WTO 보건의료서비스 협상과 주요 쟁점

왕상한 서강대학교 법학연구소 2003 서강법학 Vol.5 No.-

부당지원행위와 형사처벌

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

부당지원행위와 정상가격

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

WTO 保健醫療서비스 協商과 主要 爭點

왕상한(Sanghan Wang) 법무부 국제법무정책과 2002 통상법률 Vol.- No.48

The current article reviews the progress of the WTO Doha Development Agenda negotiations on medical service; identifies and analyzes some of the critical issues that have emerged in the ongoing negotiations; and goes on to render detailed assessments on the existing domestic rules and policies relevant with those issues. The current article discusses four main issues of the WTO negotiations on medical service according to the four modes of supply as distinguished under the GATS; namely the commercial telemedicine services, consumption of health services abroad, the commercial provision of health services via foreign-invested clinics or practices, and movement of health professionals. It then examines relevant provisions in the recently revised Korean Medical Service Act, and reasons that they are ill-equiped in many aspects to accomodate developing trends in the market as well as changes that may be forthcoming from the WTO negotiations. The current article concludes that, irrespective of the direction and the subsequent outcome of the WTO negotiations, it is vitally important for the sound development of the medical industry to remove unnecessary government regulations.

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.

美國 法科大學 學制 및 辯護士 試驗制度 등에 관한 理解와 評價

王相漢(Wang Sanghan) 서강대학교 법학연구소 2000 서강법학 Vol.2 No.-

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.

전자상거래 국제규범 논의동향과 시사점

왕상한(Sang Han Wang) 한국상사법학회 2000 상사법연구 Vol.19 No.2

N/A

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.