장시간 입식-좌식 작업대 사용 전략에 따른 생체역학적 변화 분석

김슬기(Seulgi Kim),추한박(Hanbo Zou),진상은(Sangeun Jin) 대한인간공학회 2020 대한인간공학회 학술대회논문집 Vol.2020 No.10

Objective: This study investigated the changes of muscle activation and body kinematics while using dynamic sitting and sit-standing workstation. Background: Although the sit-standing workstation and dynamic sitting strategy environment are an effective way to reduce the biomechanical loads in prolonged static posture, there have been no studies comparing the two conditions for prolonged scenario. Method: A total of 12 healthy participants were recruited and asked to change postures in every 15 minutes (total 60 minutes), while using a computer without any restriction. Each participant visited twice to test ‘sit-semi standing’ (dynamic sitting) and ‘sit-standing’ conditions. Muscle activation was measured in lumbar elector spinae(LES), rectus abdominis(RA), and gluteus maximus(GM), and the center of pressure(CoP) was captured by a forceplate and used to calculate standard deviation in M-L direction and A-P direction, and sample entropy. The body kinematic was captured by a motion capture system and used to calculated lumbar flexion angle. Results: LES showed significant differences in 10, 50, and 90%ile NEMGs in which the "sit-standing" showed greater activation patterns than in "sit-semi standing". In addition, the ‘sit-standing’ condition showed a broader distribution of NEMG than the ‘sit-semi standing’ condition denoting unexpected motions in the standing workstation. GM showed a significant interaction between Conditions and Time in 10, 50, and 90%iles NEMGs, and revealed significantly greater muscle activation in "sit-standing" than in "sit-semi standing". In addition, the movement of CoP was significantly bigger in "sit-standing" than "sit-semi standing", but complexity of movement captured by the sample entropy was significantly smaller in "sit-standing" revealing a simple and patterned movement but bigger movement in the ‘sit-standing’ condition. Conclusion: ‘Sit-semi standing’ showed more positive biomechanical evidences than ‘sit-standing’ for reducing the discomfort of the body in an office environment. Application: The office chair should be designed for providing various sitting postures including ‘semi-standing’ in which a larger trunk-knee angle and a smaller knee angle are required.

Effects of Standing Aids on Lumbar Spine Posture and Muscle Activity in the Lumbar Spine and Hip during Prolonged Standing

( Hyeon-jin Kim ),( Young-eun Choi ) 대한물리의학회 2019 대한물리의학회지 Vol.14 No.2

PURPOSE: This study was conducted to compare different standing postures with the use of standing aids for lumbar spine posture and muscle activity, and to identify the most desirable standing posture. METHODS: The lumbopelvic angle was assessed based on static radiographic measurement on the sagittal plane. Lumbar lordosis, lumbosacral lordosis, and the intervertebral joint angle at L1/L5 and L5/S1 were measured using radiography in three standing postures (standing on level ground, standing with one foot on a platform, and standing on a sloped surface). In addition, muscle activity was measured using surface electromyography to examine the cocontraction of the lumbar and hip muscles. RESULTS: Lumbar lordosis, lumbosacral lordosis, and L5/S1 intervertebral joint flexion occurred with one foot on the platform. No significant differences were found between standing on a sloped surface and standing on level ground. However, muscle co-contraction was reduced with the use of standing aids. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated that standing with a foot on a platform induced lumbar lordosis, but that there was no significant difference between standing on a sloped surface and standing on level ground. However, muscle co-contraction was reduced with the use of standing aids. Based on the motor control pattern as a predictor of LBP, the use of standing aids would help workers during prolonged standing.

제3자의 소송담당과 판결의 효력

김세진 한국토지법학회 2013 土地法學 Vol.29 No.1

Third party standing in a lawsuit occurs where a person who is not a holder of rights or obligations under substantive laws becomes a party to a lawsuit. Here, whether or not a person who is a holder of rights or obligations but is not a party to the lawsuit is bound by the judgment rendered to the “third party with standing” becomes an issue. On this matter, Article 218 (Subjective scope of res judicata) of Civil Procedure Act provides that ‘a final judgment rendered to a person who becomes a plaintiff or defendant for another person shall also have an effect on such other person’ (Paragraph 3). And Article 25 (Subjective scope of enforceability) of Civil Enforcement Act provides that ‘a judgment, if it has effect on a person other than the party indicated therein, may be enforceable against or for such person’ (main body of Paragraph 1). The rationale for the effect that a judgment rendered to a third party (third party standing) has on the holder of rights or obligations is that the holder of rights or obligations, since his/her interest is represented by the third party with standing and the opposing party should not be compelled to multiple lawsuits for the same subject matter of lawsuit for reasons unknown to him/her, based on the principle of fairness, the holder of rights or obligations must be under the effect of such judgment. On the other hand, if the third party with standing wins the lawsuit, the opposing party is bound by the judgment in relation to the holder of rights or obligations because the third party with standing and the holder of rights or obligations must be deemed a single entity in the dispute involving the relevant subject matter of lawsuit and the opposing party being granted such procedural protection must accept the result of the lawsuit in relation to the holder of rights or obligations. Thus, among the cases of third party standing, as for a substitute third party with standing (such as receiver in a bankruptcy or for rehabilitated debtors), ex officio party, designated party or other voluntary third party with standing, since the standing thereof is based on the will of the holder of rights or obligations, since the third party with standing has to protect the interest (under substantive laws) of the holder of rights or obligations concerning the subject matter of lawsuit and since the fact that the holder of rights or obligations has no choice but to approve disposition of the right and interest (subject matter of lawsuit) performed by the third party with standing results in the interest of such holder being represented in the lawsuit by the third party with standing, it is natural that the holder of rights or obligations be bound by the judgment. In a case where a third party has lawsuit-handling authority in parallel with the holder of rights or obligations (parallel third party standing), e.g., creditor derivative suit, shareholder derivative suit, or pledgee’ exercise of security right on a claim, although there are differing positions on the lawsuit-handling authority of the holder of rights or obligations, the effect of judgment must be expanded to the holder of rights or obligations too because there is no basis for imposing on the third party debtor any disadvantage due to the creditor’s fault. 실체법상 권리의무의 주체가 아닌 사람이 당사자로서 소송을 수행하는 것을 제3자의 소송담당이라고 한다. 여기서 제3자가 당사자로서 받은 판결의 효력이 소송을 수행하지 아니한 권리의무의 주체에 미치는가가 문제된다. 이에 관하여 민사소송법 제218조는 ‘기판력의 주관적 범위’라는 제목 아래에 ‘다른 사람을 위하여 원고나 피고가 된 사람에 대한 확정판결은 그 다른 사람에 대하여도 효력이 미친다.’고 규정하고 있고(제3항), 민사집행법 제25조는 ‘집행력의 주관적 범위’라는 제목 아래에 ‘판결이 그 판결에 표시된 당사자 외의 사람에게 효력이 미치는 때에는 그 사람에 대하여 집행하거나 그 사람을 위하여 집행할 수 있다.’고 규정하고 있다(제1항 본문). 이와 같이 제3자가 소송담당자로서 받은 판결의 효력이 권리의무의 주체에 미치는 정당성의 근거는, 권리의무의 주체는 그 이익이 소송담당자에 의하여 대표되는 한편, 상대방은 자신이 모르는 이유로 동일한 소송물에 관하여 2중의 소송을 강요당할 이유가 없기 때문에 공평의 이념에 비추어 권리의무의 주체는 담당자가 받은 판결의 효력의 확장을 받아도 어쩔 수 없다는 점에 있다. 거꾸로 소송담당자 승소의 경우에 상대방이 권리의무 주체와의 관계에서도 그 효력을 받는 것은 당해 소송물을 둘러싼 다툼에 관하여는 소송담당자와 그 배후에 있는 권리의무 주체는 일체로 보아야 하고 그러한 절차권의 보장 하에 스스로 소송을 수행한 상대방은 권리의무 주체와의 관계에서도 그 결과를 감수해야 하기 때문이다. 이와 같은 관점에서 제3자 소송담당 가운데 파산관재인, 회생채무자의 관리인과 같은 갈음형 소송담당자, 직무상의 당사자, 그리고 선정당사자 등 임의적 소송담당자의 경우에는 담당자의 당사자적격이 권리의무 주체의 의사에 기하든가, 실체법상 담당자가 권리의무 주체의 소송물에 관한 이익을 지켜야 할 의무를 부담하여야 하든가, 담당자가 소송물인 권리·이익에 관하여 한 처분행위의 효력을 권리의무의 주체가 승인하지 않으면 안 되는 관계에 있어 권리의무 주체의 이익이 담당자에 의하여 소송상 대표되었다고 할 수 있으므로 권리의무의 주체가 그 판결의 효력을 받는 것은 당연하다. 한편 채권자대위소송을 제기한 채권자, 회사대표소송을 수행하는 주주, 채권에 대한 질권을 행사하는 질권자 등과 같이 제3자가 권리의무 주체와 병행하여 소송수행권을 갖는 병행형 소송담당에 관하여는 권리의무 주체의 소송수행권의 보장과 관련하여 여러 가지 논의가 있으나, 이 경우에도 채권자의 귀책사유로 말미암은 불이익을 제3채무자에게 부담시킬 이유가 없기 때문에 그 판결의 효력이 권리의무의 주체에 미친다고 보아야 할 것이다.

Qui tam action'제도

차상붕 忠南大學校 法學硏究所 2004 法學硏究 Vol.15 No.1

This paper discusses The Standing of Qui tam action relator in US. The feature of modern country is recognition of property as fundamental according to enriching society has increased. Still more, the growth of government and citizen activity has made the yardstick of property rights an inadequate measure of the private interests entitled to seek judicial intervention against asserted administrative illegality such as expenditure of finance. While the share of State finance has decreased compared with that of OECD's State, national debt and inefficient operations expenditure have increased. The perceived need to protest new classes of private interests has produced a responsive extended expansion of Standing rights. The Federal Supreme Court created 'injury in fact' of constitutional requirement of article III with the 'legally protected interest' as the criterion of standing. Public action's theory insist that standing is permitted by the court's discretion. The Federal Supreme Court exercises the influential discretion on the adequacy of the requirement of 'injury in fact' and causation, redressability and so on. In the landmark Sanders case, the Supreme Court construed statutory review protections as affording Standing to plaintiffs who have no legally protected interest so that they may act as surrogate for those who do. Data Processing case interpreted the Administrative Procedure Act as affording Standing to persons who suffer 'injury in fact' by reason of the challenged agency action, and who are also 'arguability within zone of interests to protected or regulated' under a relevant statute. It has been discussed that to what extent the notion of 'injury in fact' or 'zone of interest' may be applied to cover the proper scope of Standing to sue in connection with the interpretation of the Taxpayers' cases. Qui tam is a provision of the Federal Civil False Claims Act that allows a private citizen to file a suit in the name of the US. Government charing fraud by government contractors and other entities who receive or use government funds, and share in any money recovered. In this statutes the standing of the taxpayers' is a question of the right to seek judicial review. The standing of taxpayers' has been extended is by broadening the notion of legal right to include interests protected by statutes as well as the common law. This expansion was sometimes explicitly amended by the legislature. Even in the absence of such provisions, the courts have sometimes discerned in a statute a legislature intent to afford protection to certain new classes of interests and have afforded a correlative right judicial review to enforce those protections. The statutorily protected interest rationale for Standing has been utilized with increasing frequency and boldness even in the case of statutes that are entirely silent on the right to judicial review. However, extending the principle of surrogate Standing to a case where the governing statute did not contain explicit judicial review provisions. This paper is concluded that the problem on Standing of the taxpayers' suit should be solve by enacting "The Special Act for Taxpayers' suit" as a plan. And it is necessary to establish tax courts in district level and high court level in Korea so as to protecting suit excessively and strength taxpayers' right protection.

미국의 납세자의 원고적격법리에 관한 검토

車相鵬(Cha Sang-bung) 미국헌법학회 2005 美國憲法硏究 Vol.16 No.1

The feature of modern country is recognition of property as fundamental according to enriching society has increased. Still more, the growth of government and citizen activity has made the yardstick of property rights an inadequate measure of the private interests entitled to seek judicial intervention against asserted administrative illegality such as expenditure of finance. The perceived need to protest new classes of private interests has produced a responsive extended expansion of Standing rights. The Federal Supreme Court created "injury in fact" of constitutional requirement of article III with the "legally protected interest" as the criterion of standing. Public action"s theory insist that standing is permitted by the court"s discretion. The Federal Supreme Court exercises the influential discretion on the adequacy of the requirement of "injury in fact" and causation, redressability and so forth. In the landmark Sanders case, the Supreme Court construed statutory review protections as affording Standing to plaintiffs who have no legally protected interest so that they may act as surrogate for those who do. Data Processing case interpreted the Administrative Procedure Act as affording Standing to persons who suffer "injury in fact" by reason of the challenged agency action. and who are also "arguability within zone of interests to protected or regulated" under "a relevant statute. It has been discussed that to what extent "the notion of "injury in fact" or "zone of interest" may be applied to cover the proper scope of Standing to sue in connection with the interpretation of the Taxpayers" cases. Qui tam is a provision of the Federal Civil False Claims Act that allows a private citizen to file a suit in the name of the US. Government charing fraud by government contractors and other entities who receive or use government funds, and share in any money recovered. In this statutes the standing of the taxpayers" is a question of the right to seek judicial review. The standing of taxpayers" has been extended is by broadening the notion of legal right to include interests protected by statutes as well as the common law. This expansion was sometimes explicitly amended by the legislature. Even in the absence of such provisions. the courts have sometimes discerned in a statute a legislature intent to afford protection to certain new classes of interests and have afforded a correlative right judicial review to enforce those protections. The statutorily protected interest rationale for Standing has been utilized with increasing frequency and boldness even in the case of statutes that are entirely silent on the right to judicial review. However. extending the principle of surrogateStanding to a case where the governing statute did not contain explicit judicial review provisions. The author concludes that the problem on Standing of the taxpayers" suit should be solve by enacting "The Special Act for Taxpayers" suit" as one way. And it is necessary to establish tax courts in district level and high court level in Korea in order to protecting suit excessively and strength taxpayers" right protection.

채권자대위소송의 실질적 보장과 중복소송

범경철 경희대학교 법학연구소 2010 경희법학 Vol.45 No.4

There is a dispute about whether or not a creditor should be included in the concept of third party standing. The general view and the case law have approved a statutory standing over the creditor and consequently, the requirements for the subrogation action should be examined at the level of litigation requirements and the lawsuit has been dismissed without considering the merits of the claim based on the ground of duplicative litigation. However, according to a literal interpretation, a party in subrogation action asserts his or her own rights allowed under the civil law which is a substantive law. Therefore, as to a legal relationship created by a debtor who is the subject of the right, a creditor is a person who files a lawsuit for his or her own interest. In other words, when both the subject of the right and creditor possess the right to perform a litigation, I think it is improper to interpret the creditor as a litigant with statutory standing. Also, an interpretation separated from the substantive law in interpretation of the subrogation action seems to be too artful. In addition, the interpretation under the case law seems to be unfair compare to creditor’s right of revocation, which is also a substantive right. In case of creditor’s right of revocation, the court took a position that a lawsuit filed by another creditor while a creditor’s revocation action is pending in court is not a duplicative litigation because the creditor can separately assert his or her own right. Also, in judging litigation requirements, the court abusively and broadly applied the general principle to avoid duplicative litigation for the procedural stability. Furthermore, allowing prohibitive effect on subrogation action on the ground of duplicative litigation unreasonably regulates the constitutional right of trial by the court’s interpretation. That is, the court’s dismissal of the case without considering the merits of the claim, even if the creditor in subrogation action also has a right to file a lawsuit and develop a trial by actively proving his or her own right in a trial on the merits of a case, is unreasonably restricting a right to an action by the court’s interpretation. Therefore, the creditor in a subrogation action by creditor should be understood as a litigant with an independent standing rather than substituting the debtor. There is a dispute about whether or not a creditor should be included in the concept of third party standing. The general view and the case law have approved a statutory standing over the creditor and consequently, the requirements for the subrogation action should be examined at the level of litigation requirements and the lawsuit has been dismissed without considering the merits of the claim based on the ground of duplicative litigation. However, according to a literal interpretation, a party in subrogation action asserts his or her own rights allowed under the civil law which is a substantive law. Therefore, as to a legal relationship created by a debtor who is the subject of the right, a creditor is a person who files a lawsuit for his or her own interest. In other words, when both the subject of the right and creditor possess the right to perform a litigation, I think it is improper to interpret the creditor as a litigant with statutory standing. Also, an interpretation separated from the substantive law in interpretation of the subrogation action seems to be too artful. In addition, the interpretation under the case law seems to be unfair compare to creditor’s right of revocation, which is also a substantive right. In case of creditor’s right of revocation, the court took a position that a lawsuit filed by another creditor while a creditor’s revocation action is pending in court is not a duplicative litigation because the creditor can separately assert his or her own right. Also, in judging litigation requirements, the court abusively and broadly applied the general principle to avoid duplicative litigation for the procedural stability. Furthermore, allowing prohibitive effect on subrogation action on the ground of duplicative litigation unreasonably regulates the constitutional right of trial by the court’s interpretation. That is, the court’s dismissal of the case without considering the merits of the claim, even if the creditor in subrogation action also has a right to file a lawsuit and develop a trial by actively proving his or her own right in a trial on the merits of a case, is unreasonably restricting a right to an action by the court’s interpretation. Therefore, the creditor in a subrogation action by creditor should be understood as a litigant with an independent standing rather than substituting the debtor.

뇌졸중 환자의 정적, 동적 선자세 균형 대칭성과 보행 기능의 상관관계 연구

김중휘,Kim, Joong-Hwi 대한물리치료학회 2012 대한물리치료학회지 Vol.24 No.2

Purpose: The aim of the present study was to measure the standing balance symmetry of stroke patients using a force-plate with computer system, and to investigate the correlation between the standing balance symmetry and that of the walking function in stroke patients. Methods: 48 patients with stroke (34 men, 14 women, $56.8{\pm}11.72$ years old) participated in this study. Static standing balance was evaluated by the weight distribution on the affected and the nonaffected lower limbs, sway path, sway velocity, and sway frequency, which reflected the characteristic of body sway in quiet standing. Dynamic standing balance was evaluated by anteroposterior and mediolateral sway angle, which revealed the limit of stability during voluntary weight displacement. Symmetry index of static standing balance, (SI-SSB) calculated by the ratio of the affected weight distribution for the nonaffected weight distribution, and symmetric index of dynamic standing balance (SI-SDB) by the ratio of the affected sway angle for the nonaffected sway angle. Functional balance assessed by a Berg balance scale (BBS), and the functional walking by 10m walking velocity, as well as the modified motor assessment scale (mMAS). Results: Static balance scales and SI-SSB was the only correlation with BBS (p<0.05). Dynamic balance scales and SI-DSB, not only was correlated with BBS, but also with 10m walking velocity and mMAS (p<0.01). Additionally, there was a significant difference between SI-SSB and that of SI-DSB (p<0.01). Conclusion: The balance and the walking function relate to real life in the stroke showed strong relationships with the dynamic standing balance symmetry in the frontal plane and the ability of anterior voluntary weight displacement in sagittal plane.

단거리 달리기 스탠딩 스타트 동작의 운동학적 분석

오정환(Oh, Cheong-Hwan),신의수(Shin, Eui-Su),이광무(Lee, Kwang-Moo) 한국체육과학회 2016 한국체육과학회지 Vol.25 No.4

The purpose of this study is to analyze the kinematics of the standing-start movement of the Sprints. And to present the quantitative data for performing a start operation on the effective Sprints that do not use the start block. Conclusions are as follows. First, the total time from the standing-start movement was found to be 0.72 ± 0.03 s. Second, each phase standing-start movement horizontal CM(center of mass) position in the step 1 is 0.78 ± 0.02 m, step 2 is found to be 1.01 ± 0.11 m, step 3 is 1.29 ± 0.06 m. And, vertical position CM showed that increasing with the progress of the event. Third, in the standing-start movement horizontal velocity CM showed that according to the progress of operation is faster. And, vertical CM velocity is shown in a vertical direction and in the E2, E3 and E4. Fourth, step each stride in standing-start movement has showed to be the smallest step1, step2 showed the greatest stride. Fifth, the hip joint angle from the standing-start movement is Phase 2 has showed range of the greatest angle, knee angle showed the largest change in the angle of Phase 1. And the angle of the ankle joint showed that to be symmetrical flexion and extension by the event. Sixth, tilt angle in the standing-start movement has showed to be increased according to the progress of operation, step3 is found to be 44.89 ± 7.16 °. Taken together the above results, in order to effectively sprints standing-start movement according to progress of the operation holizotal CM velocity the faster pace will be good to widen. And, in step1 stride it is determined to be small and be made fast motion. Also tilt angle is keep to about 45 ° step3 according to the progress of operation and is determines that be good to the CM the running direction.

행정소송의 원고적격에 관한 연구 -환경행정소송에서 제3자의 원고적격을 중심으로-

김향기 ( Hyang Ki Kim ) 한국환경법학회 2009 環境法 硏究 Vol.31 No.2

법원에 행정작용을 다투려는 자는 사법심사를 제기할 원고적격이 있어야 한다. 행정소송법 제12조에 따라, 취소소송은 처분 등의 취소를 구할 법률상 이익이 있는 자가 제기할 수 있다. 따라서 행정행위에 대한 사법심사를 제기하고자 하는 자는 행정청의 결정으로 불이익을 받았고 법률상 보호된 이익이 있다는 것을 보여야 한다. 특히 오늘날 환경행정소송분야에서 행정청의 위법한 처분으로 영향을 받는 환경오염 및 환경침해지역 인근주민과 같은 제3자가 원고적격을 가질 수 있는지 문제된다. 원고적격은 미국, 영국, 독일, 프랑스 등 외국에서는 광범하게 인정되고 있다. 우리 행정소송법 제12조의 해석과 관련하여 환경행정소송에서 제3자의 원고적격이 확대될 수 있는지가 문제된다. 최근 대법원은 근거법령과 관련법령, 침해의 성질과 내용 및 정도 등의 해석을 통해 환경상 이익의 범위를 넓혀왔다. 이 논문은 학설과 판례를 참작하여 "법률상 이익"의 해석을 통해 제3자의 원고적격 확대의 가능성을 검토한다. 즉, 법률의 의미 및 범위는 근거법령과 관련법령뿐만 아니라 절차법령 및 헌법까지 의미하는지. 또한 "법률상 이익"의 의미는 개별적이고 직접적이며 구체적인 이익이지만, 법령기준론, 피침해기준론, 수인한도론 및 기본권기준론으로 탄력적으로 해석해야 한다. 그리고 제3자의 의미와 한계는 환경영향평가대상지역이나 사전환경성검토대상지역의 주민은 원고적격 인정에 문제가 없으나, 그 대상지역 밖의 주민은 환경상 이익의 침해에 대한 입증의 부담을 지고 있다. A person bringing a court challenge to an administrative decision must have standing to seek judicial review. According to Article 12 of the Administrative Litigation Act, the revocation litigation may be instituted by a person having legal interests to seek the revocation of a disposition, etc. So a person seeking judicial scrutiny of agency action had to show that he had a legally protected interest-that is, one recognized by statute-that was adversely affected by agency`s decision. The "legally protected interest" test suffered from a number of deficiencies that led to its eventual rejection. It tend to confuse standing issues with merits issues, because the court was required to consider the merits of the plaintiff`s assertions of administrative illegality in order to determine whether he had a sufficient legal interest to confer standing. Litigants have to argue that the Act did not merely clearly codify the existing "legal interest" theory but rather expanded the availability of standing by allowing judicial review whenever the complainant could prove that he was adversely affected. Today specially, in the field of the environmental administrative litigation, it is an issue whether the third party, such as citizens living nearby environmental pollution area and environmental damages area to be effected by the illegal dispositions of administrative agencies, could have a standing to sue. The standing to sue has been admited extensively in foreign country, such as America, England, Germany, France etc. Also, in connection with interpretation of Article 12 of the administrative litigation Act, it is an important issue that the standing of the third party in an environmental administrative litigation is expanded. In recent years, the Supreme Court has expanded the zone of environmental interests protected by interpretation of the basis statute and the statute conserned, and natures, contents, degrees. In consideration of the theory and the judicial precedent, this thesis examine the possibility to expand the standing of the third party by interpretation of "legal interests", as follows: -The meaning and the extent of the statute: It means to include not only the basis statute and statute concerned but also procedure statute, moreover the constitutional law. -The meaning of the legal "interests": It means a individual, firsthand, concrete interests. But it should be interpreted elastically with the interpretation statute standard theory, the infringement interests theory, the perseverance limit theory and the basic rights standard theory. -The meaning and the limit of the third party: It is no problem for the inhabitants in subject area of environmental impacts assessment and in subject area of prior examination of environmental nature to be admitted the standing. But it is a question that citizens living out of the subject area take the burden of proof for their environmental interests to be infringed.

편마비 환자의 반 무릎서기 자세가 일어서기 동작 수행에 미치는 영향

양대중,장일용,박승규,이준희,강정일,천동환,Yang, Dae-Jung,Jang, Il-Yong,Park, Seung-Kyu,Lee, Jun-Hee,Kang, Jung-Il,Chun, Dong-Hwan 대한물리치료학회 2011 대한물리치료학회지 Vol.23 No.5

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to investigate the kinematic characteristics and muscle activities during the following two conditions: transition from half-kneel to standing on the affected leg and non-affected leg. Methods: Twenty-one hemiplegic patients participated in the study. A motion analysis system was used to record the range of motion and angle velocity of the hip, knee and ankle from the half-kneel to the standing position. Electromyography was used to record the activity of 4 muscles. Results: The statistical analysis showed that the minimum ROM of the hip joint was less on the affected leg during transition from half-kneel to standing. However, the minimum ROM of the knee and ankle joints was less on the non-affected leg during transition from half-kneel to standing. The angle velocity of the knee and ankle joints was less during transition from half kneeling to standing on the non-affected leg. Muscle activity of the rectus femoris and tibialis anterior was less while moving from half-kneel to the standing position on the affected leg. Conclusion: These results show that greater active ROM of the knee and ankle was required on the affected leg for transition from half-kneel to the standing position than for normal gait. Muscle activity of the rectus femoris and tibialis anterior is normally required for movement from the half-kneel to the standing position during normal gait. Further studies are needed to investigate the antigravity movement in healthy subjects and hemiplegic patients in order to completely understand the normal and abnormal movement from the half-kneel to the standing position.