선박 해양사고의 원인에 관한 고찰 : 인적요소를 중심으로

장준혁,강민주,이동춘 대한인간공학회 2009 대한인간공학회 학술대회논문집 Vol.2009 No.11

선박 해양사고는 각종 정책이 시행되고 있음에도 지속적으로 발생하고 있다. 이러한 선박 해양사고의 원인을 나누어보면 인적, 자연, 선박 그리고 교통환경에 의한 요인으로 분류할 수 있는데, 특히 이 중에서 인적 요인에 의한 해양사고가 가장 높은 비율을 차지하고 있다. 해양사고의 인적 요인에 대한 많은 연구가 진행되고 있으나, 인적요소의 정확한 분류체계와 조사는 아직 미비한 실정이다. 본 연구에서는 항해사 및 도선사 135 명을 대상으로 해양사고 발생원인과 해양사고를 유발하는 인적요소를 줄이기 위한 방안에 대해 설문조사를 실시하였다. 본 연구에서는 설문결과를 각 직급별(선장, 1 등, 2 등, 3 등 항해사, 도선사)로 분류하여 직급에 따른 차이를 알아보고자 한다.

상거소, 대표이사의 직무 위반의 성질결정, 재산소재지관할, 국제적 이중소송과 관련소송 - 대상판결: 의정부지법 고양지원 2020. 2. 14. 선고 2017가합72082 판결 -

장준혁 한국국제사법학회 2023 國際私法硏究 Vol.29 No.2

Uijeongbu District Court Goyang Branch judgment of 14 February 2020, 2017gahab72082 dealt with the meaning of employment contract and whether it may include the employment of a representative director, forum patrimonii, lis pendens, related actions abroad, and characterization of a representative director’s breach of fiduciary duty. Also present was the issue of locating the habitual residence of a corporate officer dispatched abroad. The timing of this decision was also critical. The amendment bill for the Private International Law Act 2022, was made public in 2018. It did not leave a room for the overarching “substantial connection” based jurisdiction. The Korean Supreme Court responded in its decision of 13 June 2019, 2016da33752 with the idea that forum patrimonii may be upheld so long as the local property reached the forum state in a predictable manner. This case law attempts to turn forum patrimonii to a new general clause with sufficient arbitrariness, so as to replace the stand-alone basis of “substantial connection”. In contrast, Goyang Branch did not attempt to redefine forum patrimonii as an all-encompassing general clause. Instead, it faithfully followed Article 2(2) of the Private International Law Act to analogically apply the venue provisions of the Civil Procedure Act to the question of international jurisdiction, while remaining within the bounds of substantial connection, as provided in Article 2(1). This approach to the analogical application of venue rules, and forum patrimonii in particular, can serve as a model. Meanwhile, the decision in question reveals some shortcomings. First, the decision is silent on whether the defendant maintained his habitual residence despite the change of workplace. Second, the resulting reliance on forum patrimonii may have been redundant. Third, the court placed too decisive a weight on the title of representative director to be decisive in finding him falling outside the definition of an employee. His official title may may not match his substantive role, particularly where a foreign subsidiary functions under the routine control and direction of its parent company. Such representative director should be legally treated as an employee of the foreign subsidiary, and not its officer. Fourth, the court dismissed the claim in resolving the lis pendens situation in favor of a foreign court, but should rather have stayed the proceedings. Fifth, the court regrettably omitted to determine whether a related action pending abroad should be treated in somewhat similar manner to lis pendens. Sixth, the court erred in characterizing a corporate officer's breach of fiduciary duty as a question inherent in a corporation. But the characterization as a tort should have prevailed.

미국 통일상법전상 물품매매계약의 제소기한

장준혁 국제거래법학회 2022 國際去來法硏究 Vol.31 No.1

Section 2-725 of the Uniform Commercial Code contains a realistic and functional rules for the limitation period in a sale of goods, in exclusion of any concurrence of liability. Section 2-725 can be a good reference point, in reshaping Article 582 of the Korean Civil Code, either legislatively or by interpretation. Art. 582 provides for a short limitation period and tackles this problem by postponing the time limit from starting to run until the defect is discovered by the buyer. In contrast, Section 2-725 strikes a better compromise, by providing for a sufficiently long period of limitation which begins to run on the day of delivery. Section 2-725 is also flexible in allowing an agreement to shorten the period of limitation to one year, and delaying to trigger the period of limitation until discovery where warranty was explicitly extended to future operation. The similarity with the United Nations Convention on the Limitations Period in the International Sale of Goods is another merit. The 2003 revised version of Section 2-725, though withdrawn later, is also exemplary. The paragraph 1 adopts a combination of two rules of limitation period: the shorter period of one year beginning to run from discovery, and the longer period of five years starting to run on the day of breach, i.e. delivery. Art. 582 could be significantly improved by dispensing with interpreting the six months’ time limit as one for “extrajudicial exercise” of the buyer’s remedy, and adopting the latter part of Section 2-725(1) as revised in 2003. Art. 582 may also be improved by interpretation. Perhaps a better interpretation would be to interpret Art. 582 as providing for a time limit to file a lawsuit, but to apply Art. 174 of the Korean Civil Code or apply it by analogy, so that the buyer’s timely extrajudicial exercise of their remedy would earn them a six month extension. An alternative solution, which may be less demanding for buyers, could be to allow repeated six-month extensions. But the latter solution needs to be matched by a longer time limit. It could be interpreted as ten years for non-commercial cases (Civil Code, Art. 162, para. 1), and five years for commercial cases (Commercial Code, Art. 64). Lastly, the seller’s promise to remedy the defect should also be given effect, as provided in the 2003 version of Section 2-725(2)(c). 미국 통일상법전 제2-725조의 현실성 있는 규율은 한국에 입법론 및 해석론적으로 시사하는 점이 많다. 민법 제582조가 기산점을 하자발견시로 늦추되 짧은 권리행사기한을 정하는 것과 반대로, 통일상법전 제2-725조는 기산점을 원칙적으로 인도시로 앞당기되 권리행사기간을 넉넉히 정한다. 한편, 1년으로의 단축합의도 허용하고, 장래의 작동에도 보증책임이미치도록 명시한 경우에는 기산점을 하자발견가능시로 늦추어, 사안유형에 맞게 유연하게대응한다. 민법 제582조의 해석론이 무리하게 5년도 아닌 10년의 해제권 행사기간을 부여하는 것과 대조된다. 통일상법전 제2-725조의 원래 규율이든, 이를 수정한 사우스 캐롤라이나주법이든, 권리행사기한협약과 비슷한 점도 장점이다. 일원적 규정체계를 따르면서도 실용적인 통일상법전 제2-725조는 한국에 좋은 입법모델이 될 수 있다. 통일상법전 제2-725조의 2003년 개정본은 결국 채택하려는 주가 없어 폐기되었지만, 하자발견가능시에 기산하는 단기의 제소기한과 위반시(인도시)에 기산하는 장기의 제소기한을함께 정하는 새로운 규율방안을 제시한다. 즉, 하자의 발견가능시를 원칙적 기산점으로 하여 앞당기고 제소기한은 1년으로 줄여 민법 제582조와 약간 비슷한 규율을 도입하되, 인도시에 기산하는 5년의 최장기간을 정하여 균형을 맞추려 했다. 한국법을 최소한으로 개정하려면 2003년본을 본받을 수 있다. 즉, 재판외 권리행사기한을 대신하여 위반시에 기산하는5년의 장기기한을 도입하는 것으로도 이익균형을 크게 개선할 수 있다. 해석론으로는, 제582조의 6개월의 기한을 제소기한으로 해석하되, 그 기한 내에 재판외권리행사가 있으면 민법 제174조를 유추적용하거나 적용하여 6개월만큼 제소기한이 연장된다고 해석하는 방안이 어떨까 한다. 매수인에게 덜 가혹하게 하려면, 민법 제174조의 유추적용에 의한 제소기한 연장의 횟수에 제한을 두지 않는 해석방안을 생각할 수 있다. 두 해석안 중에서 이론적으로 매끄러운 것은 전자이지만, 거래계의 현실을 고려하여 정할 문제이다. 후자를 따를 때에는 최장의 제소기한도 정해야 한다. 제582조는 최장기간을 정하지 않지만, 채권의 소멸시효기간을 유추적용하여 보충하면 된다. 이 때, 무조건 민법 제162조 제1 항에 따라 10년으로 해석할 것이 아니라, 상사매매의 경우에는 5년(상법 제64조)으로 해석해야 한다. 끝으로, 2003년본 제2-725조 제2항 c목을 본받아, 매도인의 구제약속이 있으면 구제약속의 이행기로 권리행사기한의 기산점을 연장하는 것이 타당할 것으로 생각된다.

재산관계에 관한 국제재판관할법의 2022년 개정

장준혁 한국민사소송법학회 2022 민사소송 Vol.26 No.3

In creating the new rules on international jurisdiction created in 2022, the drafters put an emphasis and focus on patrimonial matters. This led to an effort to provide for detailed and sophisticated rules as far as practicable. The legislative model was found in the 1999 Hague Preliminary Draft and the 2005 Hague Choice of Court Convention. So the new rules follow the continental European style of legislation. Concise provisions without detailed clarification were preferred. Naturally, the drafters sought to strictly limit each basis of jurisdiction, so as to stay away from exorbitant jurisdiction. Particularly notable is the broad limitation imposed on the place-of-performance jurisdiction for contract cases (Art. 41). A strict limitation was also introduced on the jurisdiction over related claims when they are filed against different defendants (Art. 6(2)). However, legislative clarification was not made throughout the amendment. In some places, the drafters minimized the breadth of legislative resolution and chose to defer difficult issues to interpretation. The prime example would be the criteria for establishing a habitual residence. Further limitation to tort jurisdiction at the place of harm, other than the condition of predictability, is also left to the academia and the courts. Establishing the rules of jurisdiction for internal matters of a trust was wholly left as a future task. Notwithstanding this legislative vacuum, the settlor should be allowed make a unilateral choice of forum, although this will be a point of debate. In some heads of jurisdiction, the drafters chose to expand the available grounds of jurisdiction, rather than trying to limit them. Justification was found in the realistic considerations and being an autonomous legislation. In this connection, particular attention was paid to the rules of internal jurisdiction provided in the Civil Procedure Act and the rules of international jurisdiction provided in the Japanese Civil Procedure Act as amended in 2011. Special jurisdiction at the place of “continuous and systematic activity” was newly introduced (Art. 4, para. 2); jurisdiction over related claims between the same parties was also preserved (Art. 6, para. 1); the bases of jurisdiction over counterclaims were even expanded, so that a connection with the defense will generally suffice (Art. 7); forum patrimonii as restricted by the “substantial connection” test was also preserved, taking into account the convenience of enforcement (Art. 5 ii); the place-of-performance jurisdiction was broadly preserved in the case characteristic performance is clearly defined (Art. 41, para. 1); contract jurisdiction is to be upheld without limitation at the place of performance (Art. 41, para. 2); no particular limitation is imposed on the contractual agreement over the place of delivery (Art. 41, para. 2), leaving open the possibility of allowing a fictitious agreement to some degree. The new law also sought to provide for sufficiently wide-ranging set of jurisdictional bases for special jurisdiction for contracts in intellectual property (Art. 38) and that for infringement of intellectual property (Art. 39). Forum patrimonii as limited by the substantial connect test (Art. 5 ii) and the forum non conveniens provision (Art. 12) deserve special attention, in that they leave a large room of discretion to judges. The two provisions has a potential to function positively by introducing flexibility. Meanwhile, they may end up hindering the interpretive development of sophisticated standards and greater uncertainty. Forum patrimonii, even functioning under the constraint of the “substantial connection” test, should only remain a final resort and play its proper function. An excessive use of this basis will cause stagnation of the further development of the Korean law of international jurisdiction, and will practically cause difficulty in having Korean judgments recognized and enforced abroad. For...

시스템엔지니어링 전산관리도구를 활용한 우주발사체 기술완성도(TRL) 관리

장준혁,권병찬,임창영,조동현,유일상,Jang, Jun Youk,Kwon, Byung Chan,Lim, Chang Young,Cho, Dong Hyun,Yoo, Il Sang 한국시스템엔지니어링학회 2020 시스템엔지니어링학술지 Vol.16 No.1

The KSLV-II project with high difficulties technically requires thorough technical management during long-term life cycle more than 10 years for launching into space. The TRL is a quantitative indicator developed by NASA widely used all over the world to measure technology maturity of a system development objectively and consistently. The TRL is also used to make sure technology level and to establish a future direction in the KSLV-II project. The TRL has advantage enable to identify a technology level through quantitative indicators. However, it takes a lot of efforts such as trials and errors, time and cost to apply it to the project considering the project environments, and stakeholder needs. These include not only to establish TRL management plan from ideal, conceptual and abstractive standards/guidelines such as NASA's, but also to construct TRL management environment enable to apply and manage harmoniously. In the KSLV-II project, it is required to figure out current technology level and technology development trend in the future, to access conveniently, to share related data in real time, and to update periodically for the comprehensive TRL management. From the reason above, the TRL management environment was built by using the systems engineering tool already has been used for other system management data such as requirements in the project. It also could be accomplished a practical management basis of systems engineering from the traceability among system management data including TRL. In this paper, case study results are introduced to manage the TRL for the space launch vehicle using the systems engineering tool in the KSLV-II project.

프랑스민법상의 대습상속

장준혁 한국민사법학회 2012 民事法學 Vol.61 No.-

Le Code civil français admet une conception fictive de représentation successorale, c'est à dire les enfants du défunt prédécédé sont applés à la succession à la place et le rang du reprsenté. Mais ils ne succèdent par tête, mais seulement viennent à la succession dans une souche. La notion de la représentation successorale par souche s'opère en conjonction avec la même de la fente. La fente signifie que les biens d'une succession se partagent en deux lignes, la ligne paternelle et la ligne maternelle. Dans un plan élémentaire, il est donc possible de unifier les deux catégories de la représentation par souche et la fente, sous le non de succession par stirpes. Mais les deux notions se distinguent par les effets différents en détail. Le Code civil français de l'année 1804 ne connaissait la représentation successorale que dans le cas où le représenté est prédécédé au défunt. Mais son refus de reconnaître la représentation en cas de l'indignité faisait l'objet de critique de la part de la communauté académique et de la pratique. Cet anomalie est correctionné par la réforme législative de l'année 2001. En outre, la réforme succédante de l'année 2006 admet la représentation même en cas de le renonciation par le représenté. Il est donc nécessaire de renouveler notre conception de la raison d'être de la représentation, comme une institution qui tente de considérer l'intention implicite de du défunt et de réaliser les intérêts des successeurs dans la succession.

프랑스민법상의 점유

장준혁 한국민사법학회 2013 民事法學 Vol.63 No.2

La réglementation de la possession et détention en le Code civil françaismanifeste un compromis pragmatique qui combine son tradition et desréformes modestes. Le concept de la possession se compose de deuxélément, i.e., le corpus et l'animus. Notamment, les deux éléments sontconçus librement: l'animus no doit pas nécessairement un intention dupropriétaire; le comportement du possédant peut diverse. Quant à laprotection de la possession et de la détention, le droit actuel admet deuxrecours: action possessoire et référé, bien que le dernier est bien plussouvent utilisé. Les propositions de la réforme du droit des biens, publiée parl'Association Henri Capitant en mai 2009, conservent le droit actuel, maisaussi tentent de innovations notables. Les articles et leur construction sontplus systematisés. L'action possessoire va supprimée pour l'inutilité. Le Code civil coréen adopte un expression, le "droit" de possession. Bienque cette expression n'est pas indispensable, elle n'a pas de vicesmatérielles. Quant aux éléments conceptionnels de la possession, lesrédacteurs du droit civil coréen ont evidemment accepté la théorieobjective, alors que la cohérence doctrinale de la Cour supérieure de laCorée n'était pas totalement libre de doute à cet égard.

외국중재판정의 승인집행에서의 준거법결정 - 대상판결: 대법원 2018. 7. 26. 선고 2017다225084 판결 -

장준혁 국민대학교 법학연구소 2020 법학논총 Vol.32 No.3

대법원 2018. 7. 26. 선고 2017다225084 판결에서는 외국 중재판정의 승인집행에 관한 뉴욕협약(1958)상 방식요건과 중재판정 승인집행 거절사유의 해석, 그리고 중재지 법원의 전환판결이 있을 때의 처리가 문제되었다. 협약 제2조 제1항, 제2항은 중재합의의 방식요건을 실질법적으로 규정한다. 이것은 국제적 강행법규의 개입도 배제하는 남김없는 규율로 해석된다. 그래서 약관으로 중재합의를 체결하는 경우, 약관의 제시․설명을 방식요건으로 요구하는 국내법규가 국제적 강행법규로서 개입할 여지는 없다. 대상판결은 결과적으로 마찬가지 입장에 선 셈이 되었으나, 이 점을설시하지는 않았다. 협약 제5조 제1항 a호 전단의 “무능력”의 승인집행 거절사유는 임의대리와 표현적 임의대리(scheinbare Vollmacht)의 불성립도 포함한다. 그래서승인국 국제사법이 정하는 준거법으로 이 거절사유의 존부를 판단해야 한다. 그런데 대상판결은 “무능력”이라는 체계개념의 의미를 밝히는 것이 문제의 핵심임을 간과하여, 위 두 가지 점을 설시하지 않았다. 오히려 본계약에 관한 임의대리 내지 표현적 임의대리가 성립했으므로 법률상 당연히중재합의에 관한 임의대리 내지 표현적 임의대리도 성립한다고 설시했다. 그래서 불필요하게 실질재심사 금지원칙을 위반했다. 또, 본계약에 관한임의대리와 표현적 임의대리가 불성립하면 거절사유가 된다는 것처럼 설시하여, 협약 제5조가 거절사유의 한정적 열거임을 부정하는 셈이 되었다. 협약 제5조 제1항 a호 후단은 중재합의의 불성립과 무효를 거절사유로규정한다. ‘실질적’인 성립․유효성은 준거법 결정기준도 규정한다. 전반부는 당사자자치를 허용하는데, 묵시적 준거법합의의 한계를 명시하지 않지만, 제반 사정으로부터 분명히 인정되는 것에 한정해야 한다. 또, 본안의실체준거법, 중재지, 중재기관 등에 대한 합의로부터 섣불리 후단 전반부의 묵시적 합의를 끌어내려 해서는 안 된다. 그런 의사해석은 후단 후반부의 적용에 대한 당사자들의 정당한 기대를 침해하게 된다. 그리고 오히려경직적 규칙이 될 수 있다. 즉, 중재합의의 실질적 성립․유효성에 대한준거법합의는 하지 않고, 실체준거법, 중재지, 중재기관 등에 관해서만 합의하려 하는 당사자에게, ‘나는 중재합의의 실질적 성립․유효성의 준거법을 지정하고자 묵시적 의사표시를 하는 것이 아니다’라는 부인문구를 일일이 붙이도록 강제하는 결과가 될 것이다. 대법원 2016. 3. 24. 선고 2012다84004 판결에서는 본안의 실체준거법합의와 중재지 및 중재기관의 합의가모두 한 법역을 가리켰지만, 그렇다 하여 그 법역을 가리키는 ‘중재합의의실질적 성립․유효성의 준거법합의’가 있다고 의사해석하기를 거절했다. 타당한 선례이다. 그런데 대상판결은 이를 정면으로 뒤집었다. 협약 제5조 제1항 a호는 당사자자치가 없으면 중재지법을 지정한다. 이는 총괄지정(국제사법지정)으로 해석되어야 한다. 이렇게 하여, 하나의 구체적 사건에서 중재지와 승인국들 간의 국제적 판단일치를 제고할 수 있다. 중재지 중재저촉법이 초국가법(transnational law)을 지정하는 태도도수용할 수 있다. 대상사안에서도 무리하게 묵시적 준거법합의를 발견할 것이 아니라, 중재지인 미국의 중재저촉법에 따라 ‘중재합의의 실질적 성립․유효성’의 준거법을 정했어야 한다. 협약은 중재합의의 당사자에 대한 구속... The Supreme Court decision of 26 July 2018, Case No. 2017da225084 presents important issues regarding the conditions for the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards under the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards of 1958. However, the Supreme Court's reasoning reveals a few important questions omitted or improperly dealt with. The New York Convention, art. II, paras. 1 and 2 are the substantive provisions on the formality requirement for an agreement to arbitrate. These provisions should be understood as the only applicable rules on this issue, even excluding any possibility of the intervention of overriding mandatory rules. Consequently, there is no room to apply the rules of the state requested which impose a duty to present and explain the general conditions of contract on the party who prepared it, even as overriding mandatory rules. In effect, the decision reviewed here took the same position, when it failed to attend to this issue and simply neglected to opine whether the court of the State requested should apply its rules providing for the conditions of incorporating the general conditions of contract. The first part of article V, para. 1 (a) of the New York Convention provides for the refusal ground of “incapacity”, which covers representation and apparent representation by an agent. So the existence or non-existence of this refusal ground should be decided according to the law applicable under the private international law of the requested State. However, the decision under examination failed to see that the meaning of “incapacity” is the key to the deliberation of this refusal ground. Instead, the Supreme Court delved into the merits to uphold the representation or the apparent representation in entering into the main contract, and held that, as the necessary consequence, the representation or apparent representation was constituted. It was an unnecessary violation of the prohibition of review on the merits, and the Court appeared to ignore the fact that article V enumerates the available ground of refusal. The New York Convention mentions, in art. V, para. 1(a), second and third parts, the failure of valid constitution of an agreement to arbitrate, as another refusal ground. The law applicable to this refusal ground should be determined pursuant to the above provision. The second part of art. V.1(a) allows party autonomy. While this provision is silent on the limit to the implicit choice of law, it should be clearly identifiable, at least from the surrounding circumstances. A special care should be taken in finding an implicit, parallel choice of law to this issue from the choice of law applicable to the merits or the choice of an arbitral seat or an arbitral institution. Above all, the matter subjects are the matters of different nature from the valid constitution of an arbitration agreement. A mechanical rule of finding an implicit choice of law to the valid constitution of an arbitration, pointing to the same State as the State of which the law is chosen as the law applicable to the substance, or as the State of the agreed arbitral seat or institution, will turn out a rigid rule, subverting the justified expectation of the parties on the applicability of the third part of art. V.1(a). Such rule of interpretation will have the effect of requiring a disclaimer of any choice of law on this issue, from a party interested in agreeing to the law applicable to the substance, the arbitral seat, the arbitral institution, etc. but not in choosing the law applicable to the valid constitution of an arbitration agreement. The Supreme Court decision of 24 March 2016, Case no. 2012da84004 was correct in declining to find such a parallel choice of law, but the Supreme Court, in the case under review, went against its own precedent without a good reason. The third part of art. V.1(a) refers to the law of the arbitral seat. It is submitted that this should be in...

프랑스채권법 개정시안에서의 준계약

장준혁 한국민사법학회 2009 民事法學 Vol.45 No.2

Cet article a pour objet d'introduire aux chercheurs coréens les dispositions concernant les quasi-contrats dans l’Avant-projet de réforme du droit des obligations (Articles 1101 à 1386 du Code civil) et du droit de la prescription (Articles 2234 à 2281 du Code civil) de 22 Septembre 2005. Tous les articles de cet avant-projet sont traduisés en coréen et annotés en comparaison avec le droit civil français actuel et le droit civil coréen. On a encore traduisé la part de l'Exposés des motifs en matière de quasi-contrats. Le quasi-contrat demeure dans l'avant-projet un concept central réunissant ses divers types d'application: notamment, la gestion d'affaires, le paiement de l'indu, et l'enrichissement sans cause. L'avant-projet ajoute les dispositions explicites et distinctes sur l'enrichissement sans cause, une catégorie de quasi-contrat admise par la jurisprudence, mais comme une catégorie des quasi-contrats. La dernière se charge de la “vocation résiduelle”. D'une autre part, il faut aussi noter que les rédacteurs ont delibérément échappé le terme “l'enrichissement injuste”, et que l'avant-projet ainsi comprend aucune modification de la division entre les trois catégories des quasi-contrats. Par exemple, le remboursement des dépenses reste donc un sujet du paiement indu, non pas de l'enrichissement sans cause. Cependant, il n'est pas certain si la jurisprudence pourrait admettre un nouveau type de quasi-contrat en dehors de ses trois espèces majeures ou une telle situation aurait automatiquement appartenir à la catégorie subsidiaire de l'enrichissement sans cause.

도메인이름의 不當先占과 不當奪取의 不法行爲地 特別裁判籍

장준혁 민사판례연구회 2007 民事判例硏究 Vol.- No.29