민생·혁신을 지원하는 공정한 시장경제 구축

한기정 한국공정경쟁연합회 2024 경쟁저널 Vol.- No.221

Lipopolysaccharide, Dexamethasone, 및 N-Nitro-L-Arginine Methyl Ester가 흰쥐 간 조직의 프리라디칼 발생과 제거에 미치는 영향

한기정,김석배,김양균,윤혜영,백광진,이희성,권년수 중앙대학교 의과대학 의과학연구소 2003 中央醫大誌 Vol.28 No.1

Lipopolysaccharide (LPS) stimulates various immune and inflammatory reactions to induces the generation of reactive oxygen intermediates (ROI) and reactive nitrogen intermediates (RNI). ROI and RNI are free radicals with very high reactivity, oxidize cellular constituents including proteins and lipid membranes, and thus play important roles in the pathogenesis of tissue damages in LPS-induced septic shock. The present study examined effects of dexamethasone (DexM), and N-nitro-L-arginine methyl ester (L-NAME) on the generation of ROI and RNI, and on the activities of enzymes removing ROI in the liver of rat model of septic shock. DexM has widely been used as an immunosuppressant. L-NAME has known to block synthesis of nitric oxide (NO), the main RNI, by inhibiting NO synthase (NOS). LPS (10 mg/kg body weight) markedly enhanced NO generation in serum and liver. The increased NO generation was completely blocked by pretreatment with DexM (10 mg/kg) and effectively inhibited by L-NAME (10 mg/kg). Induction of NOS protein expression by LPS was demonstrated by a Western analysis. The NOS expression was completely blocked by DexM pre-treatment, and markedly inhibited by L-NAME. However, the generation of superoxide radical, an important ROI, was not enhance in rat liver by LPS, rather it was decreased a little. Superoxide radical production was increased by L-NAME treatment or combined treatment of DexM and LPS. The level of lipid peroxidation, an index for free radical-induced cell damage, was increased by either LPS or DexM. The enhancement of lipid peroxidation by DexM was abolished by adding LPS. DexM markedly enhanced the activities of ROI removing enzymes, superoxide dismutase, glutathione peroxidase and catalase. However, rats were treated with LPS in addition to DexM, the elevated activities of superoxide dismutase, glutathione peroxidase and catalase were abolished. These results provide information on the generation and removal of ROI and RNI by LPS, DexM and L-NAME in rat liver, and on development of drugs to inhibit free radical-induced liver damage in sepsis.

미세자가유화기술을 이용한 수용성의 밀크시슬 유화물 개발 및 항산화 활성

한기정,장다빈,김채영,주가영,이은현,이경행 한국식품영양학회 2021 한국식품영양학회 학술대회논문집(학술심포지움) Vol.2021 No.11

상해보험의 법적 쟁점에 관한 연구

한기정 서울대학교 법학연구소 2014 서울대학교 法學 Vol.55 No.2

Korea has seen the market of personal accident insurance (PA insurance) growrapidly in recent years. This is mainly because of the increasing number of cars contributingto the rise of personal accident risks. The Commercial Code of PA insurance, in contrast, has noticed few changes sinceits enactment. Legislated in 1962, the Commercial Code included three articles aboutPA insurance. The article 737 is about defining PA insurance, the article 738 prescribesmatters to be mentioned on the PA insurance certificate, and article 739 providesthat articles as to life insurance excluding the article 732 apply mutatis mutandisto PA insurance. The only revision of the Commercial Code of PA insurancewas establishing the proviso of the article 729 in 1991, which allows subrogation inthe area of PA insurance when both parties to the contract agree to it. TheCommercial Code of insurance was completely reformed in 2014, but much to ourregret, it did not cover PA insurance at all. It has been criticised that current Commercial Code of PA insurance does notproperly mirror the characteristics of PA insurance. It is mainly due to the Codesimply applying articles about life insurance mutatis mutandis to PA insurance ratherthan establishing its own independent domains. Therefore, it is now necessary to interpretand revise the articles of PA insurance according to the attributes of PAinsurance. In this sense, this paper discusses five controversial issues. The first is how to define the legal nature of personal accident death insurance(PAD insurance). This insurance contains not only the element of personal accidentbut also the element of death. Some classify PAD insurance into PA insurance stressing the element of personal accident. However, it has been suggested that PADinsurance be categorized as death insurance, because the current Commercial Code isinterpreted to put a bigger emphasis on the element of death when both elementsconflict. The second is whether to require the insured’s consent in PA insurance when thepolicyholder and the insured are not identical although the insured and the beneficiaryare the same. The article 731 about life insurance stipulates such an assent regardlessof whether or not the insured is identical with the beneficiary. It needs tobe interpreted that such a consent is unnecessary when the insured has also the statusof the beneficiary. It is because the insured of PA insurance is kept alive afterthe occurrence of personal accident and enjoys the insurance money for the sake ofhimself. The third is whether to permit PA insurance when the insured and the beneficiaryare not the same. The Commercial Code of life insurance does not require that theyare the same. However, if the beneficiary has no economic interest in the insured’spersonal accident, this type of insurance may fall into a gamble. Therefore, it hasbeen suggested that the above PA insurance be allowed when the beneficiary hassome economic interests in the insured’s personal accident. The fourth is about the interpretation of the proviso of the article 729 of theCommercial Code which admits subrogation when both parties to PA insurance contractagree to it. There is no doubt that subrogation is possible in the area ofloss-compensating PA insurance. The question is whether to allow it even infixed-amount-compensating PA insurance. The answer should be negative, consideringthat the basis of subrogation is prevention of gains. The final is whether to apply dual insurance rules to PA insurance. TheCommercial Code provides such rules for general insurance but not life or personalaccident insurance. It is suggested that such rules be applied to loss-compensatingPA insurance through analogical interpretation. It is because general insurance andloss-compensating PA insurance are the same in loss compensation, and dual insurancerules relate to it. We need to reform the current Commercial Code of PA insurance by way of reflecting the above interpretation... 자동차의 확산 등에 의한 상해 위험이 증가함에 따라 상해보험의 시장규모가 크게 성장했다. 하지만 상해보험에 대한 상법의 규율은 별다른 변화가 없다. 상법은1962년에 제정될 때 상해보험에 관해 3개 조문을 두었다. 이는 상해보험에 관한 독자적 규정이라고 보기 어렵다. 특히 상법 제739조는 생명보험에 관한 규정(제730조∼제736조)을 제732조를 제외하고 상해보험에 준용한다. 상해보험이 사실상 생명보험에 준한다고 인식한 것이다. 이후 1991년에 상법 제729조 단서를 신설한 것이 유일한 변화이다. 현행 상법 규정은 상해보험의 특색을 잘 반영하지 못한다는 비판을 받는다. 그 이유는 생명보험에 관한 규정을 준용하는데 그치고 있기 때문이다. 그래서 상해보험의특색이 반영되도록 상법 규정을 해석하고 개정할 필요가 있다. 첫째, 상해사망보험의 법적 성격 문제이다. 상해사망보험은 상해 요소와 사망 요소가 섞여 있다는 점이 특색이다. 필자는 상해사망보험의 법적 성질을 사망보험이라고 해석해야 한다고 보았다. 둘째, 상법 제731조를 상해보험에 준용하는 문제이다. 이 규정은 보험계약자와 피보험자가 다른 사망보험의 경우 피보험자의 동의가 없으면 해당 보험계약을 무효로하는 것이다. 필자는 상해보험에서 피보험자가 보험수익자인 경우라면 상법 제731조를 준용하지 않는 것이 타당한 해석이라고 보았다. 셋째, 상법 제733조 및 제734조를 상해보험에 준용하는 문제이다. 상법 제733조및 제734조를 상해보험에 준용하면 피보험자와 보험수익자가 다른 상해보험이 가능하다. 필자는 이러한 상해보험은 보험수익자가 피보험자의 상해에 대해 일정한 경제적이해관계를 갖고 있는 경우에만 유효하다고 하는 것이 타당한 해석이라고 보았다. 넷째, 상법 제729조 단서의 해석 문제이다. 필자는 상법 제729조 단서는 부정액형 상해보험에만 적용하고, 계약 당사자의 약정은 추정된다고 하지 않는 것이 타당한 해석이라고 보았다. 다섯째, 상법 제672조를 상해보험에 준용하는 문제이다. 이 규정은 손해보험에서중복보험의 법리에 관한 것이다. 필자는 제672조가 부정액형 상해보험에 유추적용되고, 이것은 계약 당사자의 약정이 없더라도 가능하다고 하는 것이 타당한 해석이라고 보았다. 이상의 해석론을 향후 상법 개정을 통해 법에 반영함으로써 상해보험에 관련된법적 불확실성을 해소할 필요가 있다.

최근 20년간 보험법의 주요 변천

한기정 서울대학교 금융법센터 2020 BFL Vol.101 No.-

보험계약상 고지의무와 인과관계에 관한 연구

한기정 민사판례연구회 2012 民事判例硏究 Vol.- No.34

This article deals with some controversies regarding the interpretation and reform of the Korean Commercial Code sec. 655 proviso. The sec. 655 proviso provides that the insurer must pay the claim if there is no causal relationship between non-disclosures or misrepresentations and the occurrence of the insured event. It is suggested that this causation requirement be maintained. This suggestion may be justified on the basis that the criticisms surrounding the causation requirement may be considered as unpersuasive. The leading criticism is that the causation requirement might be unduly favourable to the insured who breached the duty of disclosure, considering that the insurer would not have entered into the insurance contract if it knew such a breach, and other insureds observed the duty of disclosure. However, this criticism may be relevant to non-disclosures or misrepresentations only of what the insurer would not have entered into the insurance contract if it knew them, but not of what the insurer would have changed the contents of the insured contract if it knew them. Moreover, it seems difficult to say that the insured is overprotected in case of no causal relationship between non-disclosures or misrepresentations and the occurrence of the insured event. It is suggested that the causal relationship of the sec. 655 proviso may be interpreted as meaning that non-disclosures or misrepresentations empirically or statistically increase the possibility of the occurrence of the insured event. This kind of causal relationship indicates a empirical or statistical causal relationship. Under such a causal relationship, the causal requirement may be met when non-disclosures or misrepresentations empirically or statistically increase the possibility of the occurrence of the insured event which is the same kind of the actually occurred event. 이 글은 상법 제655조 단서(고지의무 위반사실과 보험사고의 발생 사이에 인과관계가 없으면 보험자가 책임 부담)에 대한 입법론과 해석론을 다룬다. 첫째, 입법론적 측면에서 볼 때 인과관계요건은 존치하는 것이 바람직하다고 보았다. 인과관계가 없는 보험사고에 대해서는 보험금 지급책임을 인정하는 입법적 태도에 대한 비판은 결국, 보험자는 고지의무 위반사실을 알았더라면 보험계약을 체결하지 않았을 것이므로 이와 비교하면 보험자에게 불리하고, 고지의무를 이행한 다른 보험계약자와의 관계에서도 불공평하다는 것으로 요약될 수 있다. 그러나 이러한 논증은 고지의무를 위반한 중요사항이 보험자가 이를 알았더라면 계약의 체결을 거절하였을 사유, 즉 인수거절사유인 경우에만 타당한 제한적인 것이다. 나아가 인수거절사유와 관련해서도, 비록 인수거절사유라고 해도 그와 인과관계가 전혀 없는 보험사고에 대해 보험자가 보상책임을 지는 것은 보험계약자 보호를 위해 어느 정도는 필요한 것이라고 생각된다. 둘째, 해석론이다. 고지의무의 대상이 되는 중요사항이란 일정기간 동안 보험사고의 발생과 그 원인을 경험적·통계적으로 파악하고 인수 여부나 계약조건에 영향을 미칠 만한 사항에 해당하는 것을 가리키는 것이다. 따라서 고지의무 위반과 보험사고의 발생 사이의 인과관계는 고지의무 위반사실이 이미 발생한 보험사고와 ‘같은 종류’의 보험사고의 발생률을 높이는 것인지가 관건이 된다. 이것이 ‘확률적’ 인과관계이다. 대상판결들에 확률적 인과관계론을 적용시켜 보면, 대법원 1997. 10. 28. 선고 97다33089 판결과 같이 한 쪽 눈을 실명한 경우 교통사고의 발생확률이 높아진다는 점은 일반상식에 속하는 단순한 경험칙이므로 쉽게 수긍할 수 있다. 반면 대법원 1992.10.23. 선고 92다28259 판결과 같이 유흥접객원이 전업주부보다 교통사고를 당할 확률이 높다는 점은 전문적 경험칙에 해당하는 것으로서 일반상식으로는 판단하기 어렵다. 그럼에도 불구하고 대상판결1이 전문적 경험칙에 대한 입증 없이 인과관계를 판단한 것은 아쉬운 대목이다.

염소고기 이용 調理法 開發 試驗

韓基貞 농촌진흥청 1995 농촌생활과학 Vol.16 No.1

보험계약자의 사기에 의해서 체결된 보증보험계약의 효력

한기정 한국상사법학회 2003 商事法硏究 Vol.22 No.1

자본시장통합법의 전망과 과제 ; 자본시장통합법 제정방안과 금융고객 보호제도의 선진화

한기정 서울대학교 금융법센터 2006 BFL Vol.18 No.-

전기통신사업법상 통신이용자 보호에 관한 연구

한기정 행정법이론실무학회(行政法理論實務學會) 2004 행정법연구 Vol.- No.11

This article is to explore into the protection of the consumers according to the Korean Telecommunication law. The significance of this issue is highlighted by the facts that the telecommunication service is a public utility, a monopolistic or oligopolistic item, and a complicated and hi-tech product. The Korean Telecommunication Law has several provisions for consumer protection. However, some difficulties arise in the interpretation of the Law, and furthermore a reform of the Law is desirable in certain aspects. First, the equality of price between consumers should not be interpreted as uniform but reasonable discrimination be allowed. Second, the provision of telecommunication services contrary to standard terms itself is not a prohibited action. It will be regulated If only it violates fair competition or discriminates between consumers. Third, telecommunication service provider should be interpreted as bearing civil liability except force majeure. Fourth, the general prohibition of undue discrimination of consumers needs to be declared in the Law. Fifth, the principle of lowness of price is to be substituted by the principles of fairness and properness. Sixth, the provision that the actions of tied-agents be treated as the actions of the telecommunication service providers needs to be abolished. Finally, standard terms should be more tightly regulated.