혜정 (蕙庭) 차복재교수 정년퇴임기념 : 도시의 매력증강론에 있어서 Amenity minimum 에 관한 고찰 : 경주시를 중심으로

김일룡 대한관광경영학회 1992 觀光硏究 Vol.2 No.-

慶州市の空間的特性診斷及び觀光振興の對策に關する硏究

김일룡 慶州專門大學 1996 慶州專門大學 論文集 Vol.10 No.-

地域經營としての觀光振興·促進の改善方向と代案

김일룡 慶州專門大學 1995 慶州專門大學 論文集 Vol.9 No.-

地域振興における觀光地診斷·分析方案に關する硏究

김일룡 慶州專門大學 1994 慶州專門大學 論文集 Vol.8 No.-

유전자변형 면화 MON757, MON88702, COT67B, GHB811의 동시검출법 개발

김일룡,설민아,윤아미,이중로,최원균 한국환경생물학회 2021 환경생물 : 환경생물학회지 Vol.39 No.4

면화는 중요한 섬유 작물로 종자는 가축의 사료로 사용 된다. 작물 생명공학은 농업 분야에서 농업적 형질과 질을 향상시키기 위해 활용되어져 왔다. 국내 식품, 사료, 가 공 제품에 유전자변형 (LM) 면화의 사용이 증가함에 따라 환경으로의 LM 면화의 비의도적 유출 또한 증가하고 있다. LMO 모니터링 사업에서 수집된 LM 면화를 검정하기 위하여 국내 수입 승인된 LM 면화의 검출법 개발이 필요하다. 본 연구에서는 LM 면화 MON757, MON88792, COT67B, GHB811 4종을 대상으로 동시검출법을 개발하였다. 이벤트에 대한 유전 정보는 유럽 JRC와 농림축산검역본부에서 확보하였다. LM 면화의 동시검출법 개발을 위해 이벤트 특 이적인 프라이머를 설계하였으며 특이적인 증폭을 확인하였다. 특이도 검정, 무작위 표준물질 혼합물 분석, 검출한계 분석을 통하여 동시검출법의 정확도와 특이도를 검증하였다. 그 결과 본 동시검출법은 각각의 이벤트를 검출할 수 있으며 LM 표준물질을 활용하여 특이도를 검정하였다. 또한 무작위 표준물질 조합도 정확하게 검출할 수 있다. 검출한 계 분석에서는 25 ng의 미량의 주형 DNA로 단회 분석으로 검출이 가능하다. 결론적으로 4종의 LM 면화 동시검출법을 개발하였으며 LM 면화 자생체 분석에 활용될 것으로 사료 된다. Cotton is an important fiber crop, and its seeds are used as feed for dairy cattle. Crop biotechnology has been used to improve agronomic traits and quality in the agricultural industry. The frequent unintentional release of LM cotton into the environment in South Korea is attributed to the increased application of living modified (LM) cotton in food, feed, and processing industries. To identify and monitor the LM cotton, a method for detecting the approved LM cotton in South Korea is required. In this study, we developed a method for the simultaneous detection of four LM cotton varieties, MON757, MON88702, COT67B, and GHB811. The genetic information of each LM event was obtained from the European Commission-Joint Research Centre and Animal and Plant Quarantine Agency. We designed event-specific primers to develop a multiplex PCR method for LM cotton and confirmed the specific amplification. Using specificity assay, random reference material (RM) mixture analysis and limit of detection (LOD), we verified the accuracy and specificity of the multiplex PCR method. Our results demonstrate that the method enabled the detection of each event and validation of the specificity using other LM RMs. The efficiency of multiplex PCR was further verified using a random RM mixture. Based on the LOD, the method identified 25 ng of template DNA in a single reaction. In summary, we developed a multiplex PCR method for simultaneous detection of four LM cotton varieties, for possible application in LM volunteer analysis.

관련성이론의 개요와 그 적용영역

김일룡 한국민사소송법학회 2012 민사소송 Vol.16 No.1

The Relevancy theory was developed under Anglo–American legal system when it was enacted and became part of the Federal Rules of Evidence,but the need to introduce this theory in Korean judicial procedure is required in order to realize the objectives of reasonable, fair, prompt, and economic civil procedure system, to give order between rules with the theory. The fields that can develop de lege ferenda of interpretation theory by introducing the relevancy theory to Korean legal system are as below. First of all, through relevancy theory, one can stereotype individual regulation of evidence ejection with natural relevance and legal relevance;one can also understand necessity clauses of Civil Procedure Code article 290 as individual evidence ejectment clause; and at the same time, it can reach intramarginal limitations by limiting the scope of evidence that can be ejected. These operations allow a ground to clearly specify reasons of evidence ejectment on the decisions or protocols for hearing to substantially secure the objections on the evidence ejectment beyond intramarginal limitations. Second, when the adversary defends the authentication of documentary evidence through ignorance or denial, one can only converse the burden of proof by using the presumption of authentication clause under current Korean legal system when all ‘ignorance’ allegations cannot be solve through the burden of proof conversion. We need to codify the types of “self–authenticated” evidences as rule 902 of Federal Rules of Evidence defines;otherwise the court should cleary specify in the decide when eliminating admissions with binding force on authentication is an important foundation for fact–finding. Third, as for expert opinions of scientific or technical evidences, even under the circumstances when the authentication of identification are acknowledged, a separate procedure to probe its reliability is needed. The procedure is needed because even judges tend th label “errorless” on the expert opinions of evidences with the word ‘scientific’ or ‘technical’. Understanding these phenomena as substantial probative force of evidence under principle of free evaluation of proof, there is no way to prevent fact–finding through scientific or technical evidence from being distorted. Under Korean legal system, absence of clause like the rule 702 of Federal Rules of Evidence, exclusion of evidence should be allowed for scientific or technical evidences have possibilities to mislead or confuse facts. Lastly, the article 23 of the Civil Conciliation Act, which forbids quotations of the parties of a conciliation and the statements of the parties interested when the conciliation fails, indicates that the statements cannot be used as a confession or an evidence when they are submitted again in the latter judicial procedure. The article should be understood that the statements of the adversary party cannot only be accepted as preceding confession but also the parties cannot be interrogated in the examination form with the statement made during the conciliation. Such manner coincides with the rule 408 of Federal Rules of Evidence which excludes those statements for law relevance. Therefore, the conciliation reports should be very simple with the least information like the appearance but without any specific information;and statements of the both parties at the conciliation should not be reported and these statements cannot be added to the merit reports. Also the clause that directs the court which failed to manage the immediately directed conciliation to lead the merit should be deleted from the Civil Conciliation Act since the judge panel already knows about the facts from the conciliation which puts the limitation of the quoting preceding statements in the Civil Conciliation Act out of action and since the ‘Ruling of Recommendation of Compromise’ system was recently adopted in the Civil Procedure Code.

新しいりゾ一ト空間の開發·整備方案に關する硏究

金一龍 서라벌대학 1993 논문집 Vol.7 No.-

Resort development is conducted for region promotion-it accelerates economic and social benefit of an area. But in the course of it, we have not only merits which activate the region, but also disadvantages. For example, natural envirnoment and tourism resources may be destroyed by unreasonable development or suddenly the prices and the land value can go up. And the popularization caused by the increase of tourists can make our life codition worse. Resort projector should consider the convinences of the redidents the first priority. So I would like to give you the following proposals of the developement and maintenence scheme 1. Resort development plan established with long period. 2. Resort for the people. 3. Resort for the inhabitant region. 4. Resort for the new country formation. 5. Resort with locality, originality and hospitality. I think that the attrative resort region maintainence scheme depends on how to maximize the 5 factors like the aboves.

도시관광의 매력 - 신 京都 역 빌딩을 중심으로 -

김일룡,이봉석,임경환,최석규 경주지역발전협의회 부설 경주발전연구원 2001 경주연구 Vol.10 No.-

미국연방증거규칙상 성격증거의 취급

김일룡 원광대학교 법학연구소 2009 圓光法學 Vol.25 No.2

This study has investigated admissibility of Character Evidence in Federal Rules of Evidence in America. Generally speaking, Character Evidence is one of the circumstantial evidences, thus it proves secondary facts by which a principal fact, that is corpus delicti, may be rationally inferred. In Federal Rules of Evidence, evidence of a person’s character or a trait of character is not admissible for the purpose of proving action in conformity therewith on a particular occasion. Character Evidence is excluded because it gives factfinder the danger of unfair prejudice. But if the danger of unfair prejudice is outweighed by probative value of the character evidence, it is admissible. That admissible lists include; First, in a criminal case, evidence of a pertinent trait of character offered by an accused, or by the prosecution to rebut the same, or if evidence of a trait of character of the alleged victim of the crime is offered by an accused and admitted under Rule 404(a)(2), evidence of the same trait of character of the accused offered by the prosecution. Second, in a criminal case, and subject to the limitations imposed by Rule 412, evidence of a pertinent trait of character of the alleged victim of the crime offered by an accused, or by the prosecution to rebut the same, or evidence of a character trait of peacefulness of the alleged victim offered by the prosecution in a homicide case to rebut evidence that the alleged victim was the first aggressor. Third, evidence of the character of a witness, as provided in Rules 607, 608, and 609. Fourth, other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident. and Fifth, sexsual assault case and child molestation case. This detailed legislation is reasonable. Therefore, It would be desirable that our trial system adopt the principle of character evidence in Federal Rules of Evidence.

의료과오소송에 있어서 판례상 책임제한 사유의 법적 근거에 대한 비판적 고찰

김일룡 원광대학교 법학연구소 2016 의생명과학과 법 Vol.15 No.-

가해자와 피해자 사이의 손해의 공평부담은 불법행위법상의 최고의 원칙이고, 손해의 공평부담을 위한 손해액의 조정과 관련해서는 손익상계와 과실상계를 적용하고 있다. 그러나 판례는 의료과오소송에 있어 기왕증, 체질적 소인, 질병의 위험도, 예후불량의 가능성, 수술의 난이도 및 위험성, 의료행위의 특수성, 임상의학의 한계, 불명의 타원인 개입가능성, 사후조치의 적절성, 진료의 현실적 한계 등의 사유로 가해자의 책임을 제한하거나 배상액을 감경하고 있는데, 그 이유를 과실상계규정의 유추적용 또는 손해의 공평부담 내지 신의칙에서 찾고 있다. 손해의 공평부담 내지 신의칙은 원래 내용이 공허하여 개별 규정이 존재하지 않는 경우에 비로소 보충적으로 적용되어야 하므로 이 규정들의 남용으로 인한 법적 안정성의 파괴를 최소화하기 위해서라도 그 적용범위를 가급적 축소하여야 한다. 나아가 과실상계 규정의 ‘과실’이 내포하는 의미를 넘어선 사안에 대하여 이 규정을 유추적용할 수는 없는 것이다. 이러한 의미에서 판례의 입장은 받아들이기 어렵다. 판례가 가해자의 책임제한 내지 배상액 감경의 사유라고 밝힌 내용들을 솔직하게 고찰해 보면, 가해자의 과실행위에 대한 비난가능성의 경중에 있음을 쉽게 알 수 있다. 그렇다면 민법 제750조의 ‘과실’에 가해자 측 비난가능성의 경중을 포함하여 해석함으로써 배상 범위를 조정할 수 있으므로 별도의 근거규정을 명문화해야 한다거나 민법 제765조를 적용하여 배상액을 경감하려는 방법 또는 위자료의 만족기능을 중심으로 설명하려는 입장 및 인과관계를 비율적으로 인정하려는 견해 등은 모두 우회적인 방법들이라고 할 수 있다. 나아가 사법기관을 이용하는 국민들에게 예측가능성과 법적안정성을 확보해 주고 사법신뢰를 제고하기 위해서는 배상액 감경의 사안들을 가해자에 대한 비난가능성의 감경 사유로 재해석하여 유형화하고 그에 따른 비율을 정하는 등 합리적인 기준을 제시하는 것이 향후의 과제라고 생각한다. The fair sharing of damage between an assailant and a victim is the highest principle in tort law. Regarding the adjustment of damage amount for the fair sharing of damage, ‘comparative profit/loss’ and ‘comparative negligence’ are applied. However, the judicial precedents limit the responsibility of the assailant or decrease the compensation amount in medical malpractice suits based on previous illness, physical constitutional factors, the danger extent of disease, the possibility of poor prognosis, the difficulty/danger of surgery, special nature of medical practice, the limitation of clinical medicine, the intervention possibility of other unknown causes, the properness of ex post action and realistic limitation of medical treatment. The precedents seek the reason in the analogical application of comparative negligence provision, fair sharing principle of damage or good faith principle. The contents of fair sharing principle of damage or good faith principle are originally empty; therefore, they should be applied as supplements when there is no individual provision. Accordingly, the application scope of those should be reduced to minimize the destruction of legal stability caused by the abuse of those provisions. Further, these provisions should not be analogically applied on the matters, which are beyond the meaning of ‘negligence’ in the comparative negligence provision. In this sense, it is difficult to accept the position of the precedent. When the contents disclosed by the precedent as the causes of the decrease in compensation and the limitation of responsibility would be frankly reviewed, it is easy to know that the key is the extent of condemnation possibility on the negligence of the assailant. Then, it is possible to say that; the stipulation necessity of separate basis provisions because the compensation scope can be adjusted by interpreting the ‘negligence’ in Article 750 of Civil Code together with the extent of condemnation possibility on the assailant, the method of decreasing the compensation amount by applying Article 765 of Civil Code, the position to explain the matter by focusing on the satisfaction function of compensation and the opinion to acknowledge the causal relationship at certain ratio are all roundabout methods. In order to provide people using judicial authority with predictability and legal stability and enhance the trust of people in jurisdiction, it is believed that the future tasks would be reinterpreting and categorizing the matters of compensation decrease as the reasons for decreasing the condemnation possibility on the assailant and suggesting a reasonable standard which would include the determination of corresponding ratios.