintif has been contributorily negligent in the course of the accident. It is undoubtedly the aspect calling for the most carefull examination in the theory on the comparative negligence what is the plaintif's negligence. In order to cover the full appreciation of the plaintif's negligence, this study deals with mainly the problems about the legal character of the comparative negligence system and the plaintif's ca-pacity for the liability. Many of the theorists say that the plaintif's negligence is the negligence in the common sense and a certain degree of the plaintif's liability capacity is necessary to be set up the comparative negligence by defendant. But the author of this study argues that the comparative negligence system is to determine the causality in the tort law and the plaintif's negligence is different from the negligence in the com-mon sense. Namely, the system of the comparative negligence does not demand the plaintif's liabi-lity capacity of any degree because the system of the comparative negligence is to make the defen-dant come out from the liability for the damage made by plaintif's action, he says, Therefore, he says also, if the defendant proved that the plaintif was contributorily negligent to a certain extent, the defendant has not to take responsibility at that extent.

어문저작물의 법적보호에 관한 제문제

고명식 한국재산법학회 1999 재산법연구 Vol.16 No.1