RISS 학술연구정보서비스

검색
다국어 입력

http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.

변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.

예시)
  • 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
  • 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
닫기
    인기검색어 순위 펼치기

    RISS 인기검색어

      검색결과 좁혀 보기

      선택해제
      • 좁혀본 항목 보기순서

        • 원문유무
        • 원문제공처
          펼치기
        • 등재정보
        • 학술지명
          펼치기
        • 주제분류
          펼치기
        • 발행연도
          펼치기
        • 작성언어
        • 저자
          펼치기

      오늘 본 자료

      • 오늘 본 자료가 없습니다.
      더보기
      • 무료
      • 기관 내 무료
      • 유료
      • KCI등재
      • KCI등재후보

        증권집단소송법상의 내부자거래책임

        전삼현 한국법학회 2004 법학연구 Vol.0 No.16

        Liability to Insider Trading in Securities Class Action "Insider trading" is a term that most investors have heard and usually associate with illegal conduct. But the term actually includes both legal and illegal conduct. The legal version is when corporate insiders—officers, directors, and employees—buy and sell stock in their own companies. When corporate insiders trade in their own securities, they must report their trades to the SEC. Illegal insider trading refers generally to buying or selling a security, in breach of a fiduciary duty or other relationship of trust and confidence, while in possession of material, nonpublic information about the security. Insider trading violations may also include "tipping" such information, securities trading by the person "tipped," and securities trading by those who misappropriate such information. Because insider trading undermines investor confidence in the fairness and integrity of the securities markets, the SEC has treated the detection and prosecution of insider trading violations as one of its enforcement priorities. The Korean Securities Class Action Act regulate insider trading. The Act provides that a person trades on the basis of material nonpublic information if a trader is "aware" of the material nonpublic information when making the purchase or sale. The rule also sets forth several affirmative defenses or exceptions to liability. The rule permits persons to trade in certain specified circumstances where it is clear that the information they are aware of is not a factor in the decision to trade, such as pursuant to a pre-existing plan, contract, or instruction that was made in good faith. This Act provides that a person receiving confidential information under circumstances specified in the rule would owe a duty of trust or confidence and thus could be liable under the misappropriation theory.

      • KCI등재
      • KCI등재

        항공우편물(航空郵便物)에 대한 항공운송인(航空運送人)의 책임(責任)

        전삼현,Chun, Sam-Hyun 한국항공우주정책·법학회 1995 한국항공우주정책·법학회지 Vol.7 No.-

        In den letzten Jahren h ufen sich $F\ddot{a}llen$, in denen Luftpostsendungen gestohlen worden oder sonst abhanden gekommen sind. Zumeist handeltes sich urn Sendungen mit hohem Wert, oft genug urn Sendungen, die erhebliche Geldsummen oder gar Diamanten enthalten. Da nach den luftpostrechtlichen Vorschriften nur recht geringf gige $Betr\ddot{a}ge$ von der Post erstattet werden, liegt der Gedanke nahe, den Luftfrachtf hrer in Anspruch zu nehmen. Bei der $Luftpostbef\ddot{o}rderung$ liegt ein klassisches $Dreiecksverh\ddot{a}ltnis$ vor. Folgende Rechtsbeziehungen sind zu unterscheiden : (1) $Verh\ddot{a}ltnis$ zwischen dem Absender und der Post, (2) $Verh\ddot{a}ltnis$ zwischen Post und $Luftfrachtf\ddot{u}hrer$, (3) $Verh\ddot{a}ltnis$ zwischen $Gesch\ddot{a}digtern$ und $Luftfrachtf\ddot{u}hrer$, wobei der $Gesch\ddot{a}digte$ der Absender, $Empf\ddot{a}nger$ oder dinglich Berechtigte sein kann. Gegenstand der Untersuchung ist dieses zuletzt genannte $Rechtsverh\ddot{a}ltnis$. Angesichts der praktischen Bedeutung der hiermit in Zusammenhang stehenden Fragen, angesichts aber auch der Tatsache, $da{\beta}$ die auf erste Sicht umfangreiche (in - und) $ausl\ddot{a}ndische$ Literatur zuni Luftpostrecht wenig $aussagekr\ddot{a}ftig$ ist, erscheint eine genauere Untersuchung ist folgender: $Zun\ddot{a}chst$ wird die Rechtslage nach dem Warschauer Abkommen, insbesondere die Bestimmung des Art.2 Abs.2 WA, untersucht. $Ber\ddot{u}cksichtigt$ weren sodann die $\ddot{A}nderungen$ der genannten Bestimmung im Haag 1955 und Montreal 1975. Sodann wird die bislang vorliegende internationale Rechtsprechung behandelt. Dem $schlie{\beta}t$ sich die Diskussion des hier $ma{\beta}$- geblichen 52 LuftVG an. Besonderes Gewicht wird hierbei auf die Einbettung des Lufttransportrechts in das allgemeine Transportrecht gelegt. Es erscheint an der Zeit, die Vereinzelung der einzelnen Transportrechtsgebiete zu durchbrechen. Es wird sich zeigen, $da{\beta}$ aus dieser $Ber\ddot{u}cksichtigung$ anderer Transportrechtsgebiete sich eine sachgerechte $L\ddot{o}sung$ entwicklen Das Warschauer Abkommen befa t sich in seinem Art.2 Abs.2 $ausdr\ddot{u}cklich$ mit der Bef rderung von Luftpost. Die $urspr\ddot{u}ngliche$ Fassung von Warschau ist im Haag 1955 $ge\ddot{a}ndert$ worden. Eine weitere $\ddot{A}nderung$ ist in Montreal 1975 beschlossen worden.

      • KCI등재
      • KCI등재
      • KCI등재후보
      • KCI등재후보

        인터넷상 저작권의 사용허락

        전삼현 한국법학회 2003 법학연구 Vol.0 No.13

        Encounter from writers in occasion of informed Content Providers using another person's work in the Internet and thing which can use this though receive use permission for work copyright law rightful. But, it is truth that difficulty of the analysis is in occasion of use permission in the method and procedure and Internet about effect. To cope these difficulty teeth through copyright legal regulation analogical inference apply known analysis loan take a triangular position must. But, our country copyrright law or computer program protection law is not presenting clear analysis principle in reply.But, testfire very to us because keep more detailed regulation than comparative our country in Germanic occasion. Specially, when Germany considers points that is not doing legal protection in occasion of use permission for work that is not noted, think that can exert effect that these methodology is important in development of Internet industry. Therefore, think that it need basis regulation about effect existence and nonexistence of use permission for work that is not noted to keep basis regulation to our copyright law or computer program protection law. Also, need to judge availability in new sight whether is come in the use room that use that is always foreseen today before use the Internet in contract connected with work is not noted at signing a contract perhaps. Therefore, problem about use permission of when use work in the Internet that have usual legal analysis loan and solve this in development of Internet culture of modern society obstacle factor become can.

      • KCI등재

      연관 검색어 추천

      이 검색어로 많이 본 자료

      활용도 높은 자료

      해외이동버튼