성인 양극성장애와 정신분열병 환자의 아동기 주의력결핍 : 과다활동 증상

신정호,안정숙,이계성 대한소아ㆍ청소년정신의학회 1998 소아청소년정신의학 Vol.9 No.1

Transfusion - associated hemochromatosis in a patient with spur cell anemia and hemolytic uremic syndrome underlying alcoholic cirrhosis

(Kye Won Lee),(Nam Ik Han),(Seong Hun Kim),(Hee Joung Kim),(Sun Mi Park),(Jong Youl Jin),(Jea Na Kim),(Young Sok Lee) 대한간학회 2001 Clinical and Molecular Hepatology(대한간학회지) Vol.7 No.2(S)

Bilateral Ovarian Metastases from ALK Rearranged Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

Lee, Kyung Ann,Lee, Jong Sik,Min, Jae Ki,Kim, Hee Joung,Kim, Wan Seop,Lee, Kye Young The Korean Academy of Tuberculosis and Respiratory 2014 Tuberculosis and Respiratory Diseases Vol.77 No.6

Anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) rearrangement, is a kind of driver mutation, accounts for 3%-5% of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). NSCLC patients harboring ALK fusion genes have distinct clinical features and good response to ALK inhibitors. Metastasis from lung cancer to the ovary has rarely been known. We report a case of a 54-year-old woman with bilateral ovarian metastases from ALK rearranged NSCLC. She underwent bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy for ovary masses, which were progressed after cytotoxic chemotherapy although primary lung mass was decreased. Histopathological examination of the ovary tumor showed characteristic adenocarcinoma patterns of the lung and ALK rearrangement.

Notable Cases on the Law of Trusts

( Kye Joung Lee ) 서울대학교 아시아태평양법연구소 2018 Journal of Korean Law Vol.17 No.2

Korea, a civil-law jurisdiction, legislated the Trust Act in 1961 to adopt the trust originating from common law. However, there was criticism of the contemporary relevance of this Act because it did not correspond with the prevailing economic realities. The Trust Act, therefore, was thoroughly revised to meet international standards and to invigorate the trust system in Korea, and the revised Trust Act came into effect as of July 26, 2012. Consequently, unprecedented interest has been given to the trust and disputes revolving around them is on the increase. The cases introduced below are very meaningful and related to the essence of the trust, and therefore their implications remain valid under the revised Act even though the previous Act was applied to them.

Efficacy of epidermal growth factor receptor-tyrosine kinase inhibitors for patient with leptomeningeal metastasis of epidermal growth factor receptor mutant non-small cell lung cancer

Lee, Jong Sik,Lee, Kyung Ann,Lee, Kang Hoon,Moon, Sun Young,Kim, In Ae,Jeon, Sung Jin,Min, Jae Ki,Kim, Hee Joung,Lee, Kye Young Yeungnam University College of Medicine 2016 Yeungnam University Journal of Medicine Vol.33 No.1

We report on a 64-year-old man with leptomeningeal metastasis (LM) from an epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-mutated adenocarcinoma of the lung. He was treated with paclitaxel, cisplatin. After completion of chemotherapy, he complained of headache, nausea, and vomiting. EGFR-mutated tumor cells were identified from the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF). Second-line therapy with gefitinib, methotrexate was started. After receiving gefitinib for 4 weeks, he had no more headaches or vomiting. Eleven months after initiation of gefitinib, he developed headache and nausea. Chest computed tomography showed aggravation of bone metastasis. Third-line therapy was started with gemcitabine and carboplatin. Two weeks later, he experienced disorientation. After a fourth relapse within the central nervous system, the therapy was switched to erlotinib and significant improvement of LM was achieved. This case shows that LM can be diagnosed by detecting EGFR mutation in CSF and EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors are effective for LM from EGFR mutant non-small cell lung cancer.

Notable Supreme Court Cases on Family Law

( Kye Joung Lee ) 서울대학교 아시아태평양법연구소 2021 Journal of Korean Law Vol.20 No.1

The Supreme Court Decision on the Liability of Japanese Company for Forced Labor during the Japanese Colonial Era and Its Implications

( Kye Joung Lee ) 서울대학교 아시아태평양법연구소 2019 Journal of Korean Law Vol.18 No.2

The Korean Supreme Court issued an en banc decision (“the Decision at Issue”) on the liability of a Japanese company for forcing the plaintiff into labor during World War II and a majority opinion affirmed the liability of the Japanese company. The main issue of the Decision at Issue was whether the Agreement on the Settlement of Problems concerning Property and Claims and on Economic Co-operation between Japan and ROK (“the Claims Agreement”) addressed the right to damages for mental harm caused by forced labor. This article analyzes the Decision at Issue from the perspective of international customary rules. Article 31 and 32 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (“the Vienna Convention”) which stipulated rules concerning interpretation of treaties, have been considered to reflect international customary rules. As the Vienna Convention provided, a treaty should be interpreted in accordance with the ordinary meaning of the terms of the treaty in the light of its purpose and in their context together with subsequent practices. The Claims Agreement was for solving civil matter of property and obligation between the two countries rather than for addressing the matter arising from wrongdoing during Japanese colonial occupation. This succinctly explains why terms like “reparation” or “wrongdoing during the Japanese rule” are absent from the Claims Agreement unlike other treaties between Japan and other injured nations that were provided reparations. The Claims Agreement provided that the problems concerning the “claims” are settled completely. However, the Claims Agreement did not define “claim”. Claim can be construed as “diplomatic protection” based on the context, inferred by para. 2(h) of the Agreed Minutes, and subsequent practices on the side of Japan. The scope of the Claims Agreement, which was signed when Japan denied the illegality of its colonial rule over Korea, is inherently limited. This article also offers a rebuttal to the argument that the Claims Agreement is a lump sum agreement. In addition, this article submits the notion that Eight Items did not cover the plaintiffs’ rights on the grounds of provisions of the National Service Draft Ordinance and negotiation process for concluding the Claims Agreement. In sum, the legal logic of the Decision at Issue can be said to be acceptable and founded upon firm argumentation. The Decision at Issue has significant implications: constitutional value can play a pivotal role in interpretation of treaties and the interpretation of treaties should be made in deference to the fundamental ideology of protection of human rights.

삼각관계에서의 부당이득 법률관계와 질권자의 부당이득반환의무 유무 - 대법원 2015. 5. 29. 선고 2012다92258 판결 -

이계정 ( Kye Joung Lee ) 법조협회 2017 최신판례분석 Vol.66 No.1

대상판결은 질권자가 제3채무자로부터 자기채권을 초과하여 금전을 지급받아 피담보채권의 변제에 충당한 다음 나머지 금원을 질권설정자에게 반환하였는데, 보상관계의 흠결이 밝혀져 제3채무자가 질권자에 대하여 지급한 금전 전부에 대하여 부당이득반환청구를 한 사안이다. 이에 대하여 대상판결은 질권자가 피담보채권의 변제에 충당한 부분에 관하여 지시관계에서의 부당이득 법리를 적용하여 제3채무자가 질권자를 상대로 부당이득반환청구를 할 수 없다는 법리를 최초로 판시하였다. 질권자가 직접청구권을 행사하여 제3채무자가 금전을 교부한 경우에 지시관계의 핵심 특징인 동시이행효, 재산의 경유적 이동을 인정할 수 있으므로 지시관계에서의 부당이득 법리를 적용한 대상판결은 타당하다. 그런데 대상판결은 초과부분에 대하여 질권자가 질권설정자에게 반환하였으므로 질권자가 실질적인 이익을 취득하였다고 볼 수 없어 부당이득반환의무를 부담하지 않는다고 판시하였다. 그러나 실질적인 이익이 의미하는 바가 무엇인지 명확하지 않고, 예금계약의 법리를 고려할 때 실질적인 이익을 부당이득반환의무 유무의 판단기준으로 삼는 것은 타당하지 않다. 대상판결의 사실관계에 비추어 초과부분에 대해서도 질권설정자의 지시가 있다고 볼 수 있고, 설령 그렇지 않다고 하더라도 질권설정자가 초과부분의 반환을 수령함으로써 지시를 추인하였다고 볼 수 있다. 따라서 초과부분에 대해서도 지시관계에서의 부당이득 법리에 따라 질권자는 제3채무자에 대하여 부당이득반환의무를 부담하지 않는다고 법리를 전개하는 것이 타당하다. This paper studies the relations among the contracting parties and the third party in unjustified enrichment cases, focusing on Supreme Court 2012Da92258, May 29, 2015(hereinafter “the Case”). In the Case, the pledgee had received money from the third debtor, which exceeds the amount of money the debtor/pledger owed to him. The pledgee reversed the excess to the debtor/pledger. Later the contractual relations between the debtor/pledger and the third debtor was found to be void. The third debtor claimed that the pledgee should bear the obligation to reverse all of the money paid by the third debtor. The main issue of the Case is whether the pledgee bears the obligation to reverse the enrichment to the third debtor. The Supreme Court held that the pledgee does not bear such obligation, applying the doctrine of unjust enrichment previously employed in cases where a debtor directs (“anweisen” in German) the third debtor to perform his obligation to the creditor. The conclusion the Supreme Court reached in the subject case seems reasonable, as the reasoning behind the “anweisung” cases can be applied to the Case. In both cases, the third party`s performance discharges both the debtor and the third party from their liabilities; and the money or asset can be theoretically deemed as transferred from the third party to the debtor, and from the debtor to the creditor. As such, the grounds for not accepting unjust enrichment claim in “anweisung” cases can be applied to the Case. The Supreme Court also held that the pledgee in the Case had not obtained “profit in a practical sense,” because the pledgee had reversed the excess to the debtor/pledger. In other words, the Supreme Court applied the doctrine of “profit in a practical sense” here. In my view, however, expanding the scope of the doctrine to the Case seems questionable. The meaning of “profit in a practical sense” remains unclear, and such doctrine cannot provide proper standard in deciding whether the enriched person bears the obligation to reverse the enrichment. The relevant facts of the Case can be understood as follows: the third debtor was directed to pay the money (including the excess) to the pledgee by the pledger, or the debtor/pledger gave expost facto approval to the third debtor`s act by receiving the excess. As such, the doctrine of unjust enrichment in “anweisung” cases can be applied to the excess paid to the pledgee, which draws the conclusion denying the pledgee`s obligation to reverse the enrichment.

형평법상 추급권과 신탁의 법리

이계정(Kye Joung Lee) 한국법학원 2016 저스티스 Vol.- No.157

형평법상의 추급권의 법리는 영미 신탁에서 수익자의 권리 신장에 매우 중요한 역할을 담당한 신탁의 독특한 법리이다. 본 논문에서는 형평법상의 추급권의 일반적인 내용을 논하고, 형평법상의 추급권의 법리가 신탁재산의 독립성의 관철과 신탁재산 보존과 관련하여 어떤 기능을 하는지, 특히 신탁금전과 수탁자의 고유금전이 혼화된 경우 형평법상의 추급권의 법리가 구체적으로 어떻게 작동하고 있는지 상세히 논하였다. 이를 통해 영미신탁에서는 수익자가 혼화된 금전에 대해서도 우선권을 가지며, 분별관리의무를 위반한 수탁자를 제재하기 위하여 수탁자에게 입증상의 불이익을 가하는 법리(Re Hallett’s Estate 법리, 혼화된 금전에서 발생한 이익의 귀속의 법리 등)가 판례를 통해 전개되고 있음을 밝혔다. 이러한 형평법상의 추급권에 대한 이해는 우리 신탁법 해석에 있어서도 여러 가지 시사점을 줄 수 있다. 우선 일탈된 신탁재산의 회복을 꾀하기 위하여 수탁자의 법률행위를 취소하는 수익자취소권과 관련하여 형평법상의 추급권과 일치하는 것은 아니지만, 그 기본취지나 이론적 근거와 관련하여 형평법상의 추급권의 맥락과 맞닿아 있다고 평가할 수 있다. 다음으로 신탁재산의 범위를 정한 신탁법 제27조는 수익자 보호를 위하여 신탁재산의 범위를 확장하고 있는데, 그 해석과 관련하여 형평법상의 대위물추급권 법리가 참고가 될 수 있다. 끝으로 신탁금전과 수탁자의 고유금전이 혼화된 경우에 신탁재산의 귀속 추정에 관한 신탁법 제29조를 적극적으로 적용하는 것이 타당하고, 이렇게 해석하게 되면 분별관리의무를 위반한 수탁자를 제재하고 신탁재산을 보호하려는 영미신탁의 법리에 접근하게 된다는 점을 밝혔다. Tracing in equity has played a pivotal role in protecting the right of the beneficiary of the trust. This paper makes comprehensive study on the concept of tracing in equity and how tracing in equity can be applied to the trust for the purpose of securing the separateness of the trust property and preserving the trust asset, especially in the situation where the trust fund has been commingled with trustee"s individual fund. Further, this paper explains that equity has developed the legal principle that the beneficiary can assert his preferential right against anyone even when his trust fund has been mixed with trustee"s individual fund based on tracing in equity. Also equity has set up a well-established principle that the trustee whose unlawful act brings about an evidential difficulty will have that difficulty resolved against him such as Re Hallett"s Estate rule. The concept of tracing in equity can offer meaningful implications in interpreting the Korean trust code(hereinafter “the Code”). According to the Code, the beneficiary can claim the rescission right, entitling the beneficiary to rescind the transaction between the trustee and the contractual party (the third party) in case where the transaction has been proved to breach the trust purpose. Such rescission right can be deemed as a modified version of the tracing in equity. Article 27 of the Code can be said to expand the scope of the trust asset by entitling the beneficiary to claim his right over the substitute of the original trust asset. This is also in line with tracing in equity; thus, the concept and function of tracing in equity may be taken into consideraton in interpreting Article 27. Lastly, in the case where the trust fund has been commingled with the trustee"s individual fund and the trustee has expended the commingled fund, Article 29 of the Code can be applied. In such instances, Article 29 may be interpreted in such a way that the trustee should bear the loss arising from the evidential difficulty on the ground that he has failed to perform the duty not to commingle. This means that Article 29 of the Code can be construed as admitting equity principles to a greater extent in inflicting the loss on the trustee who contravened the duty not to commingle.

부동산 경매에 있어서 부합물, 종물, 제시외 건물의 적정한 처리방안

이계정(Kye Joung Lee) 한국법학원 2013 저스티스 Vol.- No.137

본 논문은 부합물, 종물, 제시외 건물에 관하여 경매 실무에서 문제가 되고 있는 점을 밝히고, 그 문제를 해결하는 데 일조하려는 의도로 작성되었다. 부동산 경매 실무에서 무엇보다 중요한 것은 해당 물건이 부합물, 종물인지 여부를 정확하게 판단하는 것이다. 집행법원은 ‘부합물을 분리하는 경우에 해당 부동산을 훼손하지 아니하면 분리할 수 없거나 분리에 과다한 비용을 요하는지 여부’를 핵심적인 기준으로 부합물인지 여부를 판단하여야 하고, 다만, 부합이라는 제도 자체가 결합의 유지를 통한 경제적 이익의 보존에 그 목적이 있으므로 ‘분리로 인하여 경제적 가치를 심히 훼손시키는 경우’를 확대 적용할 필요가 있다. 한편, 집행법원으로서는 종물인지 여부를 판단함에 있어 주물을 확정하고 주물과의 관계에서 해당 물건이 주물 자체의 경제적 효용에 이바지하는지 중점적으로 검토하여야 할 것이다. 제시외 건물의 경우에는 그 건물 부분이 구조상·이용상 독립성을 가지는지, 구분소유의 의사가 인정되는지를 검토하여 독립성과 구분 소유의 의사가 인정되면 독립적인 소유권의 객체로 보아야 하므로 부합물이나 종물과 마찬가지로 취급하여서는 아니 된다. 부합물, 종물로 인정되면 낙찰자는 이에 대하여도 소유권을 취득하며, 저당권자는 이로부터 우선변제를 받을 수 있다. 부합물, 종물은 경매목적물에 해당하므로 원칙적으로 평가명령을 내려 그 평가액을 최저경매가격에 포함시켜야 하며, 매각물건명세서에 기재하여야 하고, 부동산 압류(가압류) 이후에 부합물, 종물을 처분한 경우에는 그 처분은 처분금지효에 위반되는 행위가 된다. 그러나 부합물, 종물로 인정되지 않는 독립물에 대하여는 일괄매각결정이나 일괄경매청구권의 행사에 의하여 경매대상이 되지 않는 한, 이에 대하여 경매절차를 실시하여서는 아니 되고 실시하더라도 낙찰자는 소유권을 취득할 수 없고, 따라서 이에 대하여 평가명령을 내려서도 아니 되고 매각물건명세서에 기재하여서도 아니 된다. 종물 적격이 인정되는 제3자 소유의 물건에 대해서 선의취득을 소극적으로 해석한 대법원 2008. 5. 8. 선고 2007다36933,36940 판결은 민법 제100조 제2항의 해석론, 거래 관념, 불필요한 후속 분쟁의 양산 등에 비추어 수긍하기 어렵다. 다만, 위 판결에 따르더라도 매각물건명세서나 감정평가서에 종물 적격 물건들이 표시가 된다면 낙찰자의 선의취득이 가능할 것으로 보이는바, 소유권 귀속에 문제가 될 수 있는 종물(부합물)의 성격을 가지는 물건에 대해서는 매각물건명세서에 이를 구체적으로 기재하는 경매실무가 요청된다. 이러한 실무의 개선을 통해 낙찰자는 건물에 필수적인 물건에 대해서 선의취득이 가능한바, 이로써 경매에 대한 신뢰를 제고할 수 있고, 낙찰인의 정당한 기대를 보호할 수 있다. The purpose of this essay is to explain practical problems in handling adjuncts, appurtenances and unregistered parts of a building in an estate auction, and to suggest legal methods for solving them appropriately. One of the challenges in an estate auction is how to judge whether the ancillary property under dispute is an adjunct or an appurtenance. If the ancillary property under dispute cannot be separated without damaging the principal property or incurring excessive expense for separation, it can be defined as an adjunct. When the court needs to judge whether the ancillary property is an appurtenance or not, the court is advised to identify the principal property and consider whether the ancillary property provides economic utility to the principal property. Meanwhile, an unregistered part of a building can be an adjunct, appurtenance or independent object for ownership. To be declared as an independent object, it should have independence from the principal building in terms of structure and utilization. If the ancillary property is found to be an adjunct or an appurtenance, a successful bidder in the auction of the principal property can claim ownership of it, and the mortgagee can claim preferred dividend from the sale of it. The ancillary property as an adjunct or an appurtenance is the extra object in the auction of the principal property. Therefore, the court is advised to issue an assessment order for evaluating the price of it, and the price of it should be considered in the calculation of the minimum price. Also, it should be recorded in the sale specifications. The sale of it by the owner can be nullified because the disposal was against the effect of the seizure order on the principal property. However, the independent object, which means that the ancillary property is found not to be an adjunct nor an appurtenance, is not an object of an auction of the principal property, and therefore it should not be dealt with in the process of the auction of the main property nor be recorded in the sales specifications. In addition, a successful bidder in the auction of the principal property cannot claim the ownership of the independent object. Recently, the Korean Supreme Court rendered a judgment that even though the ancillary property under dispute (e. g. the essential facilities such as elevators, generators and electrical equipments) has the nature of an appurtenance, the successful bidder in the auction of the principal property cannot claim ownership of the ancillary property through bona fide acquisition since the principal property owner does not gain ownership of the ancillary property. The judgment can be criticized on the grounds that the judgment might misinterpret the meaning of the Article 100 of the Korean Civil Code, ② that it might fail to correspond with the common notion that the acquisition of the main property (eg. building) entails the ownership of the essential facilities for building, and ③ that it might bring about another unnecessary dispute. Following the judgment, the court might need to improve auction practice to ensure that the ancillary property, which has the nature of an appurtenance, should be recorded in the sales specifications and the appraiser report. By doing so, the successful bidder in the auction of the principal property can claim ownership of the ancillary property through bona fide acquisition. Such an improvement in auction practice can enhance the credibility of the auction process and protect the successful bidder’s reasonable expectation.