기본권의 제3자적 효력 : 독일에서의 학설과 판례를 중심으로

임규철 한국공법학회 2003 공법연구 Vol.32 No.2

Nach dem Stand der jungeren Rechtsprechung sind Privatpersonen untereinander in ihrem personlichen Verhaltnis nicht an die Grundrechte gebunden, denn Lo¨sungsmo¨glichkeit eines Konflikts zwischen Privatpersonen untereinander durch den Gestaltungsspielraum des Gesetzgebers lo¨sbar ist. Im Verhaltnis zum 19. Jahrhundert haben sich die faktischen Verha¨lnis vera¨ndert und ein Bedeutungswandel der Grundrechte im Verfassungsrecht ist deutlich eingetreten. Die auf Art. 1 I und Art. 2 Ⅱ GG gesu¨tzte Privatautonomie steht der Dritwirkung der Grundrechte zwar entgegen. Aber Privatautonomie kann in der heutigen Zeit nur schwer zugelassen werden, da sonst unausweislich das Recht des Stiirken sich Geltung verschaffen wu¨rde. Deswegen muß man versuchen, fu¨r die Lo¨sung der Kollision zwischen der Grundrechtsausdehnung und der Privatautonomie, vor allem der Vertragsfreiheit, die Harmonisierung beider Prinzipien zu finden. Der Maßstab hierfu¨r soll der Grundrechtsschutz sein. Die Bindung der Privatautonomie an die Vorgabe der Gtundrechte bedeutet nicht zwangsla¨utig die Zersto¨rung von deren Prinzip. Die Notwendigkeit eines Interessenausgleichs im Einzelfall kann aber die im Privatrechtsverkehr etforderliche Rechtssicherheit aufheben. Dem Einfluß der Gtundrechte auf das Privatrecht Rechnung zu tragen, sol1 deshalb in erster Linie die Aufgabe des Privatgesetzgebers sein. Wenn der Privatgesetzgeber bei seinen Regelungen allerdings unbestimmte Begriffe oder Generalklauseln benutzt, so ko¨nnen diese Vorschiften fu¨r die Gtundrechte bei der Interpretation im Einzellfall bedeutsam werden. Hinsichtlich der richterlichen Inhaltskontrolle von Vertra¨gen ist darauf hinzuwiesen, daß sie aus Gru¨nden der Rechtssicherheit nur dort, wo die tatsachlichen Gtundlagen einer freien Selbstbestimmung beider Vertragsparteien vorliegen, in Betracht kommt. Diese Ansicht des Bundesvetfassungsgerichts ist keine einseitige Mißachtung der Privatautomie im Privatrecht. U¨ber den notwendlge Interessenausgleich von Rechtsposition kann man so sagen, daß die jeweilige Intensitat des Eingriffs in eine Rechtsposition eingehend analysiert und der Interessenausgleich unter angemessener Wahtung der einander gegenuberstehenden Position getroffen werden muß

각 국의 개인정보보호법제 비교연구 : 미국과 유럽연합의 개인정보보호법제를 중심으로

임규철 한국공법학회 2003 공법연구 Vol.31 No.5

Um zu verhindern, da der Bu¨rger zum bloßen Datenobjekt wird, mu¨ssen die Gefahr der wirtschaftlichen Herrschaft der Technik und die bereits eingetretene Vera¨nderung u¨berkommener Strukturen erkannt werden und mu¨ssen die betreffenden Grundrechte im Lichte einer ganz neuartigen Gefa¨hrdung interpretiert werden. Ein unzula¨ssiger Eingriff liegt vor allem bei Mißachtung des engen Zweckbindungsgebotes, und bei Datensammlung auf Vorrat zu unbestimmten Zwecken vor. Das Recht auf informationelle Selbstbestimmung gewa¨hrleistet in der Informationsgesellschaft sowohl das Perso¨nlichkeitsrecht aus Art. 10 KV als auch ein aus allen Kommunikationsgrundrechten abzuleitendes Freiheitsrecht als Grundlage einer freien und demokratischen Kommunikationsverfassung. Dementsprechend wird der Schutz der informationellen Selbstbestimmung durch Art. 10 und 10 KV erga¨nzt und versta¨rkt durch weitere Grundrechtsgarantien, die wegen des Inhalts und des Kontextes der Daten, der Kommunikation oder im Hinblick auf die beeintra¨chtigenden Folgen ihrer Verwendung einschla¨gig sind. Nach der EG-Datenschutzrichtlinie ist der personenbezogene Datenschutz in der EU und in Drittstaat unterschiedlich. Das Kiterium fu¨r die U¨bermittlung personenbezogener Daten in Drittstaat muß die Angemessenheit des Schutzniveau sein. Die Datenu¨bermittlung in Drittstaat mit unangemessenem Schutzniveau ist nur zula¨ssig nach Maßgabe eines Katalogs von Ausnahmetatbesta¨nden. Als einzige Hilfestellung zur Besimmung der Angemessenheit bietet die Datenschutzrichtlinie eine Aufza¨hlung verschiedener Gesichtspunkte, die ihrerseits unbestimmte Rechtsbegriffe sind und der Auslegung bedu¨rfen. Ein Schutzgut des Datenschutzes muß die informationelle Selbstbestimmung sein. Diese Einwilligung ist an einen konkreten Verarbeitungszweck gebunden, der welchen hinreichend aufzukla¨ren ist. In positiver Hinsicht besteht ein Zweckbindungsgebot, in negativer Hinsicht ein Zweckentfremdungsverbot. Zur Kontrolle mu¨ssen die Verarbeitungsvorgnge transparent bleiben. Außerdem ist der effektive Schutz der informationellen Selbstbestimmung als Schutzgut im Datenschutzrecht grundsa¨tzlich nur mo¨glich, wenn die Betroffenen Mitwirkungsmglichkeiten haben und die Datenverarbeitung beeinflussen ko¨nnen. Daru¨ber hinaus soll sich das Datenschutzrecht mo?glichst an den einfachen, versta¨ndlichen und risikoadquaten Elementen orientieren.

Effect of Non-Dominant Resistance Training for Unilateral Athletes on Physical Balance and Isokinetic Muscular Function

Gyeo Rea Ui Bit Jung,박경민,강성훈 대한운동학회 2019 아시아 운동학 학술지 Vol.21 No.4

[OBJECTIVES] This study aimed investigates the effect of non-dominant resistance training on physical imbalance, and muscular function in unilateral athletes (badminton, tennis). [METHODS] Fifteen male unilateral sports plyer were randomly divided into non-dominant resistance training group (NRTG, n=8) and control group (CG, n=7). Exercise program performed for 60 min(warm-up 10 min, main exercise 40 min, cool down 10 min), three times a weeks. The isokinetic muscular function of knee and shoulder joint was measured pre (0 week) and post (8 weeks). [RESULTS] There was a significant different in isokinetic muscular function dominant and non-dominant (p<.05). Non-dominant resistance training program was effective in isokinetic muscular function (peak torque %BW, Total work %BW) in post- test than in pre-test (p<.05). And, was effective in improving shoulder joint isokinetic muscular function 600/sec, peak torque %BW (extension, flexion) in post- test than in pre-test (p<.05). In addition, knee isokinetic muscular function 1800/sec total work %BW (extension) the interaction effect was showed, and was effective 2400/sec total work %BW (flexor) (p<.05). [CONCLUSIONS] Non-dominant resistance training reduced right and left imbalances and improved isokinetic muscular function in unilateral athletes.

Design, Synthesis, and Evaluation of Gold Nanoparticle-Antibody- Horseradish Peroxidase Conjugates for Highly Sensitive Chemiluminescence Immunoassay (hs-CLIA)

Gyeo-Re Han,Min-Gon Kim 한국생물공학회 2019 Biotechnology and Bioprocess Engineering Vol.24 No.1

Design and synthesis of a conjugate with high specificity and sensitivity constitutes a fundamental process for developing a highly sensitive immunoassay. In this study, we investigated the process of design, synthesis, and evaluation of gold nanoparticle (AuNP) conjugates that include both antibody and horseradish peroxidase (HRP) for application in a highly sensitive chemiluminescence immunoassay (hs-CLIA). To increase the labeling efficiency of HRP on the AuNP-based conjugates while maintaining process simplicity, two synthesis methods were suggested and evaluated using the physical adsorption-based conventional synthesis protocol. Specifically, the respective methods utilized adsorption or covalent coupling of aldehydeactivated (ald)HRP, which covalently binds to the primary amine group of a protein. The conjugates were characterized via spectroscopy and dynamic light scattering methods. Conjugate sensitivity was evaluated by not only analyzing the activity of HRP but also comparing the analytical sensitivity provided by the CL-based enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay for the detection of cardiac troponin I as a model target. Based on the results of this study, we demonstrated that the use of (ald)HRP for target labeling successfully enhanced the sensitivity of the AuNP-based conjugates; moreover, it could provide a promising labeling method for hs-CLIA.

SozialerWandel von 'Familienbegriff' und Verfassungsgarantie - insb. Orientierung am Art. 6 I GG -

Gyeo-Cheol, Lim 한독사회과학회 2016 한독사회과학논총 Vol.26 No.4

가족은 인류와 함께해 온 뿌리가 깊은 혈연 및 생활공동체다. 현대에 와서 결혼과 가족의 불가분성이 약화되면서 급속히 새로운 가족형성이 나타나고 있다. 가능한 한 기존의 가족형태를 유지하려는 규범과 새로운 변화를 수용하려고 하는 구성원들과의 의식변화와의 괴리로 인한 충돌의 문제해결에 있어서 그런 새로운 가족의 출현을 공동체의 문제로만 다뤄왔기에 해결이 쉽지가 않았다. 그러나 가족구성원 개개인의 인격 발현을 최우선으로 보아야 한다는 입장으로 바이마르 헌법과 달리 현대의 헌법에 ‘가족’의 개념이 뒤늦게 수용이 되면서 문제의 해결점이 보이기 시작했다. 이는 헌법의 개방성 및 다양성에 대한 해석과 입법을 통해 문제해결이 가능하다는 의미다. 가족 형성에 있어 그 구성원이 다양해질수록 과거와 달리 결혼과 가족의 연관성은 약해지면서 기본법의 가족조항인 제6조 제1항의 중요한 목표인 가족구성원 개개인의 인격의 발현을 적극적으로 보장하는 가치는 효율성이 크다. 이러한 변화된 헌법정신에 따라 입법부와 사법부는 제6조 제1항 가족의 개념을 지속적으로 확대를 시도하고 있는 중이다. 즉, 공동체보호 외에도 혈연관계가 없거나 적은 경우에도 제한적으로 가족개념의 확대를 하고 있는 중이다. 부모와의 2세대 중심인 핵가족 보호 외에도 이혼 및 배우자 사망 후의 가정, 혼인 외의 출생자 가정, 입양, 계모 및 계부 관계, 비혼가정, 생명과학기술의 발달에 따른 인공수정 및 체외수정(AIH, AID), 대리모 등이 그렇다. 이러한 새로운 가족형성에 대한 헌법적 보호는 국가마다 다른 양상을 보이고 있다. 그러나 사안에 따라 개별적으로 접근하고 있는 공통점이 있다. 현실적으로 가족으로의 포함 여부는 상속권리 및 부양 의무, 성명법 혹은 보험료 산정 시 중요한 역할을 한다. 독일의 연방헌법재판소는 동반자적 관계의 가족형성은 인정을 하고 있지만, 미국과는 달리 아직 동성결혼에 대해서는 부정적인 입장을 취하고 있다. 결혼과 가족의 차별금지를 포함하고 있는 평등권과의 관계에서 기본법 제6조 제1항은 특별법적 성격을 가지고 있다. 따라서 헌법이 보호하고 있는 가족을 대상으로 불합리한 차별을 할 수가 없다. 따라서 가족에 대한 차별은 평등권 위반의 중요한 기준인 합리적인 차별 유무에 있어 그 판단의 정당성에 대한 사회적인 논란은 커질 수 밖에 없다. 기본법 제6조 제1항의 절대적 보호는 인정할 수가 없기에 그 한계는 분명히 존재한다. 즉 친구같은 단순한 인적 만남처럼 무제한적인 개인 간의 가족형성은 인정될 수는 없다. 이는 사실상의 헌법 침해를 불러오면서 가족조항의 형해화를 불러올 수가 있기 때문이다. 시대에 따른 가족형성의 유동성 때문에 규범과 현실의 균형점을 잡기가 극히 어렵지만, 새로운 가족형태가 단순하게 소수라고 무시할 수는 없고 사회에 명백하게 해가 되지 않는다면 헌법의 개방성 및 다양성에 기초해서 새로운 가족형성에 대해 관용의 폭을 확대시킬 필요는 있다. 물론 그 관용의 폭은 국가마다 다르다. The family is a prime institution of civil society as blood- and living-community. Marriage is/was a important element to make family members. But family form diversity is growing rapidly as compared to the past. In order to prevent the violation of the Constitution(the German Constitution, GG) should accept the social change of family in the name of Openness and Variety of Constitution positive. The Art 6 par. 1 GG has nothing to say on ‘the legal concept of family’ as compared to WRV. Also, the concept of ‘family’ in Art 6 par. 1 GG has many different dimensions and meanings. A part of common important characteristics of Art 6 par. 1 GG today is increase of guarantee on legal status of children. According to Art 6 par. 1 GG, family is granted a particular legal protection. First of all, the constitutional protection on the one hand prohibits offensive state interventions. Besides, Art 6 par. 1 GG constitutes a ‘guarantee of the legal institute' of family. That does not only mean that these legal institutes may not be abolished but also that it is granted a privileged status with regards to other forms of living. Finally, the constitutional priority of family is understood as a principal value which has to be taken into account by all public authorities in their decisions. The concept of family does not have a fixed content but are subject to changes and are therefore influenced by different ideals and values as well as by the concrete social and economic conditions. People have many ways of defining a family and what being a part of a family elements to them. The Art 6 par. 1 GG also protects the sanctity of the family precisely and respect the idea that parents and children make a family still is a basic definition. But the modern society showcases a variety of family forms. Today, children are also often raised in single parent homes, by grandparents or by homosexual parents. Also stepmother and stepfather, surrogacy, AIH(Homologous insemination / Artificial Insemination by Husband), AID(Heterologous artificial insemination / Artificial Insemination by Donor) etc. The BVerfGE has acknowledged such a family form partially, but has denied family form of same-sex marriage. Of course, there is disagreement as to what constitutes a family and what persons are entitled to receive the constitutional protections of parents. Nevertheless, the Art 6 par. 1 GG protects them positive to improve the free develop on personality of family members. We know that there is certain limit(no absolute protection) to protect family form in Art 6 par. 1 GG. So it is dangerous to expand family form diversity unlimitedly because of being relevant constitution violation. It is difficult to lay balance point between law and reality in family form diversity. Nevertheless should widen the width of tolerance in the name of Openness and Variety of Constitution, unless new family forms are socially harmful obviously.

A Vertical Flow Structure for Automated Signal Amplification that Enables Highly Sensitive Detection of Cardiac Troponin I on Lateral Flow assay

Gyeo-Re HAN,Hee-Joon KOO,Min-Gon KIM 한국생물공학회 2017 한국생물공학회 학술대회 Vol.2017 No.4

Clinical Importance and Characteristic Features of Secondary Culture Test After Surgery Due to Abdominal Sepsis: A Retrospective Study

Gyeo Ra Lee,Eun Young Kim 대한외과학회 2021 대한외과학회 학술대회 초록집 Vol.2021 No.11

Correlation of Phase Angle on Bioelectrical Impedance Analysis and Inflammatory Markers with Intensive Care Unit Patients who Underwent Abdominal Surgery : A Retrospective Study

Gyeo Ra Lee,Eun young Kim 대한외과학회 2022 대한외과학회 학술대회 초록집 Vol.2022 No.11

Can Equity and Efficiency Be Balanced? An Empirical Exploration

( Gyeo Reh Lee ) 한국행정학회 2021 한국행정학회 학술발표논문집 Vol.2021 No.-

The literature indicates that business-like approaches may eclipse or even discredit the other core values of public administration, such as democratic values, involving how the government warrants its responsibility and accountability to the public as well as promotes social equity. While bureaucratic values and democratic norms may require tradeoffs between them, this paper explores whether efficiency and equity can be united relying on the case of property taxation. The findings of this study suggest that enhancing efficiency does not necessarily undermine equity and present the possibility of optimizing the values of democracy and bureaucracy.

Verfassungsgeschichte durch den Vergleich zu der WRV und dem GG

Gyeo-Cheol Lim 한독사회과학회 2015 한독사회과학논총 Vol.25 No.2

14년간 존속했던 바이마르 공화국의 헌법의 주요 내용은 1848 프랑크푸르트 헌법을 이어 받았다. 사회적 기본권 등이 새로이 규정되었지만 약점들이 많았다. 프로그램화기본 권으로의 변질, 권위주의적인 정치 및 사회문화의 만연, 패전 후 세계적인 공황과 함께 부활한 강한 민족주의, 사실상의 독재화를 불러왔던 지나친 권력분립으로 인한 저효율성, 호헌의식의 부족 등으로 1933년 붕괴되었다. 권력의 형성은 프로이센의 희망과는 달리 지방분권적 연방국가(제7조)와 철저한 비례대표제의 결과 군소정당의 난립으로 인한 사실상의 대통령제의 운영(제22-59조)이 이뤄졌다. 역작용으로 기본법에서는 제한적 인 비례대표제를 채탰했다. 국민투표, 국민발안, 국민소환의 직접민주주의 규정이 있었 으나 혼란을 불러올 뿐 기대했던 통합효과는 없었다. 따라서 본 기본법에서는 강력한 연방국가, 직접민주정의 불인정을 규정했었다. 헌법의 수호자는 바이마르 시대에서는 의회해산권을 인정했던 대통령이었으나 기본법에서는 연방헌법재판소가 담당하고 있 다. 제48조의 대통령 긴급권은 헌정제도를 수행하도록 만들어졌지만 헌정제도의 부인 및 대통령 권한의 실질적인 수단으로 자리매김을 했다. 기본법에서는 대통령을 형식상의 국가원수로 매김을 했으며 긴급권 자체를 협소하게 인정을 했다. 법률의 위헌심사권은 판례법으로 형성이 되었다. 기본법에서는 헌법재판소법을 두어 해결을 하고 있다. 바이마 르 헌법 제165조는 사업장 운영에 있어 근로자의 공동결정권을 인정하였다. 그러나 실제 영향을 미쳤던 정당조항은 없었다. 따라서 기본법에서는 방어적 민주주의를 주요 내용으로 한 정당조항을 신설했다. 이를 근거로 SRP 및 KPD 2개 정당을 해산시켰다. In 14 years, the Weimar Republic(federal republic and semi-presidential representative democracy syetem) faced numerous problems, including political extremists etc. No single reason can explain the failure of the Weimar Republic. The most commonly asserted cause can be institutional problems. It is widely believed that the 1919 constitution(WRV) had several weaknesses, making the eventual establishment of a dictatorship likely but it is unknown whether a different constitution could have prevented the Third Reich. However, the 1949 West German constitution(GG) is viewed as a strong response to these flaws. The institution of the Reichspräsident was frequently considered as an Ersatzkaiser, an attempt to replace the emperors with a similarly strong institution meant to diminish party politics. Article 48 of the Constitution(WRV) gave the President power to "take all necessary steps" if "public order and security are seriously disturbed or endangered". Although this was intended as an emergency clause, it was often used before 1933 to issue decrees without the support of Parliament and also made Gleichschaltung easier. The President served a term of 7 years and could be re-elected once. He could be removed from office by plebiscite upon the vote of 2/3 of the Reichstag. During the Weimar Republic, it was accepted that a law did not have to conform to the constitution as long as it had the support of 2/3 of parliament, the same majority needed to change the constitution. The GG requires an explicit change of the wording, and it prohibits abolishing the basic rights or the federal structure of the republic. The use of a proportional representation without thresholds meant any party with a small amount of support could gain entry into the Reichstag. This led to lots of small parties, some extremist, building political bases within the system. To counter this problem, the German Bundestag introduced a 5% threshold limit for a party to gain parliamentary representation.