준설선의 등기등록 및 저당권설정에 대한 연구

신장현 ( Shin Jang-hyun ) 제주대학교 법과정책연구원 2020 法과 政策 Vol.26 No.2

This paper is a review of the real rights of dredger ships working on the water to dredge with earth objects, etc. on the seabed surface. Dredger ships take the form of ships mainly because they have to work on the water. Under the Ship Act, owners are required to apply for signing up of ships at Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries after registration under the Ship Registration Act. Unlike the usual transfer of real rights of movable properties, ships must be registered. In addition, since ships are expensive goods, the convenience of capital procurement through the establishment of collateral rights are provided under the Ship Registration Act. However due to the revision of the Ship Act in 2007, dredger ships registered as a construction machinery under the Construction Machinery Management Act were excluded from application under Ship Act and Ship Registration Act. The measure takes into account that dredger ships are basically subject to Ship Act because they have the form of ships but the actual purpose is to remove soil from the seabed which can be classified as construction machines. Therefore it is allowed to register in accordance with Construction Machinery Management Act and to set mortgage rights in accordance with Act on Mortgage on Motor Vehicles and other Specific Movables. Under Construction Machinery Management Act, however, there is no mention of changes in the property rights of dredger ships. Owners are required to register but it is a requirement for operation, not for rights. Also, it is questionable whether the scope of the mortgage should be treated separately from the ship because it is a facility that has the form of a ship but is equipped with construction equipment. An accessory is supposed to follow the disposal of a main object but it is unclear whether construction equipment can be viewed as an accessory. This paper is meaningful in that it is intended to examine through Supreme Court precedents the extent to which dredger ships transfer in property rights and mortgage rights take effect.

선박투자회사법과 자본시장법에서의 선박펀드비교에 관한 고찰

신장현 ( Shin Jang Hyun ) 한국해법학회 2017 韓國海法學會誌 Vol.39 No.2

선박펀드는 자본시장에서 자금을 조달하는 선박금융방법 중 하나이다. 선박펀드를 규제하는 법으로는 자본시장법과 선박투자회사법이 있다. 자본시장법은 투자자를 보호하는 동시에 금융혁신을 이루어 금융투자업을 건전하게 육성하기 위하여 제정되었다. 반면 선박투자회사법은 일반인에게 선박투자의 기회를 제공하여 해운업을 활성화하는데 있다. 자본시장법이 금융업의 발전을 위해서라면, 선박투자회사법은 해운업의 발전을 위하여 제정된 것이다. 그러므로 선박투자회사법을 통한 선박펀드가 보다 활성화되어야 하는 것이 상식이다. 그러나 두 법사이의 규제차익으로 인하여 선박투자회사법에 따라 설립된 선박펀드가 시장에서 외면을 받고 있다. 자본시장법을 통한 선박펀드는 주식회사 형태 이외의 모든 구조가 가능하여 투자자의 진입이 용이하고 운용에 대한 규제도 특별하게 존재하지 않아 자유로운 형태의 선박펀드가 가능하기 때문이다. 자본시장법상의 집합투자기구의 설립요건도 인가가 아닌 등록으로 되어 있어 집합투자업자의 시장진입도 완화되어 있다. 그러나 선박펀드는 실제 선박운항을 통한 수익창출을 기반으로 하고 있어 해운업뿐만이 아니라 환경 및 안전에 대한 이해가 필요하므로 단순히 금융투자 상품으로만 접근해서는 안 된다. 투자자뿐만이 아니라 제3자를 보호하기 위하여 해운업과 선박운용에 대한 이해가 반드시 필요하기 때문이다. 선박투자회사법을 통한 선박펀드의 장점을 충분히 활용하기 위해서는 투자형태의 규제를 완화하고 동시에 세제혜택을 주어 선박펀드를 활성화하는 쪽으로 모색해야한다. Ship funds are one of the methods in capital markets to fund for buying ships. There are two types of acts regulating the ship funds, one is Financial Investment Services and Capital Market Act (the “CMA”) and the other is Ship Investment Company Act (the “SICA”). The CMA is enacted in order to forster the financial investment business by contributing to financial innovation while also protecting investors. On the other hand, the SICA is to provide opportunities of investing in ships to the public to activate shipping industry. While the CMA was enacted for the development of the capital market, the SICA was for shipping business. However, due to regulatory arbitrage, the ship funds established under the SICA are being ignored in the capital markets. The ship funds through the CMA can be structured in any form of corporations or investing vehicle except for a joint stock company. Thus, it is possible to make ship funds under the CMA, which are more flexible than ship funds through the SICA. Furthermore, it is not subject to specific operating regulations because it is investing ships. The requirements for establishing a collective investment vehicle are registration, not authorization, so that the degree of entry of the collective investment company is easy. Since ship funds are based on making profit through ship chartering and carrying goods, it is critical to better understand ship operation, ocean environment and safety regulation as well as shipping industry. It is dangerous to understand the ship funds as a simple financial investment product. In order to fully utilize the merits of the ship funds established under the SICA, it is highly recommended to seek revitalizing the ship funds by alleviating the requirements of investment vehicle type and offering tax benefit.

특수목적법인이 선박소유자인 경우 용선계약에서의 책임관계

신장현(Shin, Jang-Hyun) 전남대학교 법학연구소 2019 법학논총 Vol.39 No.3

경제가 고도화되고 복잡해짐에 따라 여러 형태의 거래 당사자가 출현하고 있다. 그리고 각각의 경제주체의 이해목적이 맞아떨어짐에 따라 해운산업에도 선박 소유만을 목적으로 하는 특수목적법인이 등장하게 되었다. 특히 최근에는 재무적 투자자가 자신의 책임을 제한하려는 목적으로 기금형태의 자본을 조달하여 특수목적법인을 설립하고 그 법인이 용선계약을 직접 체결하여 영리를 추구하는 형태로도 발전하고 있다. 이 경우, 다양한 성격의 자본조달이 가능하고 여러 당사자의 경제적 이해를 충족시켜 산업이 활성화될 수 있다는 면에서는 장점이 될 수 있다, 그러나, 여러 당사자와의 관계에서 선박을 보유한 특수목적법인이 책임의 주체로서 부정적인 효과를 미치는 것이 아니한지 연구가 필요하다. 특수목적법인은 선박소유자로서 크게 국적취득조건부선체용선, 선체용선, 정기용선을 체결할 수 있다. 첫째, 국적취득조건부선체용선은 선체용선자의 점유･지배하에 선박 소유를 목적으로 체결하는 것이기 때문에 법적인 책임은 전적으로 선체용선자에 있다고 본다. 둘째, 선체용선은 선체용선자의 선박소유 의사없이 자신의 점유･지배하에 영리활동이 목적이므로 선박소유자는 임대인의 위치에서 책임관계가 있다. 셋째, 정기용선은 앞서 언급한 두 가지 형태의 용선계약보다 선박소유자의 책임이 가장 폭넓게 인정되는 계약이다. 학설에 따라 달라질 수 있으나, 운송계약설을 따를 경우 상법 제809조에 의하여 감항능력 주의의무 및 운송물에 관한 주의의무를 선박소유자가 부담해야 된다. 이러한 이유로 선박소유자가 특수목적법인이면서 그 법인의 유일한 자산이 선박일 경우에는 외부와의 많은 법률관계로 인해 채권자 및 제3자의 보호가 약해질 수밖에 없다. 요컨대, 특수목적법인이 선박소유자로서 용선계약, 특히 정기용선을 체결하는 경우에는 제3자를 보호하기 위하여 선박관리능력 강화, 보험면책을 방지하기 위한 필요보험 및 제3자에 대한 책임보험 의무화, 난파물제거협약 및 유류오염손해배상제도에서 마련한 강제보험에 가입여부 확인 등의 감시체계가 필요해 보인다. As the economy has become more sophisticated and complex, various types of economic entity have emerged. In recent years, financial investors have raised capital in the form of funds to invest various types of ship. In particular, a special purpose company aimed only at ownership of ship has emerged in the shipping industry to realize its economic objective. To invest the ship, they usually establish a special purpose company which is aiming of limiting their responsibilities and pursuing of profit by directly entering into a charter party. In this case, it would be advantageous in that it satisfies the economic interests of the various parties and fostering industries. However, a research is needed to determine whether a special purpose company that owns ships has negative effects as a responsible entity in the field. A special purpose company may, as the registered owner of the vessel, enter into various types of charter contracts such as Bareboat Charter Hire Purchase, Bareboat Charter and Time Charter. First, since the Bareboat Charter Hire Purchase is subject to the ownership of the vessel under possession and control of a charterer, the legal liability lies entirely with the charterer. Second, in case of the Bareboat Charter, a charterer has no intention to own a ship, but hire a ship only for its own possession and control, the shipowner is responsible for as a lessor. Third, Time Charter is the most widely recognized contract of shipowner s liability than the two types of charter contracts mentioned above. The shipowner must bear the duty of caution and the obligation to pay attention to the cargo in accordance with Article 809 of the Commercial Code. For this reason, if the shipowner is a special purpose company and the only asset of the corporation is a vessel, a protection system of creditors and third parties will be weakened due to a lot of legal relations with the outside. In summary, when a special purpose company as a shipowner enters into charter contracts, especially Time Charters, it is necessary to establish a surveillance system to regulate the ship management capability and to ensure the compulsory insurance to prevent any loss of concerned creditors and third parties from shipowners’ events of default and/or tort.

선박금융에서 보증채무의 법적성질에 대한 소고 - 한국해양진흥공사법에서의 금융채무 보증을 중심으로 -

신장현 ( Shin Jang Hyun ) 한국해법학회 2020 韓國海法學會誌 Vol.42 No.1

한국해양진흥공사는 해운기업의 경쟁력 강화 및 해운산업의 발전을 위하여 설립된 대한민국 유일의 해운산업 지원 공적 기관이다. 2018년 한국해양진흥공사법 이 제정됨에 따라 기관의 설립이 본격화되었지만, 그 역사는 2015년 한국해양보증보험 주식회사로 거슬러 올라간다. 기관의 설립 목적은 해운기업이 선박을 확보하고자 할 때 필요한 유동성 확보를 지원하고자 함에 있고, 지원방식은 대출계약상 채무자의 채무를 보증함으로써 신용을 보강함에 있다. 한국해양보증보험으로 출발할 당시에는 보험업법에 따라 보증보험의 형식으로 보증이 이루어졌다면, 지금은 한국해양진흥공사법에 의하여 민법상의 보증채무 방식으로 이루어지고 있다. 본 논문에서는 민법상 보증채무를 기반으로 선박금융 보증채무의 의의와 관련 당사자의 권리·의무관계 및 법적성질을 다루었다. 보증채무로써 효력이 발생하기 위해서는 주채무계약이 체결되고 보증계약이 성립되어야 하는데, 우선 효력 발생을 위한 성립요건을 다루고 성립 후 당사자 간의 권리 및 의무를 살펴보았다. 선박금융 보증채무는 그 채무가 자금조달을 위한 원리금 상환이 주가 되므로, 보증채무의 범위와 보증으로부터 보호를 받을 수 있는 보증사고의 유형, 보증인이 채무를 이행하고 나서의 구상권, 보증인이 면책을 주장할 수 있는 사항에 대해서 다루었다. The Korea Ocean Business Corporation is the only public agency established to strengthen the competitiveness of shipping companies and develop the shipping industry. In 2018, the establishment of the corporation began in earnest with the establishment of the Korea Ocean Business Corporation Act, but its history dates back to 2015 Korea Maritime Guarantee Insurance Company. The purpose of the institution is to support the securing of the liquidity necessary for shipping companies to secure ships, and the support method is to strengthen credit by providing guarantee for debtor. At the time of departure as Korea Maritime Guarantee Insurance Company, if the guarantee was made in the form of guarantee insurance in accordance with the Insurance Business Act, it is now carried out in the form of surety obligation under the Civil Act under the Korea Ocean Business Corporation Act. In this paper, the significance of ship finance debt guarantee and the rights and obligations of the parties concerned and legal characteristics based on the surety obligation under the Civil Act were dealt with. In order to be effective as an surety obligation, a main debt contract must be concluded and a guarantee agreement must be established. Thus, the requirements for establishing the effect were discussed, and the rights and obligations between the parties were examined after establishment. The following issues were addressed in this paper. The ship finance debt guarantee is mainly due to the repayment of principal and interest for financing, so the scope of the surety obligation and the guarantee that can be protected from the guarantee, the right to reimburse after the guarantee is fulfilled by the guarantor, and the guarantor can claim immunity.

국적취득조건부 선체용선계약에서 편의치적제도의 특징에 대한 법률적 소고

신장현 ( Jang-hyun Shin ) 단국대학교 법학연구소 2019 법학논총 Vol.43 No.2

The vessels are required to acquire nationality in order to exercise the exclusive jurisdiction of the state in the high seas. Generally, when a State permits the acquisition of nationality of a ship, it is required to meet certain conditions, such as when it is owned by a citizen of the country concerned, when the crew of the country is on board, or when the ship is built in the country. The granting of the nationality of a ship requires that certain conditions be set by the sovereignty of the state. However, from the beginning of the 20th century, the countries that can open the general conditions mentioned above and acquire nationality even though they are not directly related to the ship were emerged. This is so called Flag of Convenience(FOC) in the sense of obtaining favorable nationality. Korea utilizes the system of FOC through a lease contract for ships called the Bareboat Charter Hire Purchase Agreement(BBCHP). BBCHP is a form of charter agreement to acquire a vessel when the lease period expires. FOC system has been often criticized as cases of nationality abuses, but not only are there no international laws regulating them, but also many countries leading the shipping industry actively take advantage of them. It is known that such a FOC system is widely used not only because it can reduce costs of seamen, taxes and ship management, but also because it can evade the country’s strict administrative safety regulations. Thus, the purpose of this paper is to examine whether the existing characteristics of FOC can be applied to the BBCHP, which is mostly utilized to purchase ships in Korea. In conclusion, Korea is using FOC only to facilitate ship financing, but it has not fully utilized the advantages of FOC. The reason for this is that the Seafarers Act, the Maritime Safety Act and various tax-related laws apply to the BBCHP. Such regulations would rather reduce differences with national flag vessels, but they would be burdensome for the shipping companies which have to compete in the international market, so active discussions on the use of the FOC is needed.

홍삼 Ginsenoside의 Cytochrome P450 저해 활성 평가

류창선(Chang Seon Ryu),신장현(Jang Hyun Shin),신병찬(Byoung Chan Shin),심재한(Jae Han Sim),양현동(Hyeon Dong Yang),이성우(Sung Woo Lee),김봉희(Bong-Hee Kim) 대한약학회 2015 약학회지 Vol.59 No.2

In the present study we evaluated comparative herb-drug interaction potential of red ginseng total powder, ginsenoside Rg1, and Rb1 by inhibition of CYP isoforms including CYP1A2, CYP2A6, CYP2B6, CYP2C9, CYP2C19, CYP2D6, CYP2E1 and CYP3A4 using pooled human liver microsomes (HLMs). As measured by liquid chromatography-electrospray ionization tandem mass spectrometry, red ginseng total powder inhibited significantly activities of CYP1A2, CYP2A6, CYP2B6, CYP2C9, CYP2C19, CYP2D6, CYP2E1 and testosterone 6-beta hydroxylation by CYP3A4, but the IC50 values were higher than 556 μg/ml. Activities of CYP2B6, CYP2C9, CYP2D6 and CYP3A4 were inhibited by ginsenoside Rb1. Also, activities of CYP1A2, CYP2A6, CYP2B6, CYP2C9, CYP2C19, CYP2D6 and testosterone 6-beta hydroxylation by CYP3A4 were inhibited by ginsenoside Rg1. The IC50 values of ginsenoside Rb1 and Rg1 were higher than 200 μg/ml. Based on IC50 values against CYP isoforms, ginsenosides-drug interactions by CYP inhibition may be very low in clinical situations.

증례 : 특발성 혈소판 감소성 자반증 환자에서 발견된 Klinefelter 증후군 1예

김종환 ( Chong Whan Kim ),이미영 ( Mi Young Lee ),남수민 ( Soo Min Nam ),고장현 ( Jang Hyun Koh ),신장열 ( Jang Yel Shin ),신영구 ( Young Goo Shin ),정춘희 ( Choon Hee Chung ) 대한내과학회 2007 대한내과학회지 Vol.72 No.1S

하시모토 갑상선염에서 갑상선 유두암과 여포암이 동시 발견된

홍진헌 ( Jin Hon Hong ),남수민 ( Soo Min Nam ),이미영 ( Mi Young Lee ),고장현 ( Jang Hyun Koh ),신장열 ( Jang Yeol Shin ),정춘희 ( Choon Hee Chung ),조미연 ( Mee Yon Cho ) 대한내과학회 2007 대한내과학회지 Vol.72 No.5

We report here on a rare case of papillary and follicular carcinoma of the thyroid gland that developed in a 31 years old woman who was previously diagnosed with Hashimoto`s thyroiditis. Her chief complaint was a palpable neck mass. The antimicrosomal and antithyroglobulin antibody levels were elevated. Ultrasonography of the left thyroid gland revealed a 2.5×2.0 cm sized thyroid nodule. Fine needle aspiration biopsy of the thyroid nodule was done and this was diagnosed as Hashimoto`s thyroiditis. There was no evidence of thyroid cancer. After 1 year, thyroid ultrasonography and biopsy were repeated for examining an enlarged thyroid nodule. Total thyroidectomy was then performed. The histopathologic examination revealed that the right and left thyroid glands were in accordance with the diagnosis of papillary and follicular cancer, respectively. Until now, no known case of simultaneous papillary and follicular carcinoma in Hashimoto`s thyroiditis has been reported. This case suggests that adequate follow up for Hashimoto`s thyroiditis patients with thyroid nodule may help the early detection and management of thyroid cancer. (Korean J Med 72:558-562, 2007)

한국 성인 남성에서 음주 및 간효소가 대사증후군의 유병률에 미치는 영향

남수민 ( Soo Min Nam ),유호열 ( Ho Yeol Yu ),이미영 ( Mi Young Lee ),고장현 ( Jang Hyun Koh ),신장열 ( Jang Yel Shin ),신영구 ( Young Goo Shin ),정춘희 ( Choon Hee Chung ) 대한당뇨병학회 2007 Diabetes and Metabolism Journal Vol.31 No.3

증례 : 말단비대증과 부갑상선 선종이 동반된 제 1형 다발성 내분비선종 1예

이부길 ( Bu Ghil Lee ),이미영 ( Mi Young Lee ),고장현 ( Jang Hyun Koh ),남수민 ( Soo Min Nam ),신장열 ( Jang Yel Shin ),신영구 ( Young Koo Shin ),정춘희 ( Choon Hee Chung ) 대한내과학회 2007 대한내과학회지 Vol.72 No.1S