反국가안보 외국인 투자규제법의 도입 이유

왕상한(Sang-Han Wang) 한국비교사법학회 2008 比較私法 Vol.15 No.2

  In 1997, Korea faced a financial crisis. Almost all defense devises for protecting the management were deprived of from Korea enterprises saying that those were obstacles to foreign investment in Korea. The most important national agent at that time was to induce the foreign investment. And now, Korea became the easiest country where they merge and/or acquisite the company either friendly or hostilly.<BR>  No one argues that the foreign investment is important for the national economy. However, it is arguable whether we must allow all kinds of investments in any situation or we must limit the foreign investments under some circumstances. Recently, we have seen an argument that there must be a regulation even by the ones who has been very supportive to foreign investments. Furthermore, there newly started a National Committee for Protecting Basic Industries which consists of Federation of Korean Industries, Korean Unions, etc., and it publicly announced that there must be a law regulating foreign investment for security reasons. This was heavily cited by the presses.<BR>  There are several bills at the Korean National Assembly. Those bills are in common that there must be a committee where it reviews the foreing investment whether it would negatively affects the national security in Korea. The reason that they call this bills as “Korean Exon-Florio Act” is it was made after the Exon-Florio Act in U.S.<BR>  However, there have been serious debates over these bills. This paper reviews major reasons for opposing those bills and critically analyzed whether those arguments are persuasive enough. By way of analyzing those arguments, this paper showed why we must enact the law regulating foreign investment in Korea for security reasons.

한미자유무역협정(FTA) 투자자국가소송제도(ISD)의 오해와 진실

왕상한(Sang-Han Wang) 한국기업법학회 2011 企業法硏究 Vol.25 No.4

Debates over the Free Trade Agreement(“FTA”) between U.S. and Korea are now focused on the single issue; Investor-State Dispute Settlement(“ISD”). It was ISD that was the issue as well when U.S. and Korea began to talk on FTA. It is indispensible for a foreign investor to have an effectively reparing tool when the local laws and policies caused them suffer from damages. They can lean on a locan judicial system. However, it would not be easy for a foreigner to trust a local judicial system when it faces a dispute related to a local law or any action taken by the government. It thus would need to run an independent judge system such as an international arbitration under international organization. ISD is the one to meet with this need. When a foreign investor suffers from any damages caused by the laws or policies of local government, it can take an action for ISD under the International Centre for the Settlement of International Dispute(“ICSID”). U.S. and Korea has agreed to adopt ISD as a dispute settlement procedure under U.S.-Korea FTA. It is under Chapter 11 which states in detail for the ISD along with other arbitration tools entitled, “Investor and the State Dispute Settlement.” It is truly controversial, however, whether ISD, as a dispute settlement procedure, would do a good or a bad to Korea. FTA supports along with Korean government argues that it is the global standard which has produced a fair and reasonable judgement by a third and independent party. It is not a logic of power but a logic of fairness that has ruled over all procedures. It is not fair to U.S. nor to Korea and it has proved that it has played a fair role. On the other hand, the opposition party and the critic presses argue that there are only 8 Koreans registered at the ICSID while there are 137 Americans. U.S. has lost in 20% out of all cases it has filed. This simples shows that how unfair ICSID has run. Also, ISD would interfere in the judicial system of Korea what must be respected by Korean government. This paper has reviewed what ISD is and analyzed the major issues raised by the opposition. This effort to clarify what is true and what is false would help unnecessary conflicts in Korean society.

부당지원행위와 정상가격

왕상한(Wang, Sang-Han) 법무부 국제법무정책과 2019 통상법률 Vol.- No.145

중국 위생검역분야 비관세장벽 완화를 위한 한-중 FTA 이행방안

왕상한(Wang, Sang-Han),박언경(Park, Eon-Kyung) 경희법학연구소 2016 경희법학 Vol.51 No.2

한-중 FTA의 타결은 우리나라의 농수산품 관련 산업의 대중국 진출을 위한 전환점이 될것으로 기대되지만, 위생검역(SPS) 및 기술무역장벽(TBT)으로 대변되는 비관세장벽이 해소되지않는다면그효과는반감될것이다. 총6개의조문으로구성된한-중FTA 위생검역분야는 우리나라가 체결한 다른 FTA처럼 일반적인 규정과 함께, 한-중 FTA에 달리 규정이없는 경우에는 WTO SPS 협정을 따르도록 하고 있다. 한-중 FTA의 기본 목적은 무역장벽의 해소이지만, 문제는 국내이행과정에서 비관세장벽의 모습이 나타난다는 점이다. 본논문에서는중국과 관련한다양한위생검역조치 관련사례들의분석을 토대로비관세장벽의완화를위한한-중FTA 활용방안을모색하였다. 중국은그동안유해한자국제품의유통으로 인한 문제점을 경험하였다. 중국 내에서 발생한 멜라닌 분유 유통 사례, 중국 농약만두 일본 유통 사례, 허용기준치를 초과한 중국산 시금치에 대한 일본의 수입규제 사례등에서처럼 과학적 정당성이 입증된 수입규제는 자국민의 생명 및 건강을 보호하기 위한 정당한 법적조치에 해당한다. 중국도 유해한 제품들의 유통으로 인한 인적피해를 겪은 후에는 자국의 관련 법규를 개선·강화하고 있다. 하지만, 중국의 자국 내 위생기준의 강화와 위생검역조치이행규정의엄격한적용으로인해타국제품의수입을규제하는효과가나타나고 있다. 본 논문에서는 중국의 비관세장벽 운영사례로써 한국산 살균유 수입규제 사례,한국산김치수입규제사례, 한국산삼계탕검역규제사례, 한국산막걸리수입규제사례를 검토하였다. 이들 사례들은 공통적으로 중국의 위생검역기준에 부합하지 않는 한국산 제품에 대한 검역규제였다. 문제는 이러한 제품들이 한국 내에서는 아무런 문제없이 유통이 이루어지고 있는 제품이라는 점이다. 제품의 특성을 고려하지 않은, 그리고 타국의 위생기준 및 위생검역을고려하지않은위생검역규제들은비관세무역장벽으로작동하게되는것이다. 본 논문에서는 위생검역분야에서 무역강국인 중국과의 통상마찰을 해소하고, 우리의 통상이익을 확보하기 위한 가장 현실적이고 효율적인 수단은 법원칙 또는 법규범에 입각한대응과설득이라는시각에서 한-중FTA의 활용방안을법·정책적측면에서제시하였다. 한-중 FTA에서 규정하고 있는 투명성 원칙, 동등성, 국제표준 및 조화, 기술협력, 한-중 FTA SPS 위원회 관련 조항들의 구체적인 이행방안을 세부적으로 제시하였다. 위생검역 분야에서 무엇보다 중요한 것은 과학적 정당성에 기반한 정책인가이다. 위해성이 명확하게 입증되는경우자국민의보호를위한수입규제조치는국제통상규범상당연한주권국가의권리 이다. 그러나 과학적 정당성이 불확실한 경우에는 국가별로 상이한 자국의 이행규범을 적용하게될때, 이러한규범은무역장벽이되어국가간통상분쟁을야기하게된다. 한-중양국이위생검역분야에서통상분쟁을예방하기위한일차적인방법은양국의기준에대한이해와공유가될것이며, 이를위한출발점이한-중FTA에조항에대한정확한이해와활용이 될 것이다. The conclusion of Korea-China FTA is considered as a watershed in advancing, especially in the Korea agro-fishery industry to China. But for solutions to non-tariff barriers, or Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures(‘SPS’) and Technical Barriers to Trade(‘TBT’), however, the effect of the FTA could be considerably damaged. The SPS part of the FTA consists of six Articles which include general rules similar to the ones in other FTAs concluded by Korean government. In addition, the FTA provides that the SPS Agreement of WTO shall apply between the Parties, except as otherwise provided for the Chapter of it. Though the target of the FTA is to eliminate trade barriers, domestic implementations of the Agreement possibly bring non-tariff barriers on the other Party. The article seeks for effective use of the FTA to ease the burdens of non-tariff barriers, based on a deep investigation into the SPS cases relating to the state practices by China. Chinese governments have experienced abundant of problems with food supply of harmful and dangerous products manufactured under its sovereignty. Such cases as ‘melamine milk powder in China,’ ‘pesticide in Chinese buns in Japan,’ and ‘Japanese import restriction against Chinese spinach over tolerance limit’ are the import restriction fully based on scientific risk analysis. They falls into the legitimate measures protecting human life or health in the Parties’ territories. The experiences resulted from harmful product supplies are urging the Chinese government to tighten up the domestic regulations. Such practices of China, meanwhile, result in collateral effects, or the restriction of import from foreign territories. The article investigates, as Chinese non-tariff barrier cases, Korea Pasteurized Milk Case, Korea Kimchi Case, Korea Chicken Soup Case, and Korea Raw Rice Wine Case. The cases has the same dimension, or the SPS measures by China over the Korean products which failed to meet the Chinese standards. The implication is that the products have been being sold and bought in Korean market without any question. This implicates that some SPS measures may result in non-tariff barriers when a government applies them leaving the characters of a product and the SPS standards of other sovereignty out of consideration. The article suggests “How to make best use of the FTA” in a legal and political view, based on the thought that correspondence and persuasion in accordance with principles of law or legal norms are the most realistic and effective approaches to ease trade conflicts, and to secure benefits from the trade with China, one of the largest world economies. It represents specific implementations of the Articles in the FTA upon the principle of transparency, equivalence, international standards, harmonization, technical cooperation, Korea-China Committee on the SPS Measures. The vital importance in SPS measures is whether they are based on scientific evidences. A State’s import restriction to protect human in its territory is a sovereign right recognized by international trade laws, if risks to human are clearly evidenced. Uncertain scientific legitimacy, however, causes concerns about international conflicts, because domestic implementation without scientific evidence can be non-tariff barriers. To prevent SPS measures by the Parties from being a cause of trade disputes, two countries need to share the standards of each other’s, and they also should learn and use the FTA articles at first.

부당지원행위와 형사처벌

왕상한(Wang, Sang-Han) 법무부 국제법무정책과 2020 통상법률 Vol.- No.146

부당지원행위 형사처벌에 대한 죄형법정주의 관점에서 소고

왕상한(Wang, Sang Han) 서강대학교 법학연구소 2020 법과기업연구 Vol.10 No.1

독점규제 및 공정거래에 관한 법률(이하 “공정거래법”이라고 한다)은 제23조 제1항 제7호의 부당지원행위, 제23조의2 제1항 제1호의 특수관계인에 대한 부당한 이익제공행위(이하 통칭하여 “부당지원행위”라고 한다)에 대한 형벌조항은 죄형법정주의의 지배를 받는다. 죄형법정주의에서 파생되는 명확성 원칙은 수범자가 어떠한 행위가 금지되는지를 예측할 수 있어야 하고, 법 집행·해석기관의 자의적인 법 집행·해석이 배제될 수 있어야 한다. 명확하지 않은 형벌조항은 책임주의에도 위배된다고 보아야 한다. ‘정상가격’은 부당지원행위 여부를 가늠하는 척도라는 점에서, 부당지원행위에 의한 공정거래법위반죄의 핵심적인 객관적 구성요건요소로 기능한다. 그럼에도 불구하고, 현행 공정거래법은 ‘정상가격’은 어떻게 산정하여야 하는 것인지, 정상가격보다 ‘상당히’ 유리하다는 것은 어느 정도의 차이를 의미하는 것인지 불명확하게 규정하고 있다. 법원은 다수의 행정사건에서 나름대로 정상가격의 산정 방법에 대하여 판시하고 있으나, 이러한 노력에도 불구하고 수범자로서는 지원행위 당시에 정상가격을 산정하여 위법여부를 가늠하기가 도무지 불가능하며, 지금도 형벌조항의 불명확성 아래 법 집행기관인 공정거래위원회와 검찰의 자의적인 법 해석·집행이 계속되고 있다. 이처럼 부당지원행위에 대한 형사처벌을 유지하는 이상, 그 형벌조항은 명확성 원칙 및 책임주의 위배로 인한 위헌을 피할 길이 없음을 인정해야 한다. 법률의 개정이 필요하나, 적어도 그 전까지 공정거래위원회는 위헌성이 있는 형벌조항에 근거한 고발권 행사를 자제해야 한다. The “principle of no punishment without law” governs the penal provisions applicable to unfair support set forth in Article 23(1)7 of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Law (“FTL”) and the offering of undue benefits to related parties set forth in Article 23-2(1)1 of the FTL (hereinafter, collectively referred to as “unfair support”). Pursuant to the principle of clarity, which is derived from the principle of no punishment without law, the penal provisions should allow individuals to anticipate what acts are prohibited. At the same time, those provisions should eliminate a possibility that the law enforcement or law-interpreting authorities arbitrarily enforce or interpret applicable laws. Further, any unclear penal provision is in violation of the principle of liability. When we judge whether a violation of the FTL is established due to an act of providing unfair support, the “arm’s length price”for the transaction at issue serves as an objective factor for judgment because it is the yardstick for determining unfair support. Nonetheless, the current FTL does not clearly sets out how to calculate an “arm’s length price” and the amount of difference needed to recognize that unfair support is “substantially” more favorable than the arm’s length price. In a number of administrative cases, the court has ruled on the calculation method of an arm’s length price. Despite the court’s endeavor, however, it is still impossible for individuals to judge whether they are in violation of applicable laws even if they calculate an arm’s length price at the time of providing support. Thus far, while the penal provisions remain unclear, the law enforcement authorities, which are the Korea Fair Trade Commission (“KFTC”) and the Prosecutors’ Office, have been arbitrarily enforcing and interpreting applicable laws. Therefore, as long as criminal penalties are imposed against unfair support, the penal provisions are unarguably unconstitutional because they contradict the principles of clarity and liability. For this reason, applicable laws should be amended. Until then, the KFTC should at least refrain from exercising its right to file criminal complaints based on such unconstitutional penal provisions.

유전자변형농산물로부터의 소비자보호를 위한 미국의 법제분석

왕상한(Sang-Han Wang) 한국비교사법학회 2005 비교사법 Vol.12 No.2

This paper studies on the U.S. laws and policies regarding the consumer protection from genetically modified organisms(""GMO""). This paper reviews the federal regulation, congressional effort for the legislations, and consumers' responses. In addition to those efforts, this paper tries to look into related laws and policies in Korea. The leading export country of GMO is the U.S., and Korea imports 90% of its domestic needs for corns and beans from U.S. The main purpose of this paper is to avoid any unnecessary trade conflicts between U.S. and Korea. To know and understand U.S. related laws and policies would help Korea to prepare better for consumer protection. The U.S., which has invested a huge amount for the development of GMO, now try to establish any statutes for consumer protection. The U.S. agree with the fact that the consumer has a right to know whether the grain is genetically modified. Any technical or scientific development would cause an environmental change as well as bring a benefit to human. It is thus crucial to harmonize this conflict and establish a safe and a fair legal environment.

주요국 인터넷전문은행의 현황과 그 법적 시사점

이상복 ( Sang Pog Lee ),왕상한 ( Sang Han Wang ) 한양대학교 법학연구소 2016 법학논총 Vol.33 No.1

2015년 11월 29일 금융위원회는 국내 첫 인터넷전문은행 사업자로 카카오와 KT 컨소시엄에 각각 예비인가를 승인하였다. 국내에서 은행 설립인가가 이루어진 것은 23년 만이다. 인터넷전문은행은 영업점 없이 은행업무의 대부분을 인터넷 및 ATM 등의 전자매체를 통해 영위하는 은행을 말한다. 인터넷전문은행에 대한 관심은 ICT의 발달 및 인터넷 이용률 증가 등에 의하여 촉진되었다. 인터넷전문은행은 점포나 창구 인력 운영에 따른 비용을 절감해 수익성을 높일 수 있으며 모바일 전문 서비스 등으로 기존 은행과 차별화할 수 있다. 그러나 인터넷전문은행의 도입을 놓고 관련 법규의 정비가 필요하다. 이와 관련하여 주요국의 업무 현황을 살펴보는 것은 우리나라가 법제도를 정비하는데 도움이 될 수 있을 것이다. 따라서 이 글에서는 첫째, 인터넷전문은행의 개념과 그 발전과정을 살펴보고, 둘째, 주요국인 미국, 일본, 영국, 독일, 중국에서의 인터넷전문은행의 현황 및 주요내용을 알아본 후, 셋째, 우리나라가 인터넷전문은행을 도입하는 경우 몇 가지 법적 시사점을 현행제도의 개선방향을 중심으로 논하였다. 주요 개선방향으로서는 진입규제에 해당하는 것으로 최저자본금 요건, 소유구조와 관련된 은산분리의 완화 문제, 사업계획, 업무범위를 살펴 본 후, 건전성 규제, 그리고 영업행위 규제를 고찰하였다. 기타 검토과제로서는 전산시스템 문제, 지급결제 시스템 문제, 예금보험제도에 관한 문제, 계좌개설시 실명확인 방식의 문제 등을 고찰하였다. On November 29th, 2015, the Financial Services Commission(FSC) authorized the preliminary launch of the first Internet only banks by Kakao and KT consortium. It had been 23 years since the last banking authorization in Korea. Internet only bank is a bank that operates mostly through electronic and virtual means such as the Internet and ATM with no branches operating in physical form. The interest in Internet only bank was sparked by the development of ICT and the growing use of the Internet. Internet only banks can not only save labor costs from operating branches but can also differentiate themselves from traditional banks by offering distinguished services such as mobile-based services. However, with the launch of Internet only banks, there is a need for the adjustments of the related statues. Regarding the adjustments, it would be helpful to examine the status of Internet only banks in major countries. Thus, in this paper, first, the concept of Internet only bank and its course of development will be explained, second, the status of Internet only banks in the US, Japan, the UK, Germany, and China will be introduced, and last, several legal implications from the foreign cases that can improve the current domestic regime will be discussed. The major points for the improvement of the current regime are market entry barriers such as minimum capital requirement, ownership structure related matters such as easing the separation between banking and commerce, business plan, and scope of business, solvency regulation, and business activity monitoring. Other relevant points include issues of computer system, electronic payment system, deposit insurance, and method of confirming an individual`s identity with opening a bank account.

국제원자력수출통제규범의 국내이행법제에 대한 비판적 고찰

박언경(Eon-Kyung Park),왕상한(Sang-Han Wang) 국제법평론회 2023 국제법평론 Vol.- No.64

Under domestic law, there is no accurate definition of the concept of nuclear export control. ‘The Nuclear Safety Act’ defines safety measures for the peaceful use of nuclear power and import and export control that blocks the illegal transfer of nuclear goods and technologies as nuclear power control, and ‘the Foreign Trade Act’ stipulates import and export control of especially designed or prepared nuclear items(Trigger List) and dual-use items as a type of strategic items export control. The Nuclear Safety and Security Commission implements import and export control based on the acts above, but the target items are different. Nevertheless, since there is no clear explanation of import and export control, nuclear power control, and the definition and scope of target items in laws and regulations, materials and references explaining Korea’s nuclear import and export control legislation contain contents unlike. With the critical mind, the paper identifies the structure and operating principle of the domestic implementation legislation, derives the problems of the current acts, and puts forwards a amendment proposal in three main aspects upon the Nuclear Safety Act; clarification of the content and scope of import and export control in the Nuclear Safety Act; introduction of the legal basis for nuclear import and export control work that was routinely carried out in the absence of alegal ground; and the enactment of a public notice on the nuclear import and export control. The first proposal made the import and export control legislation systematic by clearly defining similar concepts such as nuclear power control, import and export control, and nuclear power import and export control. The second proposal includes the amendment proposals of relevant acts and regulations on education for non-compliance with import and export control, operation and maintenance of the nuclear export control system, and the obligation of employees of the Korea Institute of Nuclear Control and Technology to prohibit leakage of secrets, which are all legally unfounded. The third proposal is the result of considering the specificity of nuclear import and export control and the convenience of interested persons of the acts and regulations, and increases efficiency by regulating goods and technologies under the jurisdiction of the Nuclear Safety and Security Commission through a separate public notice.

국제수출통제규범의 국내이행

박언경(Park Eon Kyung),왕상한(Wang Sang Han) 경희법학연구소 2018 경희법학 Vol.53 No.2

물품, 소프트웨어 및 기술은 대량파괴무기의 개발, 생산, 사용 등의 목적으로 활용 가능성으로 인하여 전략물자수출통제제도를 통해 규제되고 있다. 수출통제의 대상인 전략물자들 중 유형의 물품, 소프트웨어의 경우 상대적으로 통제가 용이하지만, 유ㆍ무형이 공존하는 기술의 경우는 통제가 용이하지 않은 상황이다. 기업 활동의 글로벌화에 따라 국경을 초월한 기술거래 급증, 민간용 기술의 고도화와 이에 따른 군용으로의 전용사례가 증가, 외국인 근로자 및 유학생의 증가, IT 기술의 발달 등 기술과 관련한 제반환경의 변화에 따라 기술이전의 개념이 진화해 왔고, 국경을 기초로 한 전통적인 수출에 대한 통제만으로는 효과적인 기술 통제가 불가능하게 되었다. 이에 따라 등장한 개념이 기술의 무형이전(Intangible Transfer of Technology, ITT)이다. 기술 및 소프트웨어의 무형이전은 국가안보 뿐만 아니라 기업의 산업경쟁력과 직접적인 관련성이 있기에, 기술통제법제의 중요성은 더욱 높아지고 있다. 이러한 환경에서 무형기술이전 통제법제의 흠결 또는 부재는 관련기술의 불법수출로 귀결될 수 있다. 이에 우리나라도 2014년부터 대외무역법 및 하위법령의 개정을 통하여 기술의 무형이전 제도를 도입하여 운영하고 있다. 산업통상자원부 소관 이중용도 품목에 대해서는 자체 방안을 수립하여 이행중이며, 원자력안전위원회는 별도의 지침을 수립하여 통제를 실시하고 있다. 다만 현행법령은 원자력 관련 기술의 무형통제에 관한 구체적인 내용은 원자력안전위원회에 위임하고 있으나, 이에 대한 세부규정은 없는 상황이다. 본 연구에서는 아직 세부적인 법제도가 정비되지 않은 원자력 관련 전략기술 이전에 적용되는 법제의 내용과 적용체계를 분석하였다. 국내법제는 원자력전용품목을 제외하고는 산업통상자원부에서 수출통제를 이행하고 있으며, 관련법령도 대외무역법과 하위 법령에 의해 이행되고 있다. 기술의 유형 정의, 국적기준의 통제 등의 규정보완을 통해 무형기술의 이전통제를 실시할 수 있는 명시적인 근거가 마련되었다. 반면, 기관간 법적권한의 위임은 상위법령에 근거를 두어야 함에도 원자력전용품목에 대한 통제근거가 하위법령인 전략물자수출입고시에 위임되어 있는 점, 원자력안전법에서 수출입규정이 전략물자수출입통제에만 적용되는 규정이 아닌 점, 교육제도의 내용도 전략물자수출통제법제를 위반한 자에게 적용되기에 적합한 내용이 아니라는 점, 대외무역법상의 벌칙과 원자력안전법상의 벌칙의 균형성 등의 측면에서는 여전히 보완이 필요하다. 또한 원자력전용품목 통제를 위한 원자력안전법 하위의 고시가 제정되지 않고 있는 점도 향후 보완이 되어야 할 것이다. Applicability of development, production and practical use of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) has made items, softwares and technologies under the regulation of strategic export control system. Amongst strategic items subject to export control, tangible items and softwares are simpler to control, but technologies in which tangible and intangible characters are mixed up are harder to control. Such factors as fast growing transboundary transaction of technologies due to the globalization of businesses, technical upgrading of the private sector and the increase in appropriation for military purposes of private technology, the upsurging number of foreigners to work and study, and development of IT technologies have been leading the changing perception of technology transfer, which seriously have eroded efficiency of the conventional export control based on national boundaries. Intangible Transfer of Technology (ITT) is being evolved out of that. Intangible transfer of technology and/or software is directly involved with industrial competitiveness as well as national security, and more important is the legal system of technology export control. Deficit or absence in the legal system may result in illegal export of relative technologies from the view point of the current international law. For that reason, Korea introduced the articles regulating ITT by the amendment of ‘Foreign Trade Act’, its enforcement ordinance and enforcement decree in 2014, and has been developing them. Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy (MOTIE) regulates the dual use items in accordance with its own measures, and Nuclear Safety and Security Commission (NSSC) regulates established management rules to operate them. Current legislation authorizes NSSC to control the intangible transfer of Nuclear technology, but it does not stipulate detailed articles. This writing analizes the relevant articles and application system of the developing legislation which can be applied to the intangible transfer of nuclear technology. According to the current legislation, MOTIE is the authorized government agency except for the exclusive items for the nuclear purpose, and its substantive practice is implemented by ‘Foreign Trade Act’ and its lower statutes. Those legislation made up for the definition of a few classes of technology and the control at an international level to provide grounds to support legal measures. However, it is necessary to complement these deficits; that the ground to control the exclusive items for the nuclear purpose is entrusted to the government notification which is a lower statue even though the entrust of legal competence between government agencies shall be based on a higher law; that the relevant articles of ‘Nuclear Safety Act’ are applicable to other items as well as the strategic items; that the content for training is not commensurate to the offenders of the export control regulations for the strategic items; and imbalance is found between the penalty by ‘Foreign Trade Act’ and the one by ‘Nuclear Safety Act’. Furthermore, the absence of a government notification of ‘Nuclear Safety Act’ to control the exclusive items for the nuclear use should also be complemented.