관할권 중첩수역 해양공동개발에 관한 국제법 체제와 한일 대륙붕 공동개발협정의 재조명

김자영(KIM Jayoung) 대한국제법학회 2015 國際法學會論叢 Vol.60 No.2

해양공동개발은 대륙붕 중첩지역에서 연안국의 주권적 권리를 최대한 보호하고 공유자원의 형평한 분배의 균형을 달성하기 위해 발전해왔다. 해양공동개발의 사례는 특히 여러 연안국이 인접해있는 반폐쇄해를 중심으로 수적 측면에서도 지리적 다양성의 측면에서도 전세계적으로 급속히 확산되어, 관할권 중첩수역에서의 공동개발협정은 연안국들이 가장 선호하는 해양공동개발 협력체계로 자리매김했다. 대륙붕경계 중첩수역에서의 공동개발협정은 유엔해양법협약 제83조 3항에 규정된 잠정약정에서 그 근거를 찾을 수 있다. 하지만 동 조항에 규정된 신의성실한 교섭의 의무와 상호자제의 의무는 관련 문제들을 명확히 설명하지도 해결해주지 못한다. 1969년 ICJ 북해대륙붕사건 이후 국제재판소는 해양경계획정에 관한 분쟁을 해결함에 있어서 공동개발제도와 공동개발구역의 설정을 지속적으로 권고해왔다. 해양공동개발에 관한 다수의 국가실행이 확인됨에도 불구하고,국가들에게 해양공동개발을 요구하는 국제관습법상의 의무의 존재는 확신할 수 없다. 한국은 인접국인 중국·일본과 대륙붕 경계를 획정하지 못한 상황으로, 관할권 중첩으로 인한 분쟁의 소지가 많다. 그러나 해양공동개발에 관한 국제법상 의무를 확인하기 어려우므로 중국과 일본에게 공동개발을 강제할 수는 없다. 그러나 한·중·일 삼국 간 해결되기 어려운 영유권 문제와 해양경계획정의 협상의 장기화 및 그 결과까지 고려했을 때 한국이 선택할 수 있는 실리적 선택 중 하나는 해양공동개발일 수 있다. 따라서 한국은 해양공동개발 관련 국제법 연구와 함께 주변국과의 해양경계협상 전략의 일환으로 해양공동개발에 관한 정책적 고민이 필요한 시점이다. Maritime Joint development has developed to ensure the balance between protecting Coastal States’s sovereign rights and allocating shared natural resources equitably in the overlapping continental shelves. Cases of joint development for offshore oil and gas resources have expanded increasingly around tire world, both in terms of its number of cases and geographical distribution, particularly around tire semi-enclosed seas surrounded by several coastal states. Joint development agreement in the overlapping claims area is main form for maritime joint development, as it is one of the most preferred cooperative mechanisms among coastal states. Joint development agreement in the overlapping continental shelf is based on tire provisional arrangement under article 83, paragraph 3 of United Nations Convention on the law of the sea of 1982 (UNCLOS). However, the obligation to negotiate in good faith and of mutual restraint under this article 83(3) do not provide clear and sufficient explanations on all questions and problems related to maritime joint development. International courts have continued to recommend a joint development zone instead of determining the continental shelf after International Court of Justice (ICJ) stated tire possibility of joint development in the North Sea Continental Shelf Cases of 1969. However, despite a number of State practice regarding joint development of offshore oil and gas, it is uncertain whether there is an obligation in customary international law to cooperate maritime joint development or enter into joint development agreement. Korea has the potential to spark diplomatic and international legal disputes, as it has not delimited boundaries of its continental shelf with its neighboring States. Nevertheless, Korea cannot compel China and Japan to cooperate for maritime joint development, because it is difficult to argue for the obligation to enter into joint development agreement under international law. However, considering the results from prolonged negotiations with territorial disputes between Korea, China and Japan, trilateral joint development in the overlapping continental shelf is one of the most practical ways for Korea. Reflecting on the Korea’s experience and lessons of other successful joint development cases, Korea should actively develope more practical joint development strategy to China and Japan.

국제연구개발계약상의 권리의무에 관한 고찰

손경한,박진아 국제거래법학회 2008 國際去來法硏究 Vol.17 No.2

Research and development agreements concern acquisition of know-how, theoretical analysis, studies or experiments relating to products or processes, including experimental production, establishment of necessary facilities, and obtaining of relevant intellectual property rights. In addition to technology license agreements, these days, R&D agreements are frequently employed for international technology cooperation. This is because international R&D agreements are more productive to both parties. It has been proved that R&D arrangement is more beneficial to the party who introduces foreign technology if the party is ready and able to absorb the foreign technology by way of exchange of technical personnel. Especially, R&D arrangement results in much more fruitful accomplishment than typical technology license results, should the technology to be introduced be complicated and therefore require the recipient party on the job training for understanding and digesting the foreign technology. R&D arrangements are also beneficial to the party who transfers the technology because the transferring party can establish long term relationship with the recipient party and can have more opportunities to develop the foreign market. Therefore, the international research and development projects draw attention as a desirable option for international technical co-operation. It is also true for joint R&D agreements. Joint research and developments by two or more entrepreneurs increase productivity and reduce risk, time and costs for developing the intended technology. Traditionally governments have strictly regulated joint R&D activities due to their concern to market dominance by the parties that developed new technology through the joint collaboration. However, recently they recognized that joint R&D activities promote exchange of know-how and technologies to facilitate technical and economical progress. It rationalizes the manufacture and use of products which enhances consumer welfare, and even promotes competitions among entrepreneurs for the entire market. This is the very rationale for formation of the Commission Regulation (EC) No.2659/2000 of 29 November 2000 on the application of Article 81(3) of the Treaty to categories of research and development agreements. Newly industrializing countries such as Korea must consider using the R&D options for technical cooperation with the countries already having high-tech industries. International R&D can bring improvement of the technological level and expansion of foreign markets. This paper examines the right and obligation of the parties to international R&D agreements. Establishment of fair terms and conditions of the R&D agreement is likely to enable the parties to reasonably share the resources as well as the risks for the intended research and development. Setting fair contract terms of the international research and development agreements will foster mutual benefits of the parties and secure close cooperation for the current and future project. It will further prevent possible disputes and lead to amicable solutions thereof between the parties. The R&D agreements, therefore, should allow all the parties to have access to the results of the research and to freely exploit the results of the research. Most R&D agreements provide the parties to obtain intellectual property rights for the results of the research that is decisive for the manufacture or application of the end products. Such intellectual property rights should be shared fairly by the parties. The agreements should also provide that the firms which are commissioned to manufacture be required to fulfill the orders for supplies from all the parties. The R&D agreements should be not only fair but also pro-competitive. The agreements should not require serious anti-competitive practices such as price fixing, limitation of outputs or sales, restrictions of supplies of the products to customers, prohibition of challenging the vali... Research and development agreements concern acquisition of know-how, theoretical analysis, studies or experiments relating to products or processes, including experimental production, establishment of necessary facilities, and obtaining of relevant intellectual property rights. In addition to technology license agreements, these days, R&D agreements are frequently employed for international technology cooperation. This is because international R&D agreements are more productive to both parties. It has been proved that R&D arrangement is more beneficial to the party who introduces foreign technology if the party is ready and able to absorb the foreign technology by way of exchange of technical personnel. Especially, R&D arrangement results in much more fruitful accomplishment than typical technology license results, should the technology to be introduced be complicated and therefore require the recipient party on the job training for understanding and digesting the foreign technology. R&D arrangements are also beneficial to the party who transfers the technology because the transferring party can establish long term relationship with the recipient party and can have more opportunities to develop the foreign market. Therefore, the international research and development projects draw attention as a desirable option for international technical co-operation. It is also true for joint R&D agreements. Joint research and developments by two or more entrepreneurs increase productivity and reduce risk, time and costs for developing the intended technology. Traditionally governments have strictly regulated joint R&D activities due to their concern to market dominance by the parties that developed new technology through the joint collaboration. However, recently they recognized that joint R&D activities promote exchange of know-how and technologies to facilitate technical and economical progress. It rationalizes the manufacture and use of products which enhances consumer welfare, and even promotes competitions among entrepreneurs for the entire market. This is the very rationale for formation of the Commission Regulation (EC) No.2659/2000 of 29 November 2000 on the application of Article 81(3) of the Treaty to categories of research and development agreements. Newly industrializing countries such as Korea must consider using the R&D options for technical cooperation with the countries already having high-tech industries. International R&D can bring improvement of the technological level and expansion of foreign markets. This paper examines the right and obligation of the parties to international R&D agreements. Establishment of fair terms and conditions of the R&D agreement is likely to enable the parties to reasonably share the resources as well as the risks for the intended research and development. Setting fair contract terms of the international research and development agreements will foster mutual benefits of the parties and secure close cooperation for the current and future project. It will further prevent possible disputes and lead to amicable solutions thereof between the parties. The R&D agreements, therefore, should allow all the parties to have access to the results of the research and to freely exploit the results of the research. Most R&D agreements provide the parties to obtain intellectual property rights for the results of the research that is decisive for the manufacture or application of the end products. Such intellectual property rights should be shared fairly by the parties. The agreements should also provide that the firms which are commissioned to manufacture be required to fulfill the orders for supplies from all the parties. The R&D agreements should be not only fair but also pro-competitive. The agreements should not require serious anti-competitive practices such as price fixing, limitation of outputs or sales, restrictions of supplies of the products to customers, prohibition of challenging the validity...

공동기술개발의 성과결정요인에 관한 연구

강인철(Kang, In Cheol),한나영(Han, Na Young),홍재범(Hong, Jae Bum) 한국인적자원관리학회 2015 인적자원관리연구 Vol.22 No.5

본 연구는 공동기술개발의 성과결정요인으로 파트너 특성과 관리과정 특성이 공동기술개발의 성과에미치는 영향을 분석하였으며, 나아가 파트너 특성 및 관리과정 특성과 공동기술개발 성과와의 관계에서 지식흡수역량의 조절효과에 대하여 연구하였다. 이를 위하여 기술개발 업무와 관련이 있는 대기업과 중소기업의 기업부설연구소 및 공공기관인 정부출연 연구기관과 관리기관의 연구원들을 대상으로 설문조사를 실시하였으며, 387명을 대상으로 실증분석하였다. 실증분석 결과 첫째, 파트너 특성의 기술개발역량과 공동기술개발경험이 모두 공동기술개발 성과에 유의한 정(+)의 영향을 미쳤다. 이는 공동기술개발 파트너의 선정과정에서 주관기관은 기술개발경험과 필요기술의 전문성을 보유한 파트너를 선호한다는 것이다. 둘째, 관리과정 특성에서는 목표의 명확성과 원활한 의사소통이 공동기술개발성과에 유의한 정(+)의 영향을 미쳤다. 이는 공동기술개발의 목표가 구체적이고 측정 가능해야 하고, 연구원들 간의 원활한 의사소통이 전제되어야만 공동기술개발 성과를 높일수 있다는 것이다. 셋째, 독립변수와 조절변수간의 상호작용 효과를 분석한 결과, 공동기술개발경험과 지식흡수역량 간의 관계에서 상호작용 효과가 있다. 즉, 지식흡수역량이 높을수록 파트너 특성의 공동기술 개발경험이 성과에 더욱 긍정적인 영향을 미쳤다. This study analysed the effect of the partners characteristics and the management process characteristics as the performance determinants of joint technology development on the results of the joint technology development, by extension, the moderating effect of capability of absorbing the knowledge in the relationship between the partners characteristics & the management process characteristics and the results of the joint technology development. For this, a survey was conducted targeting the researchers in the research institutes affiliated with the large companies and small and medium companies and government-funded research institutes and management agencies which are public institutions related to their work of technology development with empirical analysis made targeting 387 persons. The results of empirical analysis showed that firstly, both the capability to develop technology and joint technology development experiences of the partners characteristics had a significant positive (+) impact on the results of the joint technology development, which means that the lead agencies prefer the partners with the technology development experiences and expertise in the needed technology in the selection process of the joint technical development partners. Secondly, clarity of goals and smooth communication had a significant positive (+) impact on the results of the joint technology development in the management process characteristics, which means that the results of joint technology development can be enhanced on the ground that the goals of the joint technology development are specific and measurable and the researchers communicate smoothly with each other. Thirdly, the results of analysis of the interaction effect etween the independent variables and the moderating variables showed that there was an interaction effect between the experiences in the joint technical development and the capability of absorbing knowledge, which means that with increased capability of absorbing knowledge, the experiences in the joint technical development of the partners characteristics have more positive impact on the performance.

한・일 대륙붕 공동개발협정의 전망과 시사점

정민정 서울국제법연구원 2022 서울국제법연구 Vol.29 No.2

As interest in climate change has increased, green hydrogen and new renewable energy resources have recently been emphasized as future national growth engines. However, the reason the Korea-Japan continental shelf joint development agreement in 1974 is important to us now is that the continental shelf contains not only natural gas but also core minerals essential for the new renewable energy industry, and can store the carbon dioxide captured by CO2 marine geological sequestration technology. The 1974 agreement was concluded relatively favorably for Korea through timely use of the principles of international law, such as the theory of natural extension. In the preamble of the agreement, it is stated that the agreement was concluded to “consider the common interest of jointly carrying out the exploration and extraction of petroleum resources” and “reach a final and practical solution to the resource development issues.” However, as international law changed in a direction unfavorable to Korea, Japan has stopped joint development of the continental shelf. The agreement may be terminated after 2028 with a notice of termination from one side beginning in 2025. Accordingly, it is predicted that Japan will terminate the agreement as a natural course of action. As a result, it is expected that resource disputes between Korea, China, and Japan will heat up in some waters of the joint development zone with a high potential for resource reserves and high expected profitability. However, the real benefit for Japan in ending the agreement is not as large as widely believed. Maintaining the current joint development zone according to the original agreement may be inconsistent with Japan’s delimitation expectation, but according to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, the agreement regime is only a provisional one that does not affect the final delimitation. Even if Japan insists on delimitation based on the equidistance line with the end of the agreement, it is difficult to establish it centering on the equidistance line as Japan wants. In addition, from Japan's viewpoint, the agreement can be viewed as a united front between Korea and Japan to check China’s advance into the East China Sea; therefore, Japan will not terminate the agreement without suggesting any alternatives. As of now, the rational choice between the two countries is to maintain the effect of the agreement even after 2028 and establish a cooperative system that enables practical exploration and development of the continental shelf. To this end, some are suggesting that if the two governments cannot reach an agreement, either party should be allowed to conduct independent exploration and development or that both parties should establish a separate joint project organization independent of the two governments. This is actually a measure adopted in the Agreement on the Development of Hydrocarbon Resources in the Gulf of Mexico Border Area concluded between the United States and Mexico in 2012, and is expected to develop into an international standard in the future. However, this approach still appears mainly in agreements between developed and developing countries, and it is difficult to see that the act of unilaterally developing common resources, whether a country or an organization, is consistent with modern customary international law. China’s state-owned energy corporations are now actively participating in the development of oil and gas fields that exist beyond the maritime borders of two or more countries, such as the North Sea, the Gulf of Mexico, and the border waters between Cameroon and Nigeria. Through this, China is learning the international norms that deal with the problems of resource development that exist across borders as well as the technologies for developing marine resources from global competitors, and is creating international norms at the forefront of contract negotiations on resource development. China is now developing an...

민수용 항공기 개발의 투자효과 분석 - 국제 공동개발 사례를 중심으로 -

안명관,장형유 한국항공경영학회 2020 한국항공경영학회지 Vol.18 No.4

The reason why aircraft purchase rebate cases occur in Korea is because of the aircraft purchase system. While countries uses its right to negotiate aircraft purchases as a trade-off at government agencies for public purposes, Because commercial aircraft procurement decision making behind closed doors, the incidents has happen, aircraft parts manufacturers’ competitiveness weakened and the foundation of aerospace industry development has collapsed in Korea. Korea has 389 large jet aircraft. It is the 71 percent of Japan’s 548, but Korea commercial aircraft parts production (215 billion won) is 17 percent of Japan commercial aircraft parts production(124, 15.3 billion won). It can simply be calculated that Japan’s efficiency in the use of its right to purchase aircraft is 4.2 times higher than Korea’s. This is a simple example of how the government will manage the right to negotiate the purchase of commercial aircraft in a trade-off manner. There is a big change in the world’s commercial aircraft manufacturing. In 2019, Boeing’s independent developed B737 series delivered 127 units, but Airbus’s co-developed A320 series delivered 642 units. The investment effect of the international joint development method of commercial aircraft is 5.1 times higher than that of independent development. It is a fragmentary and representative example of international codevelopment aircraft. This study calculated investment efficiency based on the aircraft development cost, delivery performance, and selling price of Boeing and Airbus on the basis of when they occur, and analyzed the investment effectiveness of commercial aircraft development costs by aircraft type and by dividing them into independent development and international joint development. To compare and analyze the effects of financial expenses, the investment efficiency was calculated by applying the one-year Treasury yield on Treasury securities which was issued by the Federal Reserve, and the difference in the investment effectiveness of financial expenses was calculated by the timing of development. The cost-generating standard for B737 series aircraft which was released in 1958 was 18% on a 2018 year current price basis, but the B787 which was released in 2011 is represented 90%. The reason is that 2018 interest rate was low than 1958 and benefits period have been short. For the purpose of analyzing the investment effect of commercial aircraft, development costs and the number of deliveries is easy to be expressed as an accurate integer, but development costs and aircraft prices are difficult to clearly express as an integer because aircraft prices has been changed by aircraft types and bargaining time. Research has shown that if we use the bargaining power of commercial aircraft as a off-set trade, it will be a great benefit to domestic aircraft manufacturing, the higher the investment efficiency of international joint development than independent development, and the greater the number of countries participating in international joint development, the better the investment efficiency. Based on these results, Korea should study the JADC case of Japan. Korea should conduct a off-set trade of commercial aircraft and pursue international joint development of single aisle aircraft with the focus of Asian countries so that it could enter the advanced aerospace country in 20 years. 한국은 항공사가 항공기 구매 협상을 비공개로 진행하기 때문에 투자 효율성을 저해하는 사건이 발생하고 항공기 부품제조업체 경쟁력이 약해지고, 항공우주산업 발전의 기반도 약해졌다. 한국 대형 제트항공기 보유 대수는 389대로 일본 548대의 71%이지만, 한국 민항기 부품생산액 21,450억 원은 일본124,153억 원의 17% 수준이다. 일본의 항공기 구매 협상권 사용 효율이 한국보다 4.2배 높다. 민간항공기 구매 협상권을 절충교역 방식으로 정부에서 관리해야 한다는 것을 보여주는 사례이다. 최근 세계민간항공기 제조업에 큰 변화가 발생하고 있다. 2019년 실적 기준으로 보잉이 독자 개발한 B737 계열은 127대가 납품되었지만, 에어버스가 4개국 공동 개발한 A320 계열은 642대 납품하였다. 2019년 기준으로 독자 개발과 국제 공동개발을 비교해서 민간항공기 국제공통개발방식의 투자 효과가 5.1배 높게평가되었다. 본 연구는 보잉, 에어버스의 항공기 개발비용, 납품실적, 판매가격을 발생 시점 기준으로 투자 효율을 산출하여, 독자개발과 국제 공동개발로 구분하여, 기종별, 기업별로 민간항공기 개발비 투자 효과를 비교 분석하여 단독투자와 공동투자에 관한 유의미한 통찰을 끌어내었다. 금융비용의 영향을 비교분석하기 위하여 미국 연방준비제도이사회(FRB)가 발행하는 재무부 유가증권 1년 만기 국고 수익률을 복리로 적용하여 투자 효율을 산출하였고, 개발 시점에 따른 금융비용에 의한 투자 효과 차이를 산출하였다. 1958년 출시한 B737 계열 항공기의 비용 발생기준은 2018년 현재가치 기준 18%로 나타났지만, 2011년 출시한 B787은 90%를 나타내었다. 이는 최근에 금리가 낮았기 때문이다. 납품 대수는정확한 정수로 나타내기 쉽지만, 개발비용과 항공기 가격은 기종별, 시기별 변경상황이 발생하므로 명확하게 정수로 나타내기 어려운 상황이므로, 금리를 적용하지 않고 투입자금과 발생자금을 단순 비교하여 투자 효과를 분석하였다. 개발비, 항공기 가격 및 납품 대수 등 정량적 실적을 바탕으로 한 투자 효율 분석 결과, 민간항공기구매 협상권을 절충교역으로 활용하는 것이 자국 항공기 제조업발전에 큰 도움이 되고, 국제 공동개발이 독자개발보다 투자 효율이 높고, 국제 공동개발 참가국이 많을수록 투자 효율을 높다는 결론을 도출하였다. 이 결과를 바탕으로 한국은 일본 JADC 사례를 연구하여, 민간항공기 절충교역을 실시하고, 아시아 국가를 중심으로 단일통로 항공기 국제 공동개발을 추진하여야 20년 후 항공우주 선진국에 진입할 수 있다는 결론에 도달할 수 있었다.

Clean Development Mechanism Preferred: Flexibility Mechanism in Kyoto Protocol

( Nam Hoon Kang ),( Min Jung Paik ) 고려대학교 법학연구원 2010 The Asian Business Lawyer Vol.6 No.-

Despite that the excitement, regarding 1997 Kyoto Protocol faded out, when the U.S. withdrew its signature in 2001. Constituting the word, Clean Development Mechanism, in the provision itself was considered a specific achievement in the industry. An investment in amount of seventeen billion U.S. dollars on average has been constantly collected till today, showing Clean Development Mechanism`s undying popularity. Compared to other Flexibility Mechanisms, Joint Implementation and Emissions Trading, Clean Development Mechanism has an advantage first in its cost-effectiveness. Only Clean Development Mechanism involves a developing country as a project site-less cost is needed in building infrastructure. Overall, Clean Development Mechanism is preferred than Joint Implementation. It can be expected that labor cost at Clean Development Mechanism site is comparably less expensive-the work site being a developing country. Furthermore, Clean Development Mechanism (hereinafter CDM) has an advantage over Emissions Trading, regarding fungibility. Only the banked Certified Emission Reductions, not any other emission reduction credit, can be used during the first commitment period in the Kyoto Protocol. The period ends in 2012. Developed Country`s fund and technological assistance to Developing Country for diminishing in climate change mitigation is an asset that only CDM has. With privilege, CDM is destined for sustainable development. Yet, in article, it is argued that the best way for development is to preserve environment, involving environmental integrity. In order to achieve this ideal, Project Design Documents shall reflect Developing Country`s needs at best extent. Through this way, success in CDM will be guaranteed for sure--capital for developing country-certified emission reductions for developed nation, constantly flowing.

Human Resource Development Model in China s Electronic Trade Based on Industry-University-Research Cooperation

문화(Hua Wen),서용원(Yong Won Seo) 중앙대학교 한국전자무역연구소 2022 전자무역연구 Vol.20 No.1

연구목적: 최근 중국에서 전자무역이 빠른 발전을 가져오고 있음에 따라 전자무역인재에 대한 새로운 수요가 유발되고 있다. 이는 대학에 대해서도 전자거래학과의 발전에 새로운 요구를 제기하고 있다. 이와 관련하여, 산학연협력을 통한 전자무역인재 양성은 기업의 수요, 대학의 교육, 학문적 연구를 상호 결합하는 새로운 교육모델로서 주목받고 있다. 본 연구에서는 산학연협력을 통한 전자무역인재의 양성방안을 고찰하고 전자무역인재 양성과 공동발전을 위한 플랫폼의 방향을 제시한다. 논문구성/논리: 본 연구의 논리와 구성은 다음과 같다. 서론에서는 연구의 배경과 연구목적을 기술한다. 제2장에서는 중국 전자무역의 발전현황과 인재양성체계의 현황을 파악한다. 제3장에서는 중국의 전자무역 인재양성체계에 존재하는 문제점을 대학, 기업, 연구기관, 정부의 다각적 측면에서 분석한다. 제4장에서는 산학연협동을 통한 인재양성방안을 제시하고, 마지막 제5장의 결론에서는 연구내용을 요약하고, 핵심적인 시사점을 제시한다. 결과: 중국의 전자무역 인력 양성체계의 문제점과 개선방향의 분석을 통하여 도출한 중국의 산학연협동을 통한 전자무역인력 양성방안은 다음과 같다. 첫째로 인재양성체계를 실무중심으로 혁신하고 시장수요에 부합한 실천역량을 갖춘 인재를 공급하도록 인재양성을 최적화하여야 한다. 둘째로 산학연협력에 기반한 교육체계의 확보와 교수진 교류가 필요하다. 셋째로 대학의 교육과정을 개편하고 교육목표의 재설정과 관련 교과목 및 교재의 개선이 필요하다. 독창성/가치: 본 연구는 중국 전자무역 인력양성체계의 현황과 문제점을 심도있게 분석하고 전자무역 산업의 요구에 부합하는 인재의 필요역량을 분석하였으며, 이에 부합하는 전자무역인력 공급을 위한 인재양성체계를 제시하였다는데 의미를 가진다. Purpose: E-trade in China has been rapidly developing as a new form of trade, in recent years, which incurs new demands for e-trade talents and requires changes in e-commerce education system. Fostering e-trade talents through the three parties joint cooperation including industry, universities and research institutes is a new educational model that satisfies the new human resource demands of e-trade industry. Therefore, the purpose of this research is to propose the innovative education system utilizing the close cooperation and exchange of corporations, universities, and scientific research institutes, in order to nurture the human resources satisfying the requirements of capabilities and talents in the developing direction of e-trade industry of China. Composition/Logic: This paper is organized as follows. The introduction describes the development background and purpose of research. Chapter Ⅱ examines the development status of China s e-trade and the human resource development system in e-trade area. Chapter Ⅲ presents the detailed multi-aspect analysis of the problems in the human resource development system in China s e-trade. Chapter Ⅳ presents the innovation direction of human resource development utilizing the three parties joint cooperation. Finally, the conclusion Chapter Ⅴ summarizes the research contents and provides major insights. Findings: Through the multi-aspect analysis of China s human resource development system in the area of e-trade development, we propose the following innovation direction. First, the human resource development system should be innovated focusing the practical ability. Second, the university education system should be redesigned based on the three parties joint cooperation model, and the interchange of experts in education is required. Third, the university education system of e-trade should be innovated accompanying resetting of the education objective and redesign of the coursework and relevant teaching materials. Originality/Value: This study provided in-depth multi-aspect analysis of China s current status and problems in the area of e-trade relating human resource development. The required capabilities of human resources to satisfy the e-trade industry s trends is presented. Based on the discovered issues and required capabilities, this research provided the innovative human resouce development model utilizing the three-parties joint cooperation. These include industry, universities, and research institutes.

미국방성의 전력개발 프로세스를 활용한 스마트 시티 개념설계 방안

이중윤 한국시스템엔지니어링학회 2019 시스템엔지니어링학술지 Vol.15 No.2

The defense system development process is a process of developing various systems that perform functions in various functional areas such as battlefield awareness, command control, force application, and logistical support. In other words, the defense system development process is a process of developing many systems simultaneously in various functional areas. Various systems developed through this process should be interoperable so that they can be integrated and operated in a joint warfighting environment. To successfully implement this, the US Department of Defense uses the Joint Capability Integrated Development System(JCIDS) for the defense system development, and within this JCIDS processes the Capability Based Assessment(CBA) methodology as its core technology. This CBA methodology transforms the mission activity requirements to functional capability requirements logically and transforms the functional capability requirements to system requirements logically also. Smart City is a city that improves the convenience and quality of life of the citizen by integrates various systems that perform various functions of the city and smarties various functional systems with smart services by using IT technology. In other words, defense system development and smart city development have a common feature of the process of developing many systems simultaneously in various functional areas. In order to address the problem of having to develop many systems simultaneously in each functional area, it is important to logically transform the various mission scenarios into functions and logically transform the functions into systems. Therefore, a joint capability integrated development system and its core methodology, Capability Based Assessment(CBA), can be applied to smart city development. This paper proposes a method for performing a smart city concept design method using the capability based evaluation (CBA) method.

開放形 革新時代(Open Innovation)를 위한 特許法 第99條 立法論

姜善俊 가천대학교 법학연구소 2012 가천법학 Vol.5 No.1

연구성과의 무형적 결과물인 지식재산권이 국부를 창출하는 21세기 과학기술사회는 지식의 창출, 확산 등이 국가의 신성장동력이 되고 경제성장을 주도하는 ‘지식기반경제’로 전환이 되고 있다. 현행 특허법 제99조에서는 특허권의 공유에 대한 내용을 규정하고 있다. 당사자 사이에 별도의 합의가 없을 경우 각 당사자는 자기실시는 자유롭게 가능한 반면, 제3자 실시 혹은 양도에 대해서는 공유자 전원의 동의를 요구하고 있다. 자기실시가 불가능한 비영리기관의 경우 상대방인 영리기관이 자기실시를 향유하면서 제3자 실시에 동의하여 주지 않는다면 비영리기관과 영리기관의 특허권 공유 권리관계에서 심각한 불균형을 초래할 수 있고 이에 대한 해결책을 사적 자치에만 맡겨두고 있다. 또한 대규모의 자본과 전문인원을 구비한 대기업과 다른 당사자 사이의 협상력의 현저한 차이 때문에 수익을 창출할 수 있는 많은 기회를 포기하고 있는 실정이다.이러한 문제점을 해결할 수 있는 최적의 방안은 특허법 제99조의 개정이며 그 대안을 제시 하였다.첫째, 공동연구의 성과물이 참여 주체간 공동소유로 결정되는 경우 비영리기관의 불실시 보상에 대한 부분을 사적자치에 유보해놓을 것이 아니라 특허법 제99조를 개정하여 입법적인 보완으로 법익의 형평성을 추구하여야 한다.저자의 견해는 회사가 아닌 비영리법인 등 태생적인 특성상 자기실시가 불가능할 경우에 별도의 불실시 보상을 하거나 실시에 의한 매출액 등을 지분에 따라 배분하는 것이 보다 합리적이다.둘째, 공동연구개발사업의 참여주체가 소유권의 귀속에 대하여 협약전 단계에 다양한 옵션으로 선택할 수 있는 공동소유권 가이드 라인을 제정하여, 계약체결에 대한 지원을 강화 하여야 한다. 연구개발사업에서의 무형적 결과물의 창출을 보호·장려하고 그 이용을 도모함으로써 기술의 발전을 촉진하고 산업발전과 국부창출에 이바지 할 수 있도록 연구자의 피와 땀의 결실인 소중한 연구성과를 공정하게 보호하고, 성과가 효율적으로 활용될 수 있도록 입법적인 해결책이 필요하다. 불실시보상은 공유특허를 기업은 자기 실시하는데 반하여 대학, 정부출연연구소는 자기실시하지 않는 것을 근거로 기업이 대학 등에 실시료상당액을 지불하는데 합의하는 것을 말하며, 한국, 일본의 특허법은 불실시 보상을 포함한 계약 등에 별도의 정함이 없으면 기업은 공유특허를 대학 등의 동의 없이 자유롭게 실시할 수 있다. Based on data from the International Institute for Management Development, Korea placed seventh for research and development spending and eighth for research and development spending to GDP.In recent years, the government has been enjoying economic growth due to its significant investment in science and technology and entrepreneurial ideals. Thus, determining the ownership of intangible results of collaborative research and development among the involved entities has become an important issue.Article 99 of the Patent Act is related to the transfer and joint ownership of patent rights relating to intangible results of collaborative of research and development.Generally, a patent right may be transferred. However, in the case a patent right is jointly owned, each joint owner of the patent right may not transfer his/her share nor establish a pledge upon it without the consent of the other joint owners, though each joint owner may, except as otherwise agreed in a contract among all the joint owners, work on the patented invention by himself/herself without the consent of the other joint owners. The entities within the research, academic, and industrial sectors should decide on the matters regarding the ownership of intangible results of collaborative research and development under the Patent Act.The purpose of this Decree is to establish or carry out the following details necessary for the revision of Article 99 of the Patent Act.(1) Revise the contents of the Patent Act relating to the transfer and joint ownership of a patent right.(2) Both for-profit and non-profit corporations share the ownership of a patent right. (3) Make guidelines including presenting various options for the handling of ownership of intangible results of collaborative research and development and providing support to all participants.Survival in today’s fast-paced business environment requires intensive knowledge of the technology commercialization process. If there is high potential for the utilization of a technology, there is also a high possibility for its success in the industry. The best way to come to a solution is to eradicate all unnecessary issues concerning joint ownership of a patent right.

Factors of Learning Processes within Firms' Organizations Affecting the New Product Development Performance

정형식 한국마케팅관리학회 2010 마케팅관리연구 Vol.15 No.4

The present study is focused on small and medium-sized companies'(SMCs) new product development in line with the increasing importance of new product development. The objectives of the study were to examine the effects of SMCs' participation in international trade shows and their technology development capabilities on external collaboration and strategic orientation, and subsequently on new product development performance through relationship learning. Data was collected through a survey using questionaries with 121 managers of 64 SMCs who were in charge of technologydevelopment. The LISREL program was used to analyze the data. The results of the study were as follows. First, SMCs' marketing resources through participating in domestic and international trade shows, such as at-show personal selling and at-show booth promotion, positively affected their joint technology development and industry-academia collaboration. Second, SMCs' technology development capability positively influenced their joint technology development and industry-academia collaboration. Third, SMCs' technology development capability affected their strategic orientation, i.e.,, market orientation and technology orientation. Fourth, SMCs' technology development capability also positively influenced their relationship learning. Fifth, joint technology development was found to affect relationship learning while industry-academia collaboration was not. Sixth, SMCs' market orientation and technology orientation showed positive effects on the amount of information sharing. Finally, the elements of relationship learning such as information sharing, joint sense-making, and relationship-specific memory had positive effects on SMCs' new product development performance. The findings of the study suggest that SMCs learn closely the process of relationship building with its partners, taking consideration of their own technology related capability, external collaborative opportunities, and strategic orientations.