반응성구조체의 고속충돌에 따른 온도분포 분석

정상현,조수경,배광태,이기봉,Jung, Sang-Hyun,Cho, Soo Gyeong,Bae, Gwang Tae,Lee, Kibong 한국군사과학기술학회 2017 한국군사과학기술학회지 Vol.20 No.5

The temperature profiles upon high speed impact of reactive structural materials were analyzed. A two color pyrometer, which included high-speed camera, spectral splitter, and band pass filters, was utilized to measure transient temperature profiles during and after reactive metal samples impacted into steel plate with velocities of 1600~1700 m/s. The spatial temperature distribution was analyzed from the ratio of spectral radiances at two different wavelength in infrared zone, i.e. 700 and 900 nm. The measured temperatures were calibrated with black body source. Two different types of metal samples, namely aluminum and nickel, were employed to understand reaction behavior upon the impact of samples in ambient condition. According to our experiments, the Ni sample appeared to barely react with ambient air producing an instant small fireball, while Al sample reacts violently with air generating a relatively prolong fireball.

하나의 관리도로 공정 평균과 분산의 변화를 탐지하는 절차

정상현,이재현,Jung, Sang-Hyun,Lee, Jae-Heon 한국통계학회 2008 응용통계연구 Vol.21 No.3

평균과 분산이 동시에 변화할 수 있는 공정을 관리할 경우, 평균의 변화를 탐지하는 관리도와 분산의 변화를 탐지하는 관리도를 병행하여 사용하는 것이 일반적이다. 여러 연구자들이 하나의 관리도를 사용하여 공정 평균과 분산의 변화를 동시에 탐지할 수 있는 절차를 제안했는데, 이 논문에서는 이와 같은 관리도들을 소개하고 그 효율을 비교하였다. 그 결과 GLR 관리도 Omnibus EWMA 관리도 그리고 Interval 관리도는 충분히 좋은 효율을 가짐을 알 수 있었다. Two control charts are usually required to monitor both the process mean and variance. In this paper, we introduce control procedures for jointly monitoring the process mean and variance with one control chart, and investigate efficiency of the introduced charts by comparing with the combined two EWMA charts. Our numerical results show that the GLR chart, the Omnibus EWMA chart, and the Interval chart have good ARL properties for simultaneous changes in the process mean and variance.

책임능력(責任能力)있는 미성년자(未成年者)의 부법행위(不法行爲)에 대한 감독자책임(監督者責任)의 근거재해석(根據再解釋)

정상현 ( Sang Hyun Jung ) 법조협회 2001 法曹 Vol.50 No.8

이른바 「반사적(反射的) 소유권취득론(所有權取得論)」의 재검토

정상현 ( Sang Hyun Jung ) 법조협회 2002 法曹 Vol.51 No.9

Clausula rebus sic stantibus 法理의 形成과 發展

정상현(Jung, Sang-Hyun) 성균관대학교 법학연구소 2012 성균관법학 Vol.24 No.1

La pluspart des savants parle que la théorie du changement des circonstances tire son origine de la clausula rebus sic stantibus dans le droit canonique et l'école de postglose. Mais, j'eus la question que n'ya-t-il l'origine de cette théorie dans le droit romain. Donc, j'en y fis des efforts à ma manière de chercher. Je regardai attentivement des archives et des textes sur la théorie dans le droit romain de Justinian, Corpus Juris Civilis. Après de la recherche longtemps, je découvris l'origine de la théorie dans le Digesta et le Codex du droit romain. Ce-la est dans les textes, resolvi putant, cum in eum casum reciderunt et si in eadem causa maneat, qui signifie que le contrat peut été résolu en cas du changement des circonstances. Et les règlements similaires eurent été découvert dans le droit germain. Par l'analyse attentive du Langobardisches Lehnrecht, l'article 180 de Edictum Rothari priscrit sur la dissolution des fiançailles par la maladie de la fiancée et l'article 4 de verset 4 de Lex Visigothorum priscrit sur la résolution du contrat et la restitution du acompte par le changement des circonstances. En plus, j'éclairai l'origine primitive de cette théorie dans le Code Hammurabi. Je pense qu'il est le point de départ historique de cette théorie, parce que l'article 111 de ce code déjâ reconnaît la modification des contenus du contrat par la différence des prix entre saisons de la semailles et de la récolte. Un mois est passé depuis, je pensai de écrire une article sur la création et le développement de la clausula rebus sic stantibus dans le droit canonique et l'école de postglose, pourvu que je s'arrange pour préparer. Donc, j'écris cette article, et je pus connaître les faits que les canonistes avent formé la clausula rebus sic stantibus comme le principe général et les postglossateurs avent développé celle-la. Particulièrement, les canonistes du moyen âge découvrirent convenablement la clausula rebus sic stantibus par la considération sur l'imperfection de la volonté humaine dans la théorie du droit traditionel, bien que le principe de pacta sunt servanda eut dominé le monde du droit contractuel cette époque-la. Leurs aussi les postglossateurs avent développé la clausula rebus sic stantibus malgré l'opposition de l'école du droit naturelle. Mais cette tendance fut en face d'une crise à partir de 18e siécle. Il ya deux causes. La première cause est que la sécurité des relations contractuelles est géné par l'application vaste de la clausula rebus sic stantibus, meme si cette théorie est due à l'idée de l'équité entre parties contractuels. La deuxième cause est que l'école du droit historique ne eut pas reconnu la clausula rebus sic stantibus que le droit romain ne eut pas su. Parce que les savants du droit historique eut insisté le principe de la pacta sunt servanda dans le droit contractuel et ils eut respecté la fidélité dans les rélations commérciales. Malgré cela, la théorie de la clausula rebus sic stantibus découvrit dans les plusieurs codes qui eurent été rédiger à partir de la moitié de 18e siécle. D'abord, verset 12 de quinzième chapitre de quatrième livre de Codex Maximilianeus Bavaricus Civilis(Max. Bav. Civ.) an 1756 présenta la thèorie comme la cause du changement et la disparition des rélations contractuelles. L'article 377 de quinzième chapitre de premier livre de Allgemeines La

賣買目的 土地에 發生한 事情의 變更과 契約의 效力

정상현(JUNG Sang-Hyun) 한국법학원 2008 저스티스 Vol.- No.104

사정변경법리를 계약법의 일반원칙으로 인정하여 당사자나 법원에게 계약을 변경하거나 해소할 수 있는 권리를 부여하는 것은 계약의 가장 기본적인 효력인 구속력을 파괴하는 결과를 야기하고, 거래의 안전에도 치명적인 타격을 줄 수 있다. 이러한 법리를 신의칙의 분칙으로서 또는 신의칙과 대등한 민법의 일반원칙으로서 받아들이는 다수학자들의 주장에 따르면, 당사자의 의사에 의하여 구속력이 부여되었던 계약이 단순한 객관적 사정의 변경에 의하여 수정 또는 해소되는 결과가 되는데, 이는 합의를 계약성립의 절대적인 요건으로 하는 계약법의 원리와도 맞지 않는다. 물론 우리 민법이 사정변경의 법리 자체를 부정하는 것은 아니며, 개별적인 규정에 의하여 긍정하는 측면이 있을 뿐만 아니라 판례 역시 이 법리를 인정하는 부분이 있다. 다만 이러한 민법상의 규정과 판례는 당사자에게 계약관계의 변경 내지는 해소권을 특별한 경우에 특별한 조건을 전제로 인정하고 있을 따름이다. 현실적으로도 사정변경의 법리를 일반원칙으로 인정할 경우, 계약의 당사자는 이러한 원칙이 존재한다는 이유로 계약체결에 있어서 구체적인 계약내용의 확정에 소홀하게 되고, 궁극적으로 이 법리를 원용하여 일방적인 계약의 변경 또는 해소를 주장하는 결과를 야기하게 된다. 그러므로 오히려 계약의 당사자로 하여금 신중한 계약체결에 임할 수 있도록 그 계도를 통하여, 계약문언에 “급격한 사정의 변경이 있는 경우 계약내용에 대하여 법원의 화해권고결정이나 강제조정결정에 따른다”든가, “물가상승 등과 같은 사정의 변경이 있는 경우 합리적인 가격을 결정하기 위하여 중재판정을 따른다”는 등의 조항을 기재하도록 유도해야 할 것이다. 본 판례와 관련하여 우리 민법에서 소위 사정변경의 법리를 계약법의 일반원칙으로 인정하는 것은 부당하다고 생각한다. 만약 전혀 예견치 못한 사회적ㆍ경제적 격변으로 인하여 기존의 계약관계에 있어서의 불균형이 극히 심한 경우에는 계약유형별로 구체적인 조건을 명시하는 특별법 내지 행정입법의 신속한 제정을 통하여 이를 시정하는 것이 바람직할 것이다. 이러한 점에서 본 판결이 외부적인 사정으로서 공공공지로의 편입은 계약의 구속력을 배척할 정도의 사정변경에 해당되지 않는다고 판시한 것은 지극히 타당한 결론이다.

許可없는 土地去來契約의 效力에 관한 判例 再檢討

정상현(Sang-Hyun Jung) 한국비교사법학회 2005 比較私法 Vol.12 No.2

The Article 118 of Act on the Program and Utilization for National Land provides that one who shall buy or sell the land must be acquire the gourvernment's permission and also provides that the land transaction contract without such permission should be ineffective. It aims at for restraint the speculative trade of real estate in particular area. However the general view and judicial precedents have interpreted the Article based on the Doctrine of Floating Void. Under this doctrine, a party could not demend the performance of the obligation, because prior to the permission, the contract does not carry it into effect. As legal obligations, the contracting parties must cooperate for getting the permission. If the permission is granted, the contract shall become valid definitely. And in relation to those points, judicial precedents concretely show the following facts that this permission makes the validity of a floating void, that earnest money cannot be returned as unjust enrichment and that the contracts can be canceled by buyer's giving up the money and saler's double repayment. But this doctrine and precedents cannot bar effectively any speculative trades. Because a certain seller may abuse it speculatively, that the contract without permission is null and void. Namely, the typical form of those speculative trades is that after the seller made contracts without permission on the trades of real estate in special region, while he delays the acquisition of permission intentionally, induces other buyers to contract double or triple trades, finally he transfers and registers own property to the buyer who proposed the highest price. In this case, if the first contract without permission was null and void, the seller should not violate the first buyer's faith, he also should not breach any duties that have to cooperate for the first buyer in order to acquire the permission and registration. Because the floating void, voidance and nullity of contracts means that any legal duty or obligation does not exist. Therefore it is appropriate view that the contract without permission is valid, provided that its effect ought to be suspended until the acquisition of permission. This article suggests that the permission for land transaction is the legal suspensive condition, and the legal duty of cooperation for getting the permission ought to be recognized from the provisional validity of contract. Also suggests, the contract carries it into effect definitely when the legal suspensive condition(permission) is fulfilled, and therefore the obligations of contractant, such as payment and registration, are actualized by the acquisition of permission. A legal effect of like this can be founded out of following. That is to say, because the Article 148 of Korean Civil Law provides that the rights and duties of the parties during the pendency of a condition may be disposed of, inherited, preserved or secured in accordance with the general rules, even if the permission as legal suspensive condition does not be acquired, the land transaction contract carries it into effect. Furthermore the legal foundation of a cooperative duty, for the applications of permission and registration, based on the Article 148 of Korean Civil Law referring to prohibition for infringement of conditional right and Article 150 referring to prohibition for the anti-fidelity behaviors of contractant in acquisition of condition.

法律行爲의 要件體系와 土地去來許可

鄭相鉉(Sang-Hyun Jung) 한국비교사법학회 2008 비교사법 Vol.15 No.2

  The Article 118 of Program and Utilization for National Land Development Act provides that one who shall buy or sell the land must be acquire the gourvernment"s permission, for restraint the speculative trade of real estate in particular area. It also provides that the land transaction contract without such permission should be ineffective. However the general view and judicial precedents have interpreted the Article based on the Doctrine of Floating Void. Under this doctrine, a party could not demend the performance of the obligation, because prior to the permission, the contract does not carry it into effect. As legal obligations, the contracting parties must cooperate for getting the permission. If the permission is granted, the contract shall become valid definitely. But this doctrine cannot bar effectively any speculative trades. Moreover it is a theoretical repugnance that the legal duty of cooperation for getting the permission is based upon the validity of contract, while the contract without permission is null and void.<BR>  Therefore it is necessary to conceive a new idea for solution of this matter. It is appropriate view that the contract without permission is valid, provided that its effect ought to be suspended until the acquisition of permission. This article suggests that the permission for land transaction is the special condition. For the conditions of general contract, the general view have interpreted them to devide the condition of conclusion and the condition of effect. But this division of conception is incorrect from a different standpoint. In view of the nature of contract, it cannot be admitted that a contract concluded is ineffective. I think that there two kinds of conditions for the effective contract. The one is general conditions, that is to say, contractant of capacity, corrective intention, accordance of offer and acceptance, moral and lawful purposes, the other one is special conditions, that is to say, right representative, acquisition of permission, achievement of suspended condition, etc.<BR>  Therefore I suggests that all contracts are effective when the general condition is fulfilled, and the legal duty of cooperation for getting the permission ought to be recognized from the provisional validity of contract. And also suggests, the contract carries it into effect definitely when the special condition(permission) is fulfilled, and therefore the obligations of contractant, such as payment and registration, are actualized by the acquisition of permission.

해약금으로 추정되는 계약금의 일부지급과 계약의 해제에 관한 판결 재검토

정상현(JUNG, Sang-Hyun)(鄭相鉉),박석일(PARK, Seok-Il)(朴碩一) 성균관대학교 법학연구원 2019 성균관법학 Vol.31 No.4

The Supreme Court of the Republic of Korea, for a long time, have concluded that one of the parties who enter into a main contract issued a down payment to the other party, the issuance of down payment is a kind of contract. That is to say, the Korean Supreme Court recognize a separate down payment contract independent of the main contract such as a sale contract. Furthermore, it is controversial whether this down payment contract is contract for the need things or not. However, in personal opinion, this argument seems to be unnecessary in light of the interpretation of the Article 565 (1) of the Civil Code of Korea(CCK), the reality of real transactions and the will of contracting parties. Even if we do not accept such a contract as a down payment contract or a contract for the need things, it is a legal effect that occurs when all the down payment are issued. Therefore, I think that the down payment is a part of the whole purchase price, not more than that nor less than that. It is only the first payment that is paid in dividends, which has the special significance. In a realistic transaction, the down payment also has the same meaning as there is no doubt that the buyer s mid payment or balance paid to the seller is a part of the total sales price. However, since the down payment is the first to be paid, it is only an estimated effect of the money for evidence of contracts and the contract releasing fee, or penalty and compensation for damages due to the separate agreement. Therefore, the issuance of the down payment is not necessarily regarded as an independent contract. In fact, the buyer will not be willing to conclude a contract for the payment of the down payment separately from the sale contract, issuing a down payment to the seller. Rather, it is in reality that the parties have the intention that the contents of the sale contract shall have the intention of making a commitment to pay the whole sale price divided into down payment, intermediate payment and balanced payment. As a result, the Supreme Court of Korea has shown contradictory conclusions about the award of the down payment in 2008 and 2015. In these judicial precedents, even though the down payment was not paid at all or was partially paid, Supreme Court presumed that a down payment contract was concluded. This is the ruling that there is a theoretical contradiction. 우리 대법원은 계약금의 교부를 주된 계약과 별도로 체결되는 ‘종된 계약’이라 하고, 이를 널리 ‘계약금계약’이라고 하며, 그 법적 성격을 ‘요물계약’이라고 해석한다. 물론 당사자가 계약금의 액수나 지급시기 및 지급방식에 관하여 명시적으로 주된 계약과 별도의 약정을 하는 경우에는 이러한 해석도 무방하다. 그러나 통상 계약금은 주된 계약의 내용으로 그 액수 등을 정하고 그에 따라 교부될 뿐이다. 이에 대한 대법원의 태도는 계약금을 해약금으로 추정하는 민법 제565조 제1항의 규정 해석이나 실제 거래의 현실, 당사자의 계약금 교부의사에 비추어 불필요한 개념을 인정한 결과라고 생각된다. 왜냐하면 해약금 추정의 효력은 계약금 교부를 굳이 계약금계약이라든가 요물계약 내지 낙성계약이라 하지 않더라도, 주된 계약의 내용으로 계약금을 모두 교부하면 그 자체로서 발생하는 법률효과이기 때문이다. 위 규정에 따라 ‘계약 당시에’ 계약금이 ‘교부’되면 ‘당사자간에 다른 약정이 없는 한’ 해약금으로 추정되어, 교부자는 이를 ‘포기’하고 수령자는 그 배액을 ‘상환’하여 계약을 해제할 수 있다. 계약금은 매매대금의 일부이고, 분할하여 지급되는 대금 중 가장 선행하는 것으로서 특별한 의미가 있을 뿐이다. 이러한 입장에서 계약금에 관한 대법원의 태도를 살펴보면, 계약금의 교부를 통한 주된 계약의 구속력 확보와 해약금 추정력의 인정범위를 일관하여 견지하지 못한 것으로 생각된다. 이 상황은 이 글의 평석대상인 2008년 판례와 2015년 판례가 등장하면서 더욱 심화된 것으로 보인다. 그 이전의 판결들은 계약금 교부를 주된 계약과 별도의 ‘계약금계약’으로 파악하고, 이를 ‘요물계약’으로 이해하는 확고한 태도를 유지하였다. 그러나 2008년 계약금이 전혀 교부되지 않은 사례, 2015년 계약금 중 극히 일부만 교부된 사례에서, 해약금 추정에 따른 주된 계약의 해제를 인정하게 되면 계약의 구속력을 매우 후퇴시키는 결론에 이를 것이라는 우려가 예상되었다. 이에 대법원은 기본원칙으로 계약금계약의 요물계약설을 유지하면서, 추가적이거나 가정적인 내용의 판시를 통하여 낙성계약설의 일면을 드러내었다. 즉 2008년 판례에서는 아직 지급하지 않은 계약금의 지급의무를 불이행하면 계약금계약 자체를 해제할 수 있다는 법정해제(민법 제544조) 가능성을 나타내었다. 이것은 계약금계약의 요물성을 전제하면서도, 계약금이 전혀 지급되지 않은 상태에서 계약금계약은 성립되었고 그 효력으로 아직 지급되지 않은 계약금의 지급의무를 인정함으로써, 낙성계약설의 논리를 그대로 드러낸 것이다. 또한 2015년 판결에서도 계약금을 일부만 지급한 경우에는 계약금계약이 성립되지 않았으므로 이를 해제할 수 없다고 전제하면서, ‘해제할 수 있다고 하더라도’ 해약금의 기준은 실제 지급된 계약금이 아니라 약정 계약금이라는 가정적 결론을 도출하였다. 이 역시 계약금이 일부 지급된 경우에는 요물계약설에 의할 경우 해제할 수 없다는 결론과 낙성계약설에 의할 경우 주된 계약을 해제할 수 있다는 결론이 동시에 존재하는 모순적 상황을 드러낸 것이었다.

거래허가 대상토지의 투기적 이중매매행위 방지대책

정상현(Jung Sang-Hyun) 성균관대학교 법학연구소 2004 성균관법학 Vol.16 No.2

A ordinary contract on real estate can be made freely without special forms. But the Act of Program and Utilization for National Land demands a government's permission for restraint the speculative trades of real estate in particular area. Exactly, Article 118 provides that one who shall buy or sell the land must acquire the government's permission, and the contract without such permission should be ineffective. Nevertheless, various trials to evade this Article are prevalent, and especially those trails are the more like that in the region prearranged by Administrative Capital Moving Plan. However the general view and Judicial precedents have interpreted the Article according to the Doctrine of Floating Void. Under this doctrine, the parties don't have to perform the legal obligation, because prior to the permission the contract does not carry it into effect. Of course, this interpretation also has the purpose which restrains the speculative trades. But it is a theoretical repugnance that the legal duty which the parties must cooperate mutually for getting the permission and registration is based upon the validity of contract, nevertheless the contract without permission is null and void. Moreover this doctrine cannot bar effectively any speculative trades. Because a certain seller may abuse it speculatively, that the contract without permission is null and void. Namely, the typical form of those speculative trades is that after the seller made contracts without permission on the trades of real estate in special region, while he delays the acquisition of permission intentionally, induces other buyers to contract double trades, finally he transfers own property to the buyer who proposed the highest price. In this case, if the first contract without permission was null and void, the seller should not violate the first buyer's faith, he also should not breach any duties that have to cooperate for the first buyer m order to acquire the permission and registration. Because the voidance and nullity of contract means that any legal duty or obligation does not exist. Here, we must pay attention to the fact that if the trades of real estate made without permission is null and void, the speculative trades committed by seller will be increased extremely. So I think that such interpretation and conclusion of Floating Void Doctrine are unreasonable manifestly. This article write out for the solution of these problems, therefore it suggests that the contract made without permission is valid, and the legal duty which the seller must cooperate for the first buyer in order to get the permission and the registration of proprietary transference ought to be recognized from the validity of contract. On the ground of such a premise, one who violates the first buyer's faith or breaches own cooperative duty must be punished criminally, and as a result, the speculative double trades of real estate committed by seller shall be restrained successfully.