http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
- 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
- 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
RISS 인기검색어
- 검색키워드
- 저자 : 송희종(Heejong Song) (검색결과 2 건)
- 무료
- 기관 내 무료
- 유료
-
오수근(OH SOO GEUN),송희종(Heejong Song) 법무부 국제법무정책과 2009 통상법률 Vol.- No.88
The opening of multiple insolvency proceedings in more than one country generally may cause difficulties in terms of efficiency and cost. Cooperation and coordination between proceedings is necessary in order to prevent and resolve any conflicts that may arise. The issue was addressed by the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) and accordingly set out in the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross‐Border Insolvency cooperation and coordination as the guiding principle and further laid down examples of forms of cooperation in Article 27. Under this general framework, attention to cross‐border insolvency agreements, as a form of cooperation and coordination, was brought by the Maxwell case in 1991. A Cross‐border Insolvency Agreement is an oral or written agreement intended to facilitate the coordination of cross‐border insolvency proceedings and cooperation between the courts, between the courts and insolvency representatives and between insolvency representatives. In 2005, UNCITRAL first adopted cooperation and coordination in insolvency proceedings as one of its items. In 2009, the Commission was presented with the draft UNCITRAL Practice Guide on Cross‐Border Insolvency Cooperation, which was subsequently adopted. The objective of this paper is to introduce the UNCITRAL Practice Guide on Cross‐Border Insolvency Cooperation. It shall provide an account of examples of cooperation between courts in past cases. Furthermore, as well as presenting sample clauses this paper will look into various issues with regard to cross‐border insolvency agreements such as the necessity of entering cross‐border insolvency agreements, the right of parties to enter such an agreement, its form and content. The reason why such an agreement is reached is to maximize the benefit of the parties by minimizing conflicts and duplication of proceedings. The aim of this paper is to provide an introduction of the practice guide so that courts or practitioners may utilize it as a stepping stone for coordination and cooperation in cross‐border insolvency proceedings.
-
오수근,송희종 이화여자대학교 법학연구소 2008 法學論集 Vol.12 No.2
‘무엇이 법인가?’ 라는 물음은 실제로 법치주의를 적용하고자 하는 경우에 부딪히지 않을 수 없다. 법령해석을 통하여 결국 구체적으로 적용할 수 있는 ‘법’이 무엇인지 의미를 가지게 된다. 한국에서의 법령해석은 법치주의 및 사법권의 독립을 기초로 여러 법령해석기관에 의하여 행해진다. ‘법’에는 헌법, 법률을 비롯하여 다양한 형태의 법령이 존재하는데 여러 법령들간 위계질서가 법령해석에 어떠한 영향을 미치는지 살펴본다.법령해석은 다양하게 구별할 수 있는데 해석의 대상의 관점에서는 헌법해석과 법령해석으로 구별할 수 있으며 해석의 방법의 관점에서는 입법해석, 행정해석, 사법해석으로 구별할 수 있는데 이들은 모두 유권적 해석방법이라는 특징을 가진다. 법령해석이 구체적으로 어떻게 작용하는지 살펴보기 위하여 헌법해석의 예로는 신행정수도건설에관한특별조치법에 대한 헌법재판소 결정례를 살펴보았으며 및 법률해석의 예로 위법건축물 시정명령 취소소송에서 법원 및 행정부간 동일한 건축법 규정을 어떻게 다르게 해석하는지 살펴보았다. 한국의 법령해석제도는 입법제도의 발전상 법치주의의 발전을 통하여 볼 수 있다. 법치주의 및 법령해석은 양적, 질적으로 많은 발전이 있었다. 헌법재판소의 설립, 행정처분에 대한 사법심사의 확대는 지난 몇 십 년간 발전을 일부 반영한다. The first question when applying the principle of the rule of law is “what is law?” not in an abstract sense but in a concrete sense. Law, in a more practical and concrete sense, is the product of legal interpretation. Based on the fundamental principle of the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary, legal interpretation in Korea is conducted by a number of institutions. Since, the term ‘law’ encompasses various forms of legislation from the Constitution to statutes enacted by governmental agencies in a hierarchical order, we shall look to how the hierarchy effects legal interpretation upon which we will be able to reveal the distinction between constitutional interpretation and statutory interpretation. Another distinction that will we covered with respect to the method or rather the mode of interpretation is the distinction among legislative interpretation, administrative interpretation and judicial interpretation; all which are commonly referred to as authoritative interpretation. The advance and improvement of the system of legal interpretation in Korea can be inferred from the advance of the rule of law within the litigation system. The stablishment of the Constitutional Court and the increase in judicial reviews on administrative decisions denote how the dominance of the rule of law and the positive role of legal interpretation has improved both in quantity and quality.
RISS
DBpia연관 검색어 추천
이 검색어로 많이 본 자료
활용도 높은 자료
