디자인씽킹(Design Thinking) 기반 배우의 역할창조 접근방법 연구

박진태(Park jin-tai) 한국콘텐츠학회 2021 한국콘텐츠학회 종합학술대회 논문집 Vol.2021 No.8

철탑 콘크리트 기초강도 보강방안 분석

이경욱(Kyoung-wook Lee),박진태(Jin-tai Park),김재준(Jae-Joon Kim),황종선(jong-sun Hwang) 대한전기학회 2009 대한전기학회 학술대회 논문집 Vol.2009 No.7

철탑기초의 콘크리트 압축강도가 Core시험결과 설계기준강도에 미달된 철탑기초에 대한 보강방안은 콘크리트의 강도가 부족함으로써 발생되는 콘크리트 기초 본체에 대한 문제로서 콘크리트의 허용 펀칭전단응력의 감소로 발생되는 기초 상판부의 두께 부족 문제와 앵카재의 소요길이 부족 등으로 압축시킬 수 있다. 이에 대한 대책으로써 펀칭전단에 의한 기초 상판부 두께가 부족한 문제와 앵커재 길이 부족 문제에 대한 기초강도 보강방안을 분석하고자 한다.

[환경] 제올라이트를 이용한 중금속 원소들의 흡착 특성

심상권(Sang-Kwon Shim),박진태(Jin-Tai Park),김태삼(Tae-Sam Kim) 한국분석과학회 2000 분석과학 Vol.13 No.1

生命保險에 있어서의 告知義務

朴晋泰 경북대학교 법정대학 1979 法大論叢 Vol.17 No.-

Ⅰ. 序說 Ⅱ. 告知義務의 法的 性質 Ⅲ. 告知義務制度의 根據 Ⅳ. 告知義務者 및 相對方 Ⅴ. 告知의 時期 및 方法 Ⅵ. 告知事項 및 質問表制度 Ⅶ. 告知義務違反의 成立要件 Ⅷ. 告知義務違反의 效果 Ⅸ. 告知義務違反과 錯誤·詐欺 Ⅹ. 結語

企業結合의 法的 規制에 관한 硏究

朴晋泰 慶北大學校 1982 論文集 Vol.34 No.-

At present, enterprises of various countries are endeavering to the enlargement of enterprise scale and managerial efficiency in meeting with the rapid technological development. Even for our industries, to win in the international and domestic competition, they must strongly promote improvement of structure through mergers by means of various types. There are various reasons for mergers. Mergers are made in order to rationalize management of enterprises, to liquidate failing companies and to absorb competitors which are failing in their business because of intensive competition. Therefore, we can see two kinds of effects from mergers. Merger could produce, on the other hand, of restraint of competition of others. According to these effects, regulations by civil law and some special Acts is put on mergers, respectively. But in this paper regulation of mergers by the Anti-monopoly Act is dealed chiefly with. In Korea, according to the constitutional provision "Monopolistic and oligopolistic practices shall be properly regulated and coordinatec" (Art. 120. (3) of Constitution). The Act concerning Restriction of Monopoly and Maintenance of Fair Trade is enacted in 1980 and put in force from 1981. This Anti-monopoly Act provides that special company shall not effect a merger in either of the following cases "Where the effect of a merger may be to substantially restrain competition in any particular field of trade" or "where unfair business practices have been employed in the course of the merger or consilidation (Art. 7(1), of Anti-monopoly Act). In practice, mainly the former provision is at issue now. According to prevailing opinion, the term "where the effect of a merger may be to substantially restrain competition" means that situations where a market dominating pwoer is formed and, in order words, the situation where effective competition in the market is lost. Our legislative policy is the method of post-regulation system and so, to eliminate the evils afterwards if evils accrued from mergers. This policy is reasonable under our industrial structure, I think. But under our Anti-monopoly Act, the conglomerate merger could not regulated. In the legistration to come, this point shall be considered, I believe.

動産抵富制度의 發達

朴晉泰 慶北大學校 1978 論文集 Vol.25-26 No.-

The chattel mortgage can be created by establishing a security on goods, in reserving the possession of goods to the debtor. This security of chattel personal has come to appear in our mordern society, as a result of the need to get loan of small and medium enterprisers in the economic aspect, and of the development of the means recording chattel personal in legal aspect. But as the real security, the method itself, by which the debtor can possesses and use the thing secured, was recognized from comparatively early time. In Rome, between hypothec and pignus there was no essential legal difference, and they was regulated by the same principles in most cases. And Roman Law recognized the pledge without possession and a proper form. The security without possession was first recognized for rents. A tenant could validly agree that his "res" should be pledged for his rents, the expression covering all his property "invecta et illata", except in passage, and the crops, after he had acquired them by perceptio. The landlord had as "interdictum salvianum" to recover them from the debtor as soon as rent was due. He had also an "actio serviana" for their recovery from any one who held them, and the interdict was ultimately made effective against third persons. Early in the Empire, and perhaps before, this action was extended(we call it:quasi serviana) to other cases of hypothec and thus the pledge without actual transfer came to appear very usual. The continental legal system tried to establish the principle of public notice on all real right granted by way of security, and thus in the continental legal system chattel personal could not be secured because there was no public notice on it. Therefore the chattel gage could not appear. But in mordern states, by the instrumentality of devising the pledge with special recording on chattel personal, it is possible to secure. In the other hand, in Anglo-American legal system, from early times, mortgage can be made of chattel personal as well as of land. Mortgage of debts and equitable interests in personality can be made in the form of a conveyance by the mortgagor to the mortgagee with provizo for redemption. In America, after the Uniform Commercial Code (1965), the security agreement is used instead of the term mortgage. In German the pledge with registration was legislated on the agricultural foundation (1926). In Denmark, the Register Act (1926) prescribed the provisions to the registration of gage on goods as well as on land. According to the policy of this law, it is possible to establish the security interest on all kinds of goods. In Frence, on the security of commercial property and intangible personal property like patent and special technique, and in Swiss, on the herd of domestic animals (civil code. sec. 885), the pledge without actual transfer of thing is recognized. Japen also recognized it on the agricultural tools, automobiles and airplanes. Our Civil Code does not recognize the chattel gage. But by the special laws there are four types of pledge without possession on ships, automobiles, airplanes and architectectural machines. In Korea, the legislation for security of the agricultral tools and general furnitures should be established like in advanced countries.

權利濫用論

金容圭,朴晋泰 慶北大學校 1977 論文集 Vol.23 No.-

Early in mordern era the freedom of exercising right was recognized as expressed by a source that one who exercises his right is not doing wrong against anyone (:Qui iure suo utitur, nemini facit iniuriam), and the Abuse of Right could not be even thought of. Since then, there had been a reflection to this from the mid-19th century in France, and as a revising principle to the freedom of exercising right, the prohibition of Abuse of Right had gradually begung formed through its precedents. In German Civill Law(BGB), so called the prohibition of "Chikane"(:Schikanen-verbot) was codified in BGB §226. However, the prohibition of "Chikane as recognized by the early precedents in France and prescribed in BGB, was not to revise primarily the freedom of the exercise of right. Substantially, the prohibition of Abuse of Right as a principle to revise the principle of the freedom in exercising right is a matter of after the commonalty and sociality have been recognized. Because, when the sociality in right is admitted, the prohibition of Abuse of Right that standardizes whether there exists an exercise of its abuse or not ouside the intrinsic social was seen in the principle of Chikane prohibition, can be recognized. Based on this view, the Abuse of Right that first regulated is the Civil Law of Sweden. The item 2 of Article 2 in the Swedish Civil Law prescribes that "AN OBVIOUS ABUSE OF RIGHT SHALL NOT BE PROTECTED". The deceased Civil Law in Korea had not provided with the provisions for the Abuse of Right. However, the principle of the Abuse of Right was being evolved through the precedents and doctrines centering around so called "Immission and ownership." The Civill Law now in force prescribes in the item 2 of Article 2, "THE RICHT MUST NOT BE ABUSED.

假登記의 效力

金容圭,朴晋泰 慶北大學校 1977 論文集 Vol.24 No.-

Under our Real Property Registration Act the preliminary registration may be made upon the register, in cases of want of neccessory factors to make an entry as a full owner, in order to preserve a claim for getting the original registration. It may be made when we are willing to secure the claim for creation, transferring, converting and extincting real property and lease. Even after making the preliminary registration the original owner may be entitled to dispose of his real property for the third party; to wit, A, who has ownership about real estate, even after making the preliminary registration for B, may freely convey his ownership of real estate and real personal for C. Other registrations not to keep abreast with the original registration (of B) are void, and to keep abreast with it are inferior to it in order, after making the original registration based on the preliminary registration. The issues to arise from the effect of the preliminary registration under our Real Property Registration Act (1960) may be, first, the time to conveyance of real property, and second, the effect of the preliminary registration itself in the first case. Some scholars are asserting that the effect of conveyance of real estate retrospectively arise, if the original registration was made by B (in above case), based on the preliminary registration, from the time to make the preliminary registration and the others afterwards from the time to make the original registration. It would be proper to follow the view of the latter, I believe. Because according to the former, a person with the preliminary registration (B in above case) would be excessively protect. It is so, it's unreasonable. In the second case, not to give any effect to the preliminary registratration itself was the view of our Supreme Court. But there are many questions in the authorities of the Supreme Court, based on "Formalism" concerning the change in real right. And it is so, it would be impossible of B to make the original registration in the above mentioned case. Because on the register there is C's original registration, and because in such case registration officer must reject B's application of his original registration on the account of difference between the name on the register and the name to apply (Real Property Registration Act Article 175, Article 55, 6. cf). In short, it would be impossible of B to make an entry under our legal system, unless B would remove C's original registration. Thus, it would be reasonable to acknowledge a power against the third party to the preliminary registration itself. contray to the view of the Supreme court, I think.