기후변화 대응으로서 에너지 전환을 위한 지방정부의 전략과 과제

김문현(Moon Hyun, Kim),박시현(Si Hyun, Park) 한국환경정책학회 2018 한국환경정책학회 학술대회논문집 Vol.2018 No.2

보급형 CAD 시스템 개발에 관한 연구

김문현(MOON-HYUN KIM),송진오(JIN-O SONG) 제어로봇시스템학회 1986 제어로봇시스템학회 국내학술대회 논문집 Vol.1 No.10

사외이사 해임정보가 기업가치에 미치는 영향

김문현(Moon Hyun Kim),백재승(Jae Seung Baek) 한국증권학회 2005 Asia-Pacific Journal of Financial Studies Vol.34 No.2

재산권의 사회구속성과 공용수용의 체계에 대한 검토 - 소위 분리이론 의 한국한법상 수용에 대한 평가를 중심으로 -

김문현(Kim Moon-Hyun) 한국공법학회 2004 公法硏究 Vol.32 No.4

Recently the Korean Constitutional Court had made some decisions which are basically founded on 'Trennungstheorie.' Trennungstheorie is originated from the German Constitutional Court's decision which was made on the case so called 'Nassauskiesung.'Trennungstheorie Insists that 'lnhalts- und Schrankenbestimmung' and 'Enteignung' are different institution in nature. According to Trennungstheorie, 'Inhalts- und Schrankenbestimmung is general and abstract prescription about property which made by the National Assembly, but 'Enteignung' means deprivation of one's property which is prescribed in 'lnhalts- und Schrankenbestimmung.'As Trennungstheorie insists, the contents and limits of property schould be prescribed by the National Assembly, and the way and range of compenstion schould be also prescribed not by courts but by the National Assembly And only the Constitutional Court has the power to decide the law which is unconstitutional because of lack of compensation clause unconstitutional I also agree with the indication of Trennungstheorie that the guarantee of property means 'Bestandsgarantie.'But I don't agree with Trennungstheorie on some points of view. There are some differences between the Korean Constitution and the German Grundgesetz. The concept of formal 'Enteignung' cannot be accepted m the Korean Constitution And I think Art 23.Ⅲ does not mean 'Junktimklausel.' When something like 'Enteignung' is prescribed for public interests by a law which lacks compensation clause, it schould not be decided unconstitutional because of lack of compensation clause.

정신적 자유권관련 몇 가지 헌법재판소결정에 대한 관견

김문현(Kim Moon-Hyun) 한국공법학회 2005 公法硏究 Vol.33 No.4

Nowadays the Constitutional Court has become ‘the Stormcenter’ in political controversies in Korea. But it does not have established the levels of scrutiny yet. Sometimes it applied strict scrutiny to decide the constitutionality of the laws that restricted one's economic liberties. On the contrary it allowed a wide scope of discretions of the Legislations that were concerned with freedom of conscience.There may be disputes about whether the Constitutional Court should adopt the levels of scrutiny or a ‘sliding scale’ approach. I think it is necessary to adopt the levels of scrutiny mainly because to reconcile ‘Verfassungsgerichtsbarkeit’ with representative democracy. As J. Ely said,¹) in a representative democracy value determinations are to be made by the Representatives who are elected by the people in principle. The Constitutional Court may intervene when it is necessary to correct failings of the majoritarian political process and to protect freedom of minority by applying strict scrutiny.Freedoms in spiritual sphere, especially freedom of expression are concerned with political process. And freedom of conscience and freedom of religion are for the protection of freedoms of minority groups. The Constitutional Court should apply strict scrutiny when the constitutionalities of laws that are concerned with freedoms in spiritual sphere are challenged.

대규모 클라우드 컴퓨팅 환경의 자원 효율성 증대를 위한 머신러닝 기반의 다중 관점 가상머신 배치 기법

김문현(Moon-Hyun Kim),이준영(Jun-Young Lee),김경준(Kyeong-Jun Kim),노서영(Seo-Young Noh) 한국정보과학회 2021 한국정보과학회 학술발표논문집 Vol.2021 No.6

요한복음 18:28-19:16의 내러티브 읽기

김문현(Moon-Hyun Kim) 한신대학교 한신신학연구소 2016 신학연구 Vol.53 No.2

요한복음 21:1-11의 내러티브 읽기 - 베드로의 인물성격과 역할을 중심으로 -

김문현(Moon Hyun Kim) 한국복음주의신약학회 2016 신약연구 Vol.15 No.1

This article is a critical narrative analysis of John 21:1-11 by focusing on the characterization and role of Peter. The article assumes that John 21 is a natural narrative continuation of the previous chapters (1-20) and it tries to explore a narrative analysis of the fishing expedition and the miraculous catch of 153 fishes. The article is divided into four main scenes (vv. 1-3; vv. 4-6; vv. 7-8; and vv. 9-11) and investigates the critical narrative meaning of the engagement and interaction of main characters, Peter, the beloved disciple, and the risen Jesus. The emphasis is put on the characterization of Peter who engages in four different scenes in John 21:1-11. Peter lead the other six disciples on a fishing expedition(vv. 2-4), but they did not catch any fish that night. When the risen Jesus commanded them to cast the net on the right side of the boat, they caught a large number of fish. The beloved disciple recognized the miraculous catch of fish as a discerning sign pointing to Jesus on the beach, and delivers the confessional cry (“It is the Lord”) to Peter alone(21:7). Peter quickly wraps himself with his undergarment and jumps into the sea. The characterization of Peter (a bold leap-passion and action) and that of the beloved disciple (a confessional cry-perceptual faith) are not contrasting but cooperative toward the recognition and approach to the risen Jesus. Thus both disciples represent the ideal discipleship in Johannine community. The article emphasizes the role of Peter as a skillful missionary equipped with great power and care. Peter is the only disciple who obeys Jesus’ command (“bring some of the fish”) and draw the net, full of large fishes, 153, ashore without any damage on the net or losing any of the fishes by demonstrating his powerful missionary skill. The specific number ‘153’ also prophetically anticipates Peter’s missionary capability and accomplishment in a symbolic and historical representation for “catching men.” Peter’s powerful action in 21:11 implies his special role as a responsible leader for the Johannine community to bring people to Christ. For the mission and leadership of the community that exceeds the concerns and interests in John 1-20, the risen Jesus appears again to challenge his disciples (Peter) to draw the people and take care of them for the kingdom of God.

요한복음 5:1-18의 내러티브 읽기

김문현(Moon Hyun Kim) 한국복음주의신약학회 2010 신약연구 Vol.9 No.4

The article explores the characterization of the crippled man in John 5:1-18. The portrayal or characterization of the crippled man is closely related to the overall plot of this healing narrative (John 5:1- 47). The article tries to investigate the sign of healing, the dialogue over the sign to understand the characterization of the crippled man in 5:1-18. The sign of healing is closely related to John's characterization of Jesus as God's divine agent to do God's work and that of the crippled man as a helpful clue to understand the identity of Jesus. The article focuses on the characterization of the crippled man by way of the dialogue with Jesus in the healing miracle (5:1-9). The man in some ways is identified with a representative or symbolic role as the Judeans. Furthermore, the man seems to reflect the disability of the suffering Judean multitude. The healing narrative will show his collaboration with the Judean authorities. Related to this man's characterization is the final vignette of the Sabbath controversy, which clearly demonstrates the disposition of the Judeans. The characterization of the man is negatively described. The article shows that although the man is now cured physically, he is not cured spiritually; his faith has not grown. Finally, the healing of the invalid man reflects God's involvement in this present world. To project the idea of Jesus' divinity, the man functions as a foil to demonstrate God's healing work on humanity. Jesus as the healer asks whether humanity is willing to be healthy, both directly and indirectly.

기본권의 법적 근거와 판단기준에 관한 소고

김문현 ( Hyun Kim Moon ) 국제헌법학회,한국학회 2012 世界憲法硏究 Vol.18 No.2

기본권이 어떤 권리이고 그 범위는 어떠한지에 대한 판단은 명확치 않고 그로 인해 다양한 권리가 기본권이라 주장되고 있다. 이 논문은 기본권은 무엇을 통해 인식할 수 있고, 어떤 기준으로 기본권성을 인정할 수 있는가에 대하여 고찰함을 목적으로 하고 있다. 기본권은 헌법에 의해 직접 보장되는 주관적 권리라는 점에서 인권이나 법률적 권리와 구별되며 기본권의 문제는 의회주의-다수결주의에 전적으로 맡겨져 있는 것이 아닌, 최종적으로는 입헌주의에 따른 헌법재판소의 판단사항임을 의미한다. 기본권은 개별적 기본권에 관한 헌법규정, 헌법 제10조, 제37조 제1항을 통해 인식할 수 있으며 헌법 제2장의 기본권규정과 다른 헌법규정이나 헌법상 원리나 제도 등을 연계하여 기본권의 구체적 내용을 구성할 수 있다. 그러나 원리나 제도에서 바로 기본권이 도출되는 것이 아니며, 원리나 제도와 관련하여 구체적 권리가 인정된다면 그것은 기본권규정에 근거한 것이거나 법률적 권리로 보아야 한다. 기본권개념의 지나친 확장은 자칫 입법이나 공공정책의 판단에 맡겨야 할 권리의 문제를 헌법적 효력을 부여함으로써 헌법재판관의 가치적 선호를 기본권의 확장을 매개로 실현함으로써 다수지배에 기초한 민주주의룰 훼손하는 문제를 초래할 수도 있다.결국 기본권성 여부는 그 권리가 어느 정도 역사와 전통, 관행에 뿌리를 가지고 있고, 변화된 시대, 사회의 현실에 있어서 기본권의 원천으로서 인간의 존엄성실현에 얼마나 중요하고 필요하며 구체적 의미를 가지는가, 그 권리가 국민과 국제사회의 법적 관습과 의식에 의해 어느 정도 지지되고 있으며, 다수지배로 부터 보호되어야 하는가 등에 의해 판단되어야 할 것이다. A variety of rights has been claimed as Grundrechte(basic rights), but it is not clear whether they are Grundrechte or not. Grundrechte are different from human rights, and legal rights that are grounded on the legislations. Grundrechte are guaranteed in the Constitution and bind alll state power. In addition, they may be limited only in accordance with the paragraph 2 of Article 37 of the Constitution, Grundrechte may be discovered the grounds on Article 10, individual provisions about Grundrechte, and on paragraph 1 of Article 37 of the Constitution, but they can not be derived from institutions or constitutional principles. As the Spreme Court of the U.S. stated in Washington v. Gluckberg(1997), “by extending constitutinal protection to an asserted right, we, to a great extent, place the matter outside the arena of public debate and legislative action.” In nature, freedom and equal protection are comprehensive, but social rights and right to vote etc. are not. Not explicitly stated in clear in the Constitution whether the asserted right is a basic right or not, it should be decided according to whether the right is deeply rooted in the history and traditions, practices, to whether it is supported by the changed reality, public consciousness, and international human rights declarations and legislations, and to whether it should be not open to legislations and policies.