통상공동소송인의 변론에 관한 연구

최성호(Choi, SungHo) 한양법학회 2010 漢陽法學 Vol.31 No.-

From normal joint action according to principle of commonness litigant independence the possibility of affecting is not to the joint litigant where the assertion or evidence submission of joint litigant one side is different, but in order to correspond in gist of joint action, if applies the principle of assertion commonness or the principle of evidence commonness in the joint litigant between, principle of commonness litigant independence and about the yes or no which collides with afterwords became early in same conclusion. First, regarding the principle of evidence commonness between of the joint litigant, in the joint litigant will affect in the joint litigant where the act of evidence application etc. of one person is different and being handled with act of the different joint litigant will not be the fact that the problem which opposes in principle of commonness litigant independence does not occur, principle of evidence commonness the law officer the person concerned will have what kind of hope to the expectation and submit an evidence, relationship without did not submit the resultant evidence where the person euro judges the objective value of that evidence and in the joint litigant who is different only will only do in resultantly affecting in selfishness, joint litigant each one Any restriction without the assertion which is confisry or an evidence application exercises the lawsuit accomplishment circle which is active from the different joint action person and or if the different joint litigant and does and is effective means principle of commonness litigant independence and existing with difference, the trade name the problem of contradiction or collision knows as assertion should have been boiled. Second, regarding the principle of assertion commonness between of the joint litigant, “concept of indirect assertion” leads and the joint litigant separates in oneself and the case where becomes the profit the different joint litigant the different joint litigant directness is made to send the protest of the assertion which is indirect and, the collision of argument attention principle and avoids, also about reduction even to is a relationship of the lawsuit which one is identical in the argument which differs in between the joint litigant and that to between the joint litigants each other will be able to solve the problem which reaches to the conclusion which has become contradiction, asserts the fact which asserts with mediation.

통상공동소송에 있어서 재판의 통일방안에 관한 소고

권오봉(Kwon Oh-Bong) 부산대학교 법학연구소 2011 법학연구 Vol.52 No.3

통상공동소송에서는 공동소송인독립의 원칙이 적용되어 공동소송인 한 사람에게 생긴 소송행위의 효과는 다른 공동소송인에게는 아무런 영향을 미치지 아니한다. 이러한 독립의 원칙을 엄격히 적용하면 공동소송인 사이에 실질적인 견련성이 있는 공동소송의 경우에도 공동소송인마다 구구한 결론이 나올 수 있어 재판의 통일을 기하기 어렵다. 그리하여 원칙적으로 공동소송인독립의 원칙을 적용하면서 예외적으로 이 원칙을 수정 · 완화하려는 법리가 주장되고 있다. 공동소송인간 증거공통의 원칙에 관하여는 그 인정근거에 관하여는 견해의 대립이 있으나 적용을 긍정하는 데에는 학설이 일치한다. 그러나 공동소송인간에 주장공통의 원칙이 적용되는가에 관하여는 학설이 대립된다. 부정설이 다수설이고 판례의 입장이나, 어느 공동소송인의 주장이 다른 공동소송인에게도 이익이 된다면 그 사람에게도 주장의 효력이 미친다고 보는 한정적 긍정설도 유력하게 주장되고 있다. 공동소송인 사이에 주장공통의 원칙을 적용하면 재판의 통일을 기할 수는 있다. 그러나 민사소송법 제66조의 명문 규정과 우리 민사소송법이 취하고 있는 변론주의의 소송 구조 등에 비추어 볼 때, 통상의 공동소송에 있어서 주장공통 원칙의 적용은 무리라고 보인다. 그러므로 공동소송인 사이에 모순되는 판결이 나올 수 있는 문제점은 법원이 석명권을 적절히 행사하거나, 어느 공동소송인에 의한 주장을 다른 공동소송인이 명시적으로 원용하지 않더라도 일정한 경우 묵시적 원용이 있다고 해석하는 등으로 이러한 불합리한 현상을 최소화할 수밖에 없다 할 것이다. In conclusion, in the case of an ordinary co-litigation, the legal effects that arose to one co-litigants do not affect the other co-litigants due to the doctrine of “Independent Status of Ordinary Co-Litigants”. However, if the doctrine of “Independent Status of Ordinary Co-Litigants” is applied strictly, it would be difficult to attain the consistency of judicial decisions because each co-litigant might have a different legal conclusion even when there is a substantial relation between them. Hence, opinions that try to apply the doctrine of “Independent Status of Ordinary Co-Litigants” allowing exceptions to the doctrine which modify and mitigate its rigidity, are being suggested. Regarding the doctrine of “Evidence Commonness”, legal scholars agree on its application, even though they show discrepancies in determining its reason. Whereas, they disagree on the application of the doctrine of “Assertion Commonness”. Majority opinion of the legal scholars and the courts do not recognize it, even though an opinion that argues the doctrine should be adopted when an assertion of one co-litigant benefits the other co-litigants is persuasive. If the doctrine of “Assertion Commonness” is applied between co-litigants, the consistency of judicial decisions can be achieved. However, it would be hard to apply the doctrine of “Assertion Commonness” to the case of ordinary co-litigations according to the Article 66 of Civil Procedure Act, and the adversary system that Civil Procedure Act recognizes. Therefore, the problems of contradictory decisions between the co-litigants should be minimized through the right exercise of right to request elucidation or admittance of a Implied pleading of a non-asserted co-litigant when there is an express assertion of one co-litigant.

설득 담화 속의 개념적 은유

송병우(Song Byung-Woo) 국어국문학회 2008 국어국문학 Vol.- No.150

Persuasion is generally prescribed by the speech act that stands on assertions. If so, we have to present the ground that based the assertion in order to assert self-opinion. That is why the personal assertion and opinion is biased so that it is not the fact that aroused sympathy from everyone. In this manner. the ground that gives the propriety to persuasion which stands on subjective views is the argument. The argument is the method that gives confidence to person's subjective assertions and opinions. Therefore, the argument is an effective thought and speech in the persuasion. Figuratively speaking, making a persuasive text is to seek for the argument, to arrange it and to put linguistic clothes on the argument arranged. Like this, the persuasion as the speech act starts from the argument and ends in it. Therefore, first of all, to observe how the persuasion is embodied in, it is effective to focus in what kind of the argument was used in the persuasion. The argument, however, is not clearly exposed in the persuasive act. Even though it comes out, most of them are indirect. For that reason, it is important to seek for the proper argument for the effective persuasion. If the place where the argument is in, however, is c1early seen, seeking it would be easier. In this point, the ancient rhetoricians called the place where the argument was hided topos. and c1assified the sorts. In spite of various efforts of the ancient rhetoricians, topos still has obscure aspects. That is why not only whatever can take out the argument can be topos, but also all of general premises can be topos. Such ambiguousness gives rise from the point that topos was leaded from common ideas or social customs. This study premises that a clue to form topos bases on the conceptual metaphor. This is that topos made from social customs and common ideas bases fundamentally on the conceptual metaphor, is raised by it, and grows up through it. And then it forms its own strong generality and propriety. To research it, in second chapter, we survey theories of the conceptual metaphor. It is a definition of characteristics of the conceptual metaphor. We try to reveal that the conceptual metaphor is not a figure in regard to linguistic expressions but a mechanism operating in the conceptual dimension. In third chapter, we observe a definition and conceptual characteristics of topos. We debate on the correlation between topos and the conceptual metaphor. In fourth chapter, we observe the conceptual metaphor and topos in Pyomun of Koryo History and prove how topos is formed by what kind of the conceptual metaphor is based on.

주장과 근거 관련 용어의 재범주화 -2007 개정 교육과정과 교과서를 중심으로-

이삼형 ( Sam Hyung Lee ),이선숙 ( Seon Suk Lee ) 한국어교육학회(구 한국국어교육연구학회) 2011 국어교육 Vol.0 No.136

The purpose of this study is to suggest the solution of examining the problem of terminology and systematizing the terminology in relation to assertion and base in educational effective value. The assertion and base education is more emphasized with critical thinking ability and essay. However, the use of the terminology in relation to assertion and base is ambiguous and systemless in Korean education curriculum and text book, and it doesn`t show the difference in using lots of terminology in relation to assertion and base. So educational confusion is followed. Therefore, this study examined how the terminology related to assertion and base is used in educational way, tried to categorize it according to the characteristics in objectivity and subjectivity and tried to reveal the system of terminology clearly based on common point. The sense of examining and categorizing terminology seems to be reflected in present Korean curriculum. However, in real classroom, teachers and students can`t understand the differences and common points of terminology in relation to assertion and base and are confused by them. Therefore, examining and categorizing terminology need to be reflected on curriculum plan according to the level of school system. Some may think that the terminology which is used nowadays has differences. However, The suggestion of this study focuses on the common points and educational effective value of terminology. This kind of re-categorizing of educational terminology has an important meaning in educational effective value.

‘만’의 단언, 전제, 함축

김정민(Cheongmin Kim) 한국중원언어학회 2015 언어학연구 Vol.0 No.34

Studies in Linguistics 34, 1-20. The man ‘only’ sentence in (1) conveys two propositions: the exclusive proposition that nobody other than Yuna came to the party and the proposition that Yuna came to the party, which we will call the prejacent. (1) Yuna-man party-e o-ass-ta Yuna-only party-to come-Past-Decl ‘Only Yuna came to the party.’ The meaning of the English adverb only has been the subject of intense debate; in particular, regarding the status of its prejacent. It has been argued that it is a presupposition, a conversational implicature, and an entailment. The detailed consideration of the meaning of man ‘only’ elucidates the relationship between these various types of meanings. This paper aims to argue that the prejacent of Korean man ‘only’ sentences is closer to a presupposition than to an entailment or a conversational implicature. A problem is that the prejacent can felicitously be new information. However, according to the common ground theory of pragmatic presuppositions, informative presuppositions aren’t the problem that they might have initially appeared to be.