http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
- 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
- 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
RISS 인기검색어
- 검색키워드
- 저자 : 손한기 (검색결과 165 건)
- 무료
- 기관 내 무료
- 유료
-
-
-
-
-
손한기 한국민사소송법학회 2008 民事訴訟 : 韓國民事訴訟法學會誌 Vol.12 No.1
Since China enacted the Law of Civil Procedure in 1982 to support their Reform and Open Policy, there has been harsh and endless complaints argueing its inefficiency, especially surrounding Judgment Enforcement Procedure. The Judgment Debtors try to elude their obligations employing various means and they even intimidate the Debt Collectors from enforcing the Judgments making the Judgments futile wastepapers. Such phenomenon is called “enforcement embarrassment”. The cause of this hardship is multifarious. Scholars point out the undue regional egoism of the officers, lack of legal consciousness of the people, insufficiency of the penalties, enforcement-neglecting trends of the courts and the insufficient capacity to cover the enforcement procedures. Over two decades, chinese scholars and lawyers consistently pressed the Government to make a overall reform of the Enforcement System to mitigate this embarrassing situation. In 2007, the Standing Committee of the National people's Congress of People's Republic of China passed the amendment bill of Law of Civil Procedure to meet the current needs of the society. The major points of the revision are as follows, (1) Court can ban the neglecting Judgment Debtor from leaving the country and also can notice his negligences to the information related branches. (2) Courts can order the Judgment Debtor to declare his financial status for one year before he received the enforcement notice, and can sentence fines or detention if he refuse to follow the order or make a false declaration. (3) High People's Courts and the Supreme Court of the People's Republic of China also, if in need, can establish the enforcement divisions. (4) The courts which cover the site of property, along with the first instance court of the case, can perform the enforcement procedures. (5) Prolonged the period of prescription for enforcement from one year(six months if the parties are corporations) to two years. (6) To prevent the undue procrastination of enforcement procedures due to the regional egoism, new law permits petitions to the just above the original requested courts for enforcement of the delayed case when it is procrastinated over 6 months. Since China enacted the Law of Civil Procedure in 1982 to support their Reform and Open Policy, there has been harsh and endless complaints argueing its inefficiency, especially surrounding Judgment Enforcement Procedure. The Judgment Debtors try to elude their obligations employing various means and they even intimidate the Debt Collectors from enforcing the Judgments making the Judgments futile wastepapers. Such phenomenon is called “enforcement embarrassment”. The cause of this hardship is multifarious. Scholars point out the undue regional egoism of the officers, lack of legal consciousness of the people, insufficiency of the penalties, enforcement-neglecting trends of the courts and the insufficient capacity to cover the enforcement procedures. Over two decades, chinese scholars and lawyers consistently pressed the Government to make a overall reform of the Enforcement System to mitigate this embarrassing situation. In 2007, the Standing Committee of the National people's Congress of People's Republic of China passed the amendment bill of Law of Civil Procedure to meet the current needs of the society. The major points of the revision are as follows, (1) Court can ban the neglecting Judgment Debtor from leaving the country and also can notice his negligences to the information related branches. (2) Courts can order the Judgment Debtor to declare his financial status for one year before he received the enforcement notice, and can sentence fines or detention if he refuse to follow the order or make a false declaration. (3) High People's Courts and the Supreme Court of the People's Republic of China also, if in need, can establish the enforcement divisions. (4) The courts which cover the site of property, along with the first instance court of the case, can perform the enforcement procedures. (5) Prolonged the period of prescription for enforcement from one year(six months if the parties are corporations) to two years. (6) To prevent the undue procrastination of enforcement procedures due to the regional egoism, new law permits petitions to the just above the original requested courts for enforcement of the delayed case when it is procrastinated over 6 months.
-
On “Accountability and Transparency in Civil Justice in Korea”
손한기 한국민사소송법학회 2020 民事訴訟 : 韓國民事訴訟法學會誌 Vol.24 No.1
Beyond the litigants, accountability and transparency benefit the people at large and help guarantee their fundamental rights. Courts must allow people to be tried in compliance with the Constitution and the law. In order to meet such demands, the Civil Procedure Act requires courts to conduct litigation fairly, promptly, and economically (Article 1(1) of the Civil Procedure Act). For trials to be fair, judges must be independent. Litigants must be allowed to check whether the procedures were conducted fairly through a policy of transparency. The Constitution, the Court Organization Act, and the Civil Procedure Act provide various institutional measures which courts and judges can use to fulfill their responsibility to realize justice. We can evaluate the Judges’ nowadays performance in this regard by and large favorable. The fairness of some trials may be undermined by a chief judge’s duty to evaluate judges’ performance or by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court’s abuse of the power to reappoint, assign, or transfer judges. Therefore, continuous efforts must be made to establish objective and detailed criteria for evaluating judges’ performance.
-
-
-
-
스콜라연관 검색어 추천
이 검색어로 많이 본 자료
활용도 높은 자료
