충북지방의 뿌리혹병 감염 포도나무 뿌리에서 분리한 Agrobacterium속 균의 특성

양승업,박세정,이영기,차재순 한국식물병리학회 2009 식물병연구 Vol.15 No.2

The roots of grapevine in the field in which the crown gall was occurred severely in Chungbuk province were collected and Agrobacterium spp. were isolated from the roots using the selective media. The selected 13 isolates were identified as A. tumefaciens with fatty acid analysis using MIDI system, nucleotide sequence of 16S rDNA, biochemical characteristics, and PCR with the species-specific primers. A. vitis, a pathogen of crown gall disease of grapevine was not isolated from the roots. All of the isolates did not show pathogenicity on the tomato seedlings and the stem and root of grapevine. Eric-PCR showed that DNA band patterns of the root isolates were a little more similar to A. tumefaciens than A. vitis. However, overall similarity between the root isolates and the pathogenic strains of A. tumefaciens and A. vitis was low by rep-PCR. These results suggest that a pathogen causing crown gall in grapevine in Chungbuk province may transmitted through the seedlings rather than via soil or roots. The roots of grapevine in the field in which the crown gall was occurred severely in Chungbuk province were collected and Agrobacterium spp. were isolated from the roots using the selective media. The selected 13 isolates were identified as A. tumefaciens with fatty acid analysis using MIDI system, nucleotide sequence of 16S rDNA, biochemical characteristics, and PCR with the species-specific primers. A. vitis, a pathogen of crown gall disease of grapevine was not isolated from the roots. All of the isolates did not show pathogenicity on the tomato seedlings and the stem and root of grapevine. Eric-PCR showed that DNA band patterns of the root isolates were a little more similar to A. tumefaciens than A. vitis. However, overall similarity between the root isolates and the pathogenic strains of A. tumefaciens and A. vitis was low by rep-PCR. These results suggest that a pathogen causing crown gall in grapevine in Chungbuk province may transmitted through the seedlings rather than via soil or roots.

환경분쟁에서의 ADR적용방안에 관한 연구

梁承業 江原大學校 比較法學硏究所 2005 江原法學 Vol.20 No.-

Environmental issue is directly related to worldwide survival and one of the most difficult problem in these modernized society. As long as there have been people and communities, conflicts exist in every time and anywhere.(This paper uses conflict and dispute as a same meaning.} But methods for resolving disputes have been developed, ranging from mediation to the highly technical rule systems of our litigation. Environmental conflicts are often caused by an NIMBY between development and preservation. Also, Environmental conflicts have litigious limitations in resolving collisions which are very complicated. In recent years, interest in ADR(Alternative Dispute Resolution) has grown from various angles. ADR is both the oldest and some of the newest way of resolving conflicts that have legal implications. ADR is a system to settle disputes without having to pursue a judgment through the courts. Currently major countries, including the USA, have developed and contrived to activate ADR in order to both choose effective means for dispute resolution and establish the reformation of the judicial system. For example, the USA passed the ADRA for ADR in 1998, Germany revised EGZPO in 1999. Also, Japan passed the law which is related to ADR in 2004. Not only ADR forms such as negotiation, settlement, conciliation, mediation and arbitration but also diverse forms of ADR such as fact-finding, mini-trial, early neutral evaluation are adopted in the US as the method of dispute resolution. ADR is available to resolve a wide range of disputes, but have the defects of its qualities. One specific method is not suitable for all kinds of disputes. In selecting a method, several factors have to be prudently considered after closely reviewing the matter. The most important factor is to make people aware of the fact that ADR has many merits such as a low-cost, smooth agreement, speedy resolution, etc. It was confirmed that the resolution of disputes by formal proceedings is no longer the rational method. In this respect, ADR may well be regarded as the most efficient method to resolve Environmental disputes. When we consider recent worldwide trend, it is desirable that the Relation Law on ADR should be enacted in Korea. In this case, it is necessary to include the provisions of binding force on ADR result.

철도환경영향평가에 관한 고찰 : 경춘선 복선전철화사업을 중심으로

양승업 한국환경법학회 2005 環境法 硏究 Vol.27 No.3

미국 행정법판사의 독립성론에 관한 고찰 : 우리 청문주재자와의 독립성 비교를 중심으로

양승업(Yang Seung-Up) 한국비교공법학회 2010 공법학연구 Vol.11 No.4

미국의 경우에는 법원에서 판결로서 해결하는 숫자보다도 훨씬 많은 개인적 분쟁을 행정청의 재결로서 해결한다. 일반적으로 행정재결은 행정적 프로그램을 통하여 생성된 개인의 권리와 의무를 결정하는바, 영미의 심리는 주로 행정재결을 전형으로 한다. 행정재결절차에서 미국 시민들은 공정한 청문을 기대한다. 그들의 기대는 여러 근원으로부터 나오는바, 사회구성원으로서 정부행위에 기속되는 사람들은 주와 연방의 적법절차조항으로부터 공정하고 편견 없는 재결을 받을 자격이 있음을 신뢰하게 되었다. 이것은 청문이 중립적이고 편견이 없는 결정권자(주재자)에 의하여 행하여지고, 그 결정권자는 이해관계가 없고, 공정하며 독립적인 사람이어야 함을 의미한다. 1940년대에는 미국 행정절차법을 제정하게 되었다. APA는 처음에는 ‘hearing examiner’라고 불리어지는 청문주재자 즉, 현재의 행정법판사(ALJ)를 탄생시키게 되었고 ALJ의 독립이 보장되도록 의도하고 있었다. 또한 APA는 ALJ에게 재결절차에서의 중요한 역할을 부여하였다. 우리의 행정절차법은 제28조에서 제37조까지 청문절차를 규정하고 있다. APA에 규정되어 활동하고 있는 미국의 ALJ와 우리 행정절차법에서 규정하고 있는 청문주재자는 청문절차에서는 그 기능이 유사한 측면이 있다. 이들은 청문을 공정하고 원활하게 진행하려는 목적을 가지고 있으나 양국의 이러한 제도가 소속 행정청으로부터 어느 정도의 독립성을 확보하고 있는가의 문제가 있다. ALJ의 독립은 ALJ의 사실심 판단과 분쟁의 청문, 그리고 정식 행정재결과정에서의 서면재결 등의 기능에 비추어 매우 중요하다. 본래 청문주재자의 지위는 헌법적으로 보호받는 지위가 아니고 연방의회 입법에 의하여 탄생된 것이다. 그들의 지위는 완전히 연방의회에 의하여 통제될 것이고 그 통제권한의 실행을 위임할 것이다. 이러한 맥락에서 ALJ는 연방의회가 입법목적을 달성하기 위하여 특별히 부여한 APA상의 판사이지만 완전한 독립성을 확보할 수 없는 준독립체라고 보아야 타당할 것이다. 미국의 입법부는 APA를 제정하여 ALJ의 독립성 보장을 위하여 노력하였고, 행정부도 ALJ의 독립성보장을 위하여 독립기관을 설치하여 운영하고 있다. 사법부는 독립성을 보장하는 듯이 보이지만 이를 부정하는 판결을 한 사례도 있다. ALJ는 다양한 행정 영역에서 전문적이며 신뢰할 수 있는 재결을 통하여 매우 중요한 역할을 할 수 있다는 순기능이 있다. 그러나 ALJ를 행정청에 예속되게 한 것이 APA의 가장 큰 오류였으며, 이는 행정청의 영향력행사로 연결되어 독립성 · 공정성의 확보에 큰 문제점을 야기하게 되었다. 따라서 우리 청문주재자의 독립성을 입법적으로 보장하고 기능을 강화할 방안을 보완할 필요성이 있다. 즉, ① 행정절차법 제28조 제1항을 보완하여 법률전문가를 채용하여 청문을 주재하도록 개정하여야 한다. ② 청문주재자의 자격요건을 강화하여 청문주재자의 신분상 · 직무상 독립을 지원하여야 한다. ③ 행정청이 ‘상당한 이유’가 있다고 인정하는 경우에만 청문주재자의 청문결과를 반영하도록 규정하고 있는 현행 행정절차법 제35조의 2의 “행정청이 상당한 이유가 있다고 인정하는 경우에는”을 삭제하여 청문주재자의 의견을 행정청의 처분을 위한 근거로 기속적으로 반영하도록 개정하여야 한다. ④ 판사행동강령의 적용을 받는 미국의 ALJ와 마찬가지로 우리의 청문주재자에게도 ‘법관 및 법원공무원 행동강령’을 준용하도록 개정하여야 한다. Administrative agencies adjudicate massive numbers of individual disputes, far exceeding the number resolved by courts. Generally, administrative adjudications determine the individual rights and duties created through an administrative program. The Anglo-American trial is the template for adjudications. Citizens who face the government in an adjudicative proceeding involving an agency expect a fair hearing. Their expectation comes from several sources. From state and federal due process clauses, we have come to believe as a society that all who are subject to government action are entitled to a “fair and impartial adjudicator.” This means that the hearing must be conducted by a decision maker who is neutral and unbiased and that the judge should be “disinterested, impartial, and independent.” By the 1940s, these criticisms led to passage of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The APA created the position of administrative law judge (initially, the APA referred to ALJs as “hearing examiners”) and gave ALJs protections designed to ensure their independence. In addition, the APA gave ALJs an important role in the adjudicative process. Our administrative procedure act also prescribes hearing in detail(from the 28th article to the 37th article). American ALJ makes the same function our hearing supervisors by the point that hearing examine. And both systems have the purpose of trying to proceed with hearing justly and smoothly. But, from a belonging agency, a problem of independence securement is raised to such system, it'll be under restriction in an opinion of a government agency after all. The Administrative Law Judge is the person primarily responsible for developing an accurate and complete record and a fair and equitable decision in a formal administrative proceeding. The position of hearing examiners is not a constitutionally protected position. It is a creature of congressional enactment. Their positions may be regulated completely by Congress, or Congress may delegate the exercise of its regulatory power. ALJ is a judge by APA given especially by such connection for Congress to achieve a legislative goal, and the attitude of the precedent as the semi independent body it isn't possible to secure perfect independence for which is proper. An American legislature establish APA and secure on the status of ALJ, independence on the work and a function separation legally. An administration also installs OPM of an independent agency for independent security of ALJ, it's being managed, an effort is being made. The judicature can think independence is secured. But the judgment which denies independence has been done. ALJ will be technical by various individual administrative territory and be the very big role of doing the judgement which can be trusted. But it was the biggest error of APA that the status of ALJ was made a government agency so that it might be subordinate. This has caused a problem to securement of fairness by an influence event of a government agency. Therefore, secures independence of our hearing supervisor and strengthens the function. Accordingly, ① We have to revise our prescribed administrative procedure act 28th article initial term so that a government agency may employ a hearing supervisor in the affiliated employee. ② We have to strengthen the qualification important matter of a hearing supervisor and support on the status of a hearing supervisor and independence on the work. ③ 2 of an administrative procedures act 35th article is prescribed as “When a government agency admits that there is a considerable reason” a hearing result of the hearing supervisor may be reflected. This article is illogical, so We have to eliminate. We have to revise like therefore reflecting a hearing result by a basis for disposal of a government agency. ④ We have to apply a rule equal to this to our hearing supervisor like American ALJ applied to a Code of Judicial Conduct.

미국 인디언종족법원에서의 적법절차적용에 관한 고찰 - ICRA와 주택행정절차를 중심으로

양승업(Yang Seung Up) 한국공법학회 2008 공법연구 Vol.36 No.3

미국 수정헌법 제5조와 제14조는 적법절차를 규정하고 있다. 적법절차는 형사절차뿐만 아니라 사회보장행정영역에서도 필요한 절차로서 미국의 행정절차법은 이를 사회보장법과 관련하여 조화롭게 준수하려 노력하고 있다.  적법절차는 우리들의 전통과 양심 속에 근본적인 것으로 자리 잡고 있는 자유와 정의의 원칙이다. 적법절차는 국가권력의 행사에 있어서 공정성의 원리를 성취시키기 위한 공정한 처우의 원칙이다. 적법절차는 다양한 해석이 가능하지만 일반적으로는 실체적·절차적·구조적 절차라는 세가지 유형으로 이해되어 진다. 미국의 행정절차법(APA)은 미국 행정법의 근간을 이루고 있는 매우 중요한 법으로서 수정헌법 제5조와 제14조의 적법절차조항을 근거로 하고 있다. 적법절차는 개인의 자유 또는 재산을 침해하기 이전에 행하여져야 한다. 행정절차에 있어서도 적법절차에 의하여 보호되는 이익은 사법절차와 마찬가지로 원칙적으로 개인의 생명, 자유 또는 재산에 관한 것이어야 한다.  인디언은 미국 헌법의 통상조항, 조약체결 등의 조항에서 산발적으로만 언급되어 있다. 인디언은 일반적으로 ‘결코 소멸되지 않는 제한된 고유주권’을 가지고 있다. 인디언 국가도 종족법원과 법률집행을 포함한 사법제도를 필수적 제도로서 갖추고 있다. 종족법원은 연방법에 의하여 공식적으로 승인된 법원이다. 종족법원은 문화적으로 민감한 부분에 있어서는 직무상 독자적으로 행동할 수 있다. 종족법원은 보호구역 인디언에 대한 민·형사적 사법관할권을 갖는다. 적법절차조항을 매개로하여 제정된 1968년의 인디언시민권법(ICRA)은 연방헌법상의 권리장전규정의 대부분을 인디언정부에 적용함을 목적으로 한다.  1962년에 주택도시개발부(HUD)가 처음으로 인디언국가에서 인디언종족주택청(IHA)을 설립하였다. IHA는 주택구입자들에게 ICRA에 의한 적법절차를 부여하여야 한다. 인디언 주택구입자들은 구입과정에서 공정한 권리를 향유하며 ICRA에 의하여 적법절차가 보장된다. IHA절차는 HUD 규칙과 ICRA에 부합하여야 한다.  사회보장권을 헌법에 규정하고 있는 우리는 주택행정과 관련한 공공부조를 실현하기 위한 현실적인 입법적 조치가 필요하고 실체적·절차적 권리가 보장되도록 하여야 하며 행정의 자의성방지와 권익보호를 위하여 법률유보원칙을 기초로 한 법치행정이 이루어져야 한다. The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution contain a due process. Due process is the procedure for which even social security administrative arena is necessary as well as detective procedure. The Administrative Procedure Act is making an effort in order to obey this so that it may harmonize in relation to a Social Security Act.  Due process is a principle of liberty and the justice which occupy a seat by a fundamental thing in our tradition and good mind, a principle of the just treatment to make a principle of fairness be accomplished in an event of state power. Due process is generally understood that there are three kinds of due process: substantive, procedural, and structural.  APA makes the due process article of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution a basis as the very important law into which the root of American administrative law is formed. Due process has to act before personal liberty, or property interest which invades assets. The profit which is also protected by due process in an administrative procedure has to be concerned with personal life, liberty or property generally like a judicial process.  A Native American is referring only sporadically by a Commerce Clause of an American constitution and an article of a treaty conclusion. A Native American generally has ‘the restricted peculiar sovereignty which never becomes extinct’. An Indian state also possess a judiciary including law execution as an indispensable organization with a race courthouse. A Tribal courts is the one approved by a federal law formally.  In the sensitive part culturally, a tribal courts can behave originally. A tribal courts has a judicial power to a protection Indian Reservation. The ICRA was passed by Congress with the dual intent of preventing tribal interference with individual civil rights and preserving tribal capacity to self-govern.  A HUD established IHA by a first Indian state in 1962. The IHA has to give due process by ICRA to home buyers. Indian home buyers enjoy a just right by the purchase process, protection on the due process is secured by ICRA. As well as the IHA procedure"s being based on a HUD regulation, but also have to coincide with ICRA.

지방자치단체의 공공시설에 대한 입장료 및 사용료 징수에 관한 고찰

양승업(Yang Seung-Up) 한국비교공법학회 2007 공법학연구 Vol.8 No.4

경기도 가평군은 청평양수발전소와 협약을 체결하고 발전소 내부(호명호수)를 개방하여 관광객을 입장시키고 그 입장객으로부터 입장료를 징수하고자 하였다. 이 사안에서의 쟁점은 가평군이 호명호수를 공공시설로 보아 지방자치법 제127조(사용료)를 근거로 하여 입장료를 징수 할 수 있는지의 여부이다. 일반적으로 공공시설은 공물뿐만 아니라 공공용의 영조물, 공기업을 포함하는 넓은 의미로 이해함이 통설적 견해이다. 이러한 맥락에서 ‘한국남부발전주식회사 청평양수발전소’ 상부저수지(호명호수)는 공공시설로 보아야 한다. 사전적 의미에서는 공물이용에 대한 반대급부를 사용료라 하고, 시설 내에 들어가기 위하여 내는 요금을 입장료라고 한다. 입장료 및 사용료에 관한 예시규정으로서는 자연공원법이 있다. 협약은 이해당사자간의 계약행위에 기초한 공법상 계약이라 할 수 있는바, 이 사안에서 가평군은 직접 공공시설을 설치하지 않고 타유시설인 청평양수발전소 시설을 협약에 의하여 이용토록 하고자 하였다. 협약은 MOA(Memorandum of Agreement), MOU((Memorandum of Understanding) 및 협약서 형태로 구분되어 적용되고 있다. 가평군과 청평양수발전소 간에 체결된 협약은 공공시설(호명호수)에 입장하는 자로부터 가평군이 조례를 제정하여 입장료 및 시설사용료를 징수할 수 있도록 한 것으로서, 가평군으로서는 입장료의 징수가 가능하다고 판단되지만 그 근거를 지방자치법 제127조의 사용료 규정에 근거하고 있음이 타당한지는 의문이다. 지방자치법 제127조가 공공시설의 이용 또는 재산의 사용을 규정하면서 사용료 개념만을 규정한 것은 불합리하다. 지방자치법 제127조는 공공시설의 이용 또는 재산의 사용에 대하여 사용료뿐만 아니라 입장료도 징수할 수 있도록 개정하여야 한다. 협약에 근거하여 판단하건대 가평군으로서는 호명호수 시설에 대한 인건비와 관리비 등을 실질적으로 부담하고 있는 점, 시설물설치와 관리에 관한 사항 등을 규정하고 있는 점 등에 비추어 이를 공공시설로 보아 입장료를 징수 할 수 있다고 판단된다. Gapyeong County concluded an agreement with Chung Pyung power plant with pumped-up water place and opened the Ho-Myung Lake inside the power plant, and made a tourist enter, tried to collect the entrance fee from the visitor. An issue in this pending problem is that Gapyeong County treats the Ho-myung Lake as public facilities, whether the entrance fee can be collected on the ground of a local autonomy law 127th article(the rental fee) or not. Public facilities are generally the wide meaning including the public works as well as public property and the public enterprise. In this connection, I concluded that 'Korean southern generating electricity corporation Chung Pyung power plant with pumped-up water' upper part reservoir is public property(public facilities). An agreement is contract on the public law(administrative contract) based on a contract act between the interest person concerned. In this pending problem, Gapyeong County tried to use Chung Pyung power plant with pumped-up water facilities by an agreement without establishing public facilities personally. Gapyeong County established a ordinance so that it might be possible to collect the entrance fee and the rental fee of facilities from the person who enters public facilities (Ho-Myung Lake) by an agreement. Gapyeong County is judged to be possible to collect the entrance fee. But the basis, the one based on a rental fee regulation of a local autonomy law 127th article is curious. A government has to revise a local autonomy law 127th article so that it may be also possible to collect the entrance fee as well as the rental fee to use in public facilities or use of assets. When it depends on agreement, regard the Ho-myung Lake facilities as public facilities, Gapyeong County can collect the entrance fee. It's because Gapyeong County bears the personnel expenses and administrative expense to the Ho-myung Lake facilities, and the establishment of facilities, a matter about facilities's management is prescribed in agreement.

미국헌법 제2조와 수정헌법 제12조의 차이점에 관한 고찰

양승업(Yang Seung Up) 강원대학교 비교법학연구소 2006 江原法學 Vol.23 No.-

In 1787, the Framers of the United States Constitution established the bipartite method Americans presently use to elect the President and Vice President. The person receiving the most electoral votes became president, and the runner-up became vice-president. The election of 1800 was the first time all the elements of the bipartite electoral process were used. The presidential election of 1800 exposed a flaw in the electoral system: the absence of a requirement that the electoral college vote separately for the positions of President and Vice President. That election defaulted into the House of Representatives after presidential candidate Thomas Jefferson and his vice presidential running mate, Aaron Burr, each received an equal number of electoral college votes for the office of President. After much back room bargaining and more than thirty ballots later, the House elected Jefferson as President. That turbulent election precipitated the swift postelection enactment and ratification of the Twelfth Amendment. The Twelfth Amendment required electors to vote separately for President and Vice President. The Twelfth Amendment solved an obvious structural defect in the electoral system by separating presidential and vice presidential voting by the electors; however, the bipartite process remained essentially unchanged. The inherent malapportionment of the electoral college and the unit voting methodology currently used to select most states' electors demonstrate that the first part of the bipartite presidential election process theoretically conflicts with the constitutional right of one man, one vote. This odd system of counting electoral votes endures because of the tension between Article II of the Constitution and the Twelfth Amendment. As a result, the electoral college's duties and functions, originally outlined in Article II, Section 1, Clause 3 and superseded by the Twelfth Amendment, are the Constitution's Achilles' heel.

골프연습장시설의 건축과 지역주민의 환경권

양승업(Yang Seung Up) 강원대학교 비교법학연구소 2007 江原法學 Vol.25 No.-

Our constitution prescribes a right about the environment by the 35th article. The disturbance between the individual of a basic right can be also a constitution problem. Environmental right is an overall basic right with the character as the right to live or the social basic right. There are a prevention right of pollution, an exclusion right of pollution and a life environment development right. A personal right can't get relief directly by environmental right. It's possible to restrict a property right for welfare increase of the whole society. When collision of a basic right occurs, We have to settle it by a complementing way synthetically. A life environment development claim rights is the right to request it for the people to raise the living quality to the nation. We have to prevent thoughtless environment damage and transfer a comfortable living foundation to offsprings and others.

하천과 공유수면의 점용허가와 채광계획인가에 관한 고찰

양승업(Yang Seung-Up) 한국토지공법학회 2008 土地公法硏究 Vol.40 No.-

  An exclusive use permission right of a River and Public Water Surface is the use of res publica by a patent. When doing exclusive use permission, a problem of the order of priority can occur. A government agency can"t cancels or withdraw the administrative disposition in optional way.<BR>  The third person who makes the profit on the law can raise a revocation suit of disposal. When getting main permission, consider to have got related permission by other laws. This is called a Permission Legal Fiction system.<BR>  The target for Legal Fiction is unlimited. But when it"s always groundless legally, it won"t be. We have the biggest effect of a Permission Legal Fiction on unification at the permission part. Before permitting it mainly, it has to be under the conference beforehand with a permission government office for Legal Fiction.<BR>  Occupation Permission of a River and Public Water Surface must receive a rightful person"s agreement. When it"s a harmful mine in the environment, an interest person can suffer the environmental damage.<BR>  When the environmental damage is expected, it"s possible to consult an opinion of an environmental impact assessment person. Because Occupation Permission Disposal of a River and Public Water Surface is a patent, an administrative agency doesn"t permit it.

수자원분쟁에서의 전문가 역할에 관한 고찰 : 미국의 Special Master제도를 중심으로

양승업 ( Seung Up Yang ) 韓國環境法學會 2007 環境法 硏究 Vol.29 No.2