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 : 金尙均 (검색결과 1,317 건)
- 무료
- 기관 내 무료
- 유료
-
-
김상균 경희대학교 법학연구소 2008 경희법학 Vol.43 No.1
Article 70 (Preliminary or Selective Co-Litigation) of the Korean Civil Procedure Act was revised in 2002. The Purpose of legislation for the Article 70 is that the legally incompatible litigations of the parties should be solved consistently in one action. The Preliminary Co-Litigation means that the legally incompatible claims by or against the prime party and the preliminary party are tried together and to be solved consistently in one action. If the judgement is in the prime party’s favor, the judgement to the preliminary party should be unfavorable, and adversely. The Selective Co-Litigation is that the legally incompatible claims by or against the parties will be judged selectively in a different way of the Preliminary Co-Litigation. If the judgement is given for one claim, the other claim should not win a lawsuit. * Professor, College of Law, Cheongju University.To be solved consistently in one action, Article 70 requires the application of Article 67 (Special Provisions for Indispensable Co-Litigation) mutatis mutandis to its trial. Therefore, procedural action taken by anyone of the co-litigants shall be effective only for the benefits of all such co-litigants, while the procedural actions taken by the counter party against one of the co-litigants shall be effective against all of them. In cases where there exists any cause for interruption or suspension of litigation procedures to one of the co-litigants, such interruption or suspension shall be effective against all co-litigants. But it does not apply to the case of waiver or recognition of the claim, compromise between the parties, and the withdrawal of the lawsuit. The reason why each co-litigants of Article 70 can close his or her lawsuit individually is that the claims of Preliminary or Selective Co-Litigation have not to be got together legally in one action or the judgements for the parties are not supposed to be legally effective on each other. Article 70 claims are legally incompatible to one another, but the ones of the Article 67 are legally compatible. On the basis of the difference between the two co-litigations, we should have an interpretation to the meaning of the application for the Article 67. The Admission of one of the co-litigants before the judge in a trial is particularly to be handled with differently in two co-litigations. The Admission of one of the co-litigants is generally not effective to the other co-parties in an action of the Article 67 and will accordingly be void as a whole. It is due to adverse to the co-litigants. On the other hand, in an action of the Article 70 the admission of one party can have an effect on the other co-parties who are able to get an advantage in their trial itself. Also the Article 70 provides to apply the Article 68(Addition of Indispensable Co-Litigants) mutatis mutandis. A plaintiff is able to add any persons to his or her trial court who are not parties yet, and make them to be preliminary parties or selective parties on his or her side or on the other side. According to the process of the action, a plaintiff can resolve the litigations connected legally with the already parties and the third to have brought in one action. The procedural materials from the already parties to the court can be used to decide on the claim by or against the new party to be added, if he invokes these materials to be favorable for him. Otherwise the court should take the processes of the action from day one on the claim of the new party. After adding the new party, the Article 67 shall apply. Parties may assign their claims or obligations during the action(Article 81, 82). When a third person has succeeded to the whole or part of the right or obligation which is the object of lawsuit, while the lawsuit is pending before the court, the plaintiff is able to bring in him or her to be a preliminary or selective party. The successor can also intervene to be a preliminary or selective party on his own name. After adding the ... Article 70 (Preliminary or Selective Co-Litigation) of the Korean Civil Procedure Act was revised in 2002. The Purpose of legislation for the Article 70 is that the legally incompatible litigations of the parties should be solved consistently in one action. The Preliminary Co-Litigation means that the legally incompatible claims by or against the prime party and the preliminary party are tried together and to be solved consistently in one action. If the judgement is in the prime party’s favor, the judgement to the preliminary party should be unfavorable, and adversely. The Selective Co-Litigation is that the legally incompatible claims by or against the parties will be judged selectively in a different way of the Preliminary Co-Litigation. If the judgement is given for one claim, the other claim should not win a lawsuit. * Professor, College of Law, Cheongju University.To be solved consistently in one action, Article 70 requires the application of Article 67 (Special Provisions for Indispensable Co-Litigation) mutatis mutandis to its trial. Therefore, procedural action taken by anyone of the co-litigants shall be effective only for the benefits of all such co-litigants, while the procedural actions taken by the counter party against one of the co-litigants shall be effective against all of them. In cases where there exists any cause for interruption or suspension of litigation procedures to one of the co-litigants, such interruption or suspension shall be effective against all co-litigants. But it does not apply to the case of waiver or recognition of the claim, compromise between the parties, and the withdrawal of the lawsuit. The reason why each co-litigants of Article 70 can close his or her lawsuit individually is that the claims of Preliminary or Selective Co-Litigation have not to be got together legally in one action or the judgements for the parties are not supposed to be legally effective on each other. Article 70 claims are legally incompatible to one another, but the ones of the Article 67 are legally compatible. On the basis of the difference between the two co-litigations, we should have an interpretation to the meaning of the application for the Article 67. The Admission of one of the co-litigants before the judge in a trial is particularly to be handled with differently in two co-litigations. The Admission of one of the co-litigants is generally not effective to the other co-parties in an action of the Article 67 and will accordingly be void as a whole. It is due to adverse to the co-litigants. On the other hand, in an action of the Article 70 the admission of one party can have an effect on the other co-parties who are able to get an advantage in their trial itself. Also the Article 70 provides to apply the Article 68(Addition of Indispensable Co-Litigants) mutatis mutandis. A plaintiff is able to add any persons to his or her trial court who are not parties yet, and make them to be preliminary parties or selective parties on his or her side or on the other side. According to the process of the action, a plaintiff can resolve the litigations connected legally with the already parties and the third to have brought in one action. The procedural materials from the already parties to the court can be used to decide on the claim by or against the new party to be added, if he invokes these materials to be favorable for him. Otherwise the court should take the processes of the action from day one on the claim of the new party. After adding the new party, the Article 67 shall apply. Parties may assign their claims or obligations during the action(Article 81, 82). When a third person has succeeded to the whole or part of the right or obligation which is the object of lawsuit, while the lawsuit is pending before the court, the plaintiff is able to bring in him or her to be a preliminary or selective party. The successor can also intervene to be a preliminary or selective party on his own name. After adding the suc...
-
Skin Elasticity, 6 Sigma, DMAIC, Skin diagnosis, Sasnag Constitution
김상균,송미영,장현철,김진현,김철,예상준 한국한의학연구원 2010 한국한의학연구원논문집 Vol.16 No.3
In this paper, we designed and implemented an integrated search and collaboration system. Users can search the traditional korean medicine knowledge in our system, which consists of medicinal materials, formulas, diseases,terminology, and clinical information. In general, the existing information systems providing the korean medicine knowledge do not provide the update function. Thus, it can be a problem if there are incomplete information. In order to solve this problem, our system implements the functions that users can work together to improve the knowledge. Therefore, wrong information can be updated easily so that flexible management about the korean medicine information is possible.
-
-
김상균 한국법학회 2004 법학연구 Vol.0 No.16
Der Beitritt als eventuller od. alternativer Steritgenossenschafter Durch Zivilprozessänderungsgesetz v. 26.01.2002(in Kraft seit 01.07.2002) ist §70 ZPO neu eingeführt, der die eventuelle od. alternative Streitgenossenschaft zum Inhalt hat. Damit es zustande kommt, der Dritten wird von Antrag des Klägers als den eventuelle od. alternative Streitgenossenschafter beigetretten. Zur Verhandlung dabei sind zwar darauf §§ 67 bis 69 ZPO verwendet, die für die notwendigen Streitgenossenschaft gelten. Einer einzelne Streitgenosse kann aber den Verzicht auf Anspruch, das Anerkenntnis, den gerichtlicher Vergleich, und die Zurücknahme der Klage für sich allein treffen. Eine Frage jedoch stellt sich, ob das Geständnis eines einzelnen dabei für sich allein erfolgt werden kann. Für die notwendigen Steritgenossenschaft muß die Entscheidung sämtlichen Streitgenossen gegenüber unter Umständen einheitlich, vor allem inhaltlich übereinstimmend sein. Zu diesem Zweck sind daher alle Vorschriften des Porzeßrecht hintanzustehen, die die Gefahr einer abweichenden Entscheidung gegenüber einem Streitgenossen heraufbeschwören. Die Wirkungen seines Geständnis sind also verneint. Übrigens besteht bei der eventuellen od. alternativen Streitgenossenschaft darin, dass einer Streitgenosse anderem gegenüber steht: Der Atrag eines ist stattgegeben, während der anderes ist abgelehnt. Dagegen laßt sich sein Geständnis wegen derjenigen Eigenschaft zulassen. Bei der Veräußrung des streitbefangenen Gegenstands, die Nachfolgen kann vom Kläger beigetreten werden, §68 ZPO.
-
-
-
-
-
연관 검색어 추천
이 검색어로 많이 본 자료
활용도 높은 자료
