하나의 관리도로 공정 평균과 분산의 변화를 탐지하는 절차

정상현,이재현,Jung, Sang-Hyun,Lee, Jae-Heon 한국통계학회 2008 응용통계연구 Vol.21 No.3

평균과 분산이 동시에 변화할 수 있는 공정을 관리할 경우, 평균의 변화를 탐지하는 관리도와 분산의 변화를 탐지하는 관리도를 병행하여 사용하는 것이 일반적이다. 여러 연구자들이 하나의 관리도를 사용하여 공정 평균과 분산의 변화를 동시에 탐지할 수 있는 절차를 제안했는데, 이 논문에서는 이와 같은 관리도들을 소개하고 그 효율을 비교하였다. 그 결과 GLR 관리도 Omnibus EWMA 관리도 그리고 Interval 관리도는 충분히 좋은 효율을 가짐을 알 수 있었다. Two control charts are usually required to monitor both the process mean and variance. In this paper, we introduce control procedures for jointly monitoring the process mean and variance with one control chart, and investigate efficiency of the introduced charts by comparing with the combined two EWMA charts. Our numerical results show that the GLR chart, the Omnibus EWMA chart, and the Interval chart have good ARL properties for simultaneous changes in the process mean and variance.

반응성구조체의 고속충돌에 따른 온도분포 분석

정상현,조수경,배광태,이기봉,Jung, Sang-Hyun,Cho, Soo Gyeong,Bae, Gwang Tae,Lee, Kibong 한국군사과학기술학회 2017 한국군사과학기술학회지 Vol.20 No.5

The temperature profiles upon high speed impact of reactive structural materials were analyzed. A two color pyrometer, which included high-speed camera, spectral splitter, and band pass filters, was utilized to measure transient temperature profiles during and after reactive metal samples impacted into steel plate with velocities of 1600~1700 m/s. The spatial temperature distribution was analyzed from the ratio of spectral radiances at two different wavelength in infrared zone, i.e. 700 and 900 nm. The measured temperatures were calibrated with black body source. Two different types of metal samples, namely aluminum and nickel, were employed to understand reaction behavior upon the impact of samples in ambient condition. According to our experiments, the Ni sample appeared to barely react with ambient air producing an instant small fireball, while Al sample reacts violently with air generating a relatively prolong fireball.

대리권 남용행위의 유형분석에 따른 법률관계 재검토

정상현(鄭相鉉)(Jung, Sang Hyun) 성균관대학교 법학연구소 2017 성균관법학 Vol.29 No.1

Bei Missbrauch der Vertretungsmacht können aus Rechtshandlungen eines Vertreters keine Rechte gegen den Vertretenen hergeleitet werden, wenn der vertreter bewusst die Vollmacht zum Nachteil des Vertretenen missbraucht hat und der Dritte diesen Missbrauch gekannt hat oder hätte erkennen müssen. Die Einräumung einer bestimmten Vertretungsmacht, sei es durch den Vertretenen selbst, sei es durch die Satzung einer Körperschaft, sei es unmittelbar durch die Rechtsordnung in den Fällen der gesetzlichen Vertretung, soll den Vertreter dazu in den Stand setzen, die Interessen des Vertretenen, in einigen Fällen auch Interessen Dritter, im rechtsgeschäftlichen Verkehr mit Wirkung für den Vertretenen wahrzunehmen. Indessen kennt das Gesetz keine allgemeine Beschränkung der Vertretungsmacht dahingehend, dass diese jeweils nur so weit reicht, als der Vertreter von ihr einen pflichtgemässen Gebrauch macht. Anders als bei der Überschreitung der Vertretungsmacht hält sich der Vertreter bei ihrem Missbrauch im Rahmen der ihm erteilten Vertretungsmacht, beachtet jedoch nicht die ihm im Innenverhältnis zum Vertretenen für ihre Ausübung gezogenen Grenzen. Der Missbrauch der Vertretungsmacht setzt voraus, dass die pflichtwidrige Nichtbeachtung der im Innenverhältnis bestehenden Bindung die Vertretungsmacht grundsätzlich unberührt lässt. Der Vertretene trägt grundsätzlich das Risko eines pflichtwidrigen Verhaltens des Vertreters. Eine gesetzliche Regelung fehlt. Durch die Grundsätze über den Missbrauch der Vertretungsmacht wird versucht, diese einseitige Riskobelastung im Rahmen einer sachgerechten Abwägung der Interessen des Geschäftsgegners und des Vertretenen unter Berücksichtigungren der beiderseits zurechenbaren Risken gerecht zu verteilen. Über dies Ziel besteht Einigkeit. Trotzdem sind die Auffassung im Einzelnen kontrovers und uneinheitlich. Unumstritten ist der Fall der Kollusion. Wenn Vertreter und Geschäftsgegner bewusst zum Nachteil des Vertretenen zusammenwirken, ist das Rechtsgeschäft gemäß §103 KBGB nichtig. Die Sittenwidrigkeit von kollusionen Zusatzabsprachen des Vertreters mit dem Geschäftsgegner, die hinter dem Rücken und zu Lasten des Vertretenen getroffen werden, wird in der Regel auch das Hauptgeschäft zwischen den Vertragsparteien erfassen. Vertreter und Geschäftspartner haften den Vertretenen jedenfalls gemäss §§750, 760 KBGB auf Schadensersatz, so dass einem Erfüllungsanspruch die Arglisteinrede entgegenstünde. Daneben kommen Ansprüche positiver Forderungsverletzung im Betracht. 대리행위의 성립요건과 유효요건이 모두 충족되었음에도 대리인의 대리권 남용행위에 대하여 본인에 대한 효과귀속을 차단하는 법리가 ‘대리권 남용이론’(Die Lehre des Missbrauches der Vertretungsmacht)이다. 대리인이 본인에게 효과를 귀속시킬 대리의사를 갖고 자신의 대리권 범위 내에서 대리행위를 하였으나, 그 속내가 본인이 아닌 대리인 자신 또는 상대방의 이익을 꾀하기 위한 것이고, 그러한 대리인의 배임적 의도를 상대방이 ‘알았거나 알 수 있었던’ 경우에는 본인에게 대리행위의 효과를 귀속시킬 수 없다는 것이다. 대리권이 없거나 그 범위를 넘은 무권대리(제135조)가 아니므로 대리행위의 효과는 본인에게 귀속되어야 하지만, 상대방의 악의 또는 (중)과실을 근거로 본인에 대한 대리행위의 효과귀속 자체를 차단시키기 위한 법률구성으로, 우리 민법학계의 공통된 인식에 근거 하고 있다.

대리권 남용행위에 대한 효과차단의 근거와 대리본질론의 역할 재검토 - 표현대리에 대한 대리권 남용 법리의 적용 판례를 중심으로 -

鄭相鉉 ( Jung Sang Hyun ) 법조협회 2019 法曹 Vol.68 No.5

로마법 이래 근대에 이르기까지 법률행위를 하는 자와 그에 따른 법률효과를 받는 자가 동일하다는 것은 오랜 역사를 통하여 구축된 법률전통이었다. 근대 이후의 사회·경제적 변화는 법률행위를 하지 않은 자에게 법률효과를 귀속시키기 위한 법률제도와 그 이론적 근거의 창안을 견인하였다. 이에 따라 대리제도가 등장하고 대리의 본질을 설명하기 위한 이론적 노력이 독일 보통법을 중심으로 활발하게 전개되었다. 본인행위설, 공동행위설, 대리인행위설 등이 그것이며, 20세기 중반을 거치면서 등장한 통합요건설과 행위규율분리설의 설명 방법은 또 다른 논란거리를 낳았다. 전통적인 대리인행위설은 표현대리를 무권대리로 보고 대리권 남용 법리가 적용되는 것은 유권대리를 전제로 한 개념이라고 생각하였다. 그러나 행위규율분리설에 의하면 표현대리의 법적 성격을 유권대리로 볼 뿐만 아니라 상대방이 알았거나 알 수 있는 대리권 남용행위를 무권대리로 이해하여 기존의 인식체계를 흔들어 놓았다. 나아가 우리나라에서는 표현대리에 대하여 대리권 남용 법리를 적용한 판결도 나타났다. 그 결론은 대리의 본질에 관한 대리인행위설과 그 대척점에 있는 행위규율분리설 중 어떤 견해에 의하더라도 이해하기 어렵다. 대리인행위설을 따르면 위 판결은 무권대리에 불과한 표현대리에 대하여 유권대리를 전제로 하는 대리권 남용의 법리를 적용한 결과가 된다. 또한 행위규율분리설에 따르면 위 판결은 유권대리로 보는 표현대리인에 대하여 대리권 남용의 법리를 적용함으로써 그를 무권대리로 만들고, 이때 이 무권대리인은 표현대리 규정의 적용으로 다시 유권대리가 될 수 있어서 무한반복의 순환론에 빠지고 만다. 결국 위 판결의 결론에는 동일한 사실에 대하여 서로 양립할 수 없는 두 인식체계가 공존하기 때문에, 대리의 본질에 관한 어떤 입장을 취하더라도 논리적이고 균형적인 해석이 불가능하다. 대리권 남용행위는 형식상 대리행위의 요건을 모두 충족하였으므로 대리효과가 발생하는 것이 원칙이다. 다만 대리인의 배임행위에 대하여 그 상대방의 비난가능성, 즉 대리인의 배임의사를 알았거나 알 수 있었던 경우 본인 보호를 위하여 예외적으로 대리효과 발생을 배척할 뿐이다. 그러므로 이러한 대리권 남용 법리의 적용범위는 가급적 제한되어야 하고, 표현대리에까지 이를 적용하는 것은 타당하지 않다. 생각건대 표현대리에 의한 법률효과 귀속과 대리권 남용법리 적용은 별개로 논의되어야 한다. 대리권 남용행위는 엄연히 유권대리에 적용될 수 있으며, 이때 현명을 포함하여 대리행위의 일반적 요건에 흠결이 없다면, 본인에 대한 효과발생을 차단할 논리적 근거는 없다. 그렇다면 이러한 경우에 오히려 본인에 대한 효과귀속은 인정하되, 대리인이 대리권 남용행위를 한 점과 상대방이 이를 알았거나 알 수 있었다는 점에 대한 유책성에 근거하여 이들의 법률관계를 재구성하는 편이 낫다. 표현대리가 성립하였고 표현대리인이 대리권 남용행위를 하였더라도 그 대리행위의 효과를 본인에게 귀속시킨다면 본인이 그로 인하여 손해를 입을 것임은 자명하다. 이러한 본인의 손해를 전보하기 위하여, 표현대리인의 배임행위와 상대방의 악의 또는 과실에 근거하여 이들 모두에게 불법행위에 근거한 손해배상책임을 지우면 될 것이다. It is a legal tradition built through a long history that the effect of the legal acts is attributed to themselves who conduct it until the 19th century. Since then, socioeconomic changes have led to the creation of a legal system and its rationale for attributing legal effects to those who have not acted. Therefore, the agency system appeared, and the efforts to explain the relation between the separate legal actors and the effect attributors and the reason for the legitimate legal effect were actively developed centering on the German Common Law. Those are ‘the theory of principal behavior’, ‘the theory of agent behavior’ and ‘the theory of principal and agent joint behavior’ etc. And other theories that appeared later, ‘the theory of integration requirement’ and ‘the theory of separation of behavior and discipline’ have caused another controversy. While accepting the legislative historical ground that the provisions on the agency of the Korean Civil Law were made by ‘the theory of agent behavior’, there are opinions which argued differently in specific cases. One of the most serious issues is appeared the case in which the theory on the abuse of agency authority, that is to say the theory which block an effect of legitimate agent's legal conduct for his betrayal intention, apply to the non-authorized agent represented a legitimate agent. In particular, the such conclusion of the present case is difficult to reasonably understand, even by any theory on the nature of agency. There is no provision in the Koran Civil Code that expresses external agency authority such as in Article 167, Paragraph 1 of the German Civil Code. The most similar provision seems to be the Article 125 of the Korean Civil Code as to the non-authorized agent looks like a legitimate agent. However, this provision differs from the German Civil Code in light of its requirements and effects, and also Article 126 and Article 129. Therefore, it is not convincing to insist on ‘the theory on the separation of behavior and discipline’ based on Korean Civil Code. Of course, we can not stop making such a claim as theories to explain the nature of agency regardless of the provisions of our Civil Code. However, in light of Article 130 of that Code, a contract made by an agent without authority is not effective, if he does not receive the confirmation of principal. It is difficult to understand the logic that take the agenda of an representative agent who is only non-authorized agent as a legitimate agent. The regulations on representative agent are also subject to only ‘principal is responsible to’(Article 125, Article 126) or ‘principal can not resist’. It dose not take the agenda non-authorized agent as a legitimate agent. In principle, agency authority abusing conduct itself is a substitute effect, unlike the case of the application of theory on the abuse of agency authority, since it fulfills all the requirements of legitimate agent's conduct. However, if the other party of agent knew or could know the betrayal intention of the agent, the effect of the agent’s conduct is blocked for the protection of the principal. Therefore, the application of the theory on the abuse of agency authority should be limited as much as possible, and it is not reasonable to apply this to non-authorized representative agent. I think that the attribution of legal effects by non-authorized representative agent’s conduct to the principal and the application of the theory on the abuse of agency authority should be discussed separately. It is better to reorganize their legal relationship based on the fact that the agent has acted an abuse of agency authority and that the other party knew or could have known about it. It is obvious that if non-authorized representative agent is established and he has done the action on abuse of agency authority, therefore the principal has the effect of the agency and he will be harmed inevitably. In order to convey these damages of the principal, it will be possible for authority abusing agent and his other side to bear liability of tort based on the betrayal intention of non-authorized representative agent and the malice or negligence of the other party.

名義受託者의 背任行爲와 信託財産 處分行爲의 效力

정상현(Jung Sang Hyun) 성균관대학교 법학연구소 2009 성균관법학 Vol.21 No.2

The nominal trust theory of real estate is originally developed through the judicial precedents. Especially, under the rule of Japanese imperialism, the clan could not register the real estate with its own name, because it had not a judicial personality. Therefore a real estate of the clan must had been registered in the name of its a member or members. By the way, many disputes took place in relation to clan's properties, for the reason that the nominal member disposed the property without the permission of the whole members. For the purpose of a solution to those problem, judicial precedents had contrived a following new theory. This theory is that both parties of agreement compose with two parts ownership on the real estate, that is to say, the internal ownership and the external ownership. The internal ownership is held by a nominal truster who is registered in his own name, and external ownership is granted to nominal trustee who possess the property substantially. And even though the nominal trustee, as external owner, dispose of the object to the another person without the internal owner's permission, the another person can acquire the ownership of the object valid. The relations of nominal truster between nominal trustee are as follow. The antisocial agreement for nominal trust relations is null, for the violation of "the Act of Substantial Named Registration" and article 103 of the Korean Civil Law. And the sails contract of entrusted immovables is also null, because antisocial agreement for nominal trust relations has an influence on the sails contract of entrusted immovables. Moreover, the general view and judicial precedents say that if the sails contract of entrusted immovables is null, as an antisocial contract which is applied the preceding Act and the article 103 of the Korean Civil Law, trustor can not demand the restitution of entrusted immovables to trustee, because the article 746 of the Korean Civil Law is applied the delivery performed by the antisocial contract. But I think that the article 746 of the Korean Civil Law have to apply restrictively, and that although the contract for nominal trust relations is null as an antisocial contract, the restitution of delivery performed is possible. Therefore, in Simple Registration Nominal Trust Type, trustor can demand toward trustee the restitution of entrusted immovables, and in Omitted Middle Registration Nominal Trust Type and Contract and Registration Nominal Trust Type, original owner can demand toward trustee the restitution of entrusted immovables. This judicial precedent shows the effect of the nominal entrusted properties sales, the nominal trustee between tiers. If nominal trustee sales the nominal entrusted properties and he breaks the truster's faith with intervention of the third party, that sale is null as an antisocial contract. However, When a trustee sells his entrusted properties to the third party without permission of truster, the Supreme Court has ruled that it is a void contract if the buyer(the third party) knew the trust relation and then took an active part in a trustee's breach of faith. But I think that there are two questions in this standpoint of the Supreme Court. At first, when an ancestor who had been the registered holder of right died, it is a very difficult to confirm whether he was trusted a virtual property by the other or it was his own property. In spite of that, it could be not understood that the Supreme Court has admitted that the person who had the property participated in the formalities of registration as if he knew that the property was a "trust property", on the assumption that "it is a trust property" without special evidences or a confirmation of the fact. And these decisions can't escape the pointing out that it is not suitable to decide the question of validity which could have an enormous effect on the parties' relation at ease. Next, even if it was a invalid contract by reason of the third

아웃사이드미러 떨림 시험법 및 재질 최적화 기술 연구

정상현(Jung, Sang Hyun),김일수(Kim, Ill Soo),유병섭(Yu, Byung Sub),하동현(Ha, Dong Hyun),민복기(Min, Bok Ki),최병곤(Choi, Byung Gon) 한국자동차공학회 2017 한국자동차공학회 학술대회 및 전시회 Vol.2017 No.11

Outside-mirror that provides the driver a smooth rear vision is to be considered rigid so that no vibration occurs is located outside the front door. Were but conduct a la carte Analysis of stiffness oriented Until now, not the actual vehicle condition is applied, the failure to utilize the vibration characteristics data robust design is insufficient trembling evaluation of a la carte condition and vibration assessment of vehicle condition of the vehicle differs from the design stage I could see that. Through this study, we propose a technique to screen matches the evaluation of the vehicle and the part itself through the vibration evaluation, and material optimization study utilized a vehicle vibration characteristics of the mirror and reduce cost and weight and at the same time ensuring the consistency of interpretation.

賣買目的 土地에 發生한 事情의 變更과 契約의 效力

정상현(JUNG Sang-Hyun) 한국법학원 2008 저스티스 Vol.- No.104

사정변경법리를 계약법의 일반원칙으로 인정하여 당사자나 법원에게 계약을 변경하거나 해소할 수 있는 권리를 부여하는 것은 계약의 가장 기본적인 효력인 구속력을 파괴하는 결과를 야기하고, 거래의 안전에도 치명적인 타격을 줄 수 있다. 이러한 법리를 신의칙의 분칙으로서 또는 신의칙과 대등한 민법의 일반원칙으로서 받아들이는 다수학자들의 주장에 따르면, 당사자의 의사에 의하여 구속력이 부여되었던 계약이 단순한 객관적 사정의 변경에 의하여 수정 또는 해소되는 결과가 되는데, 이는 합의를 계약성립의 절대적인 요건으로 하는 계약법의 원리와도 맞지 않는다. 물론 우리 민법이 사정변경의 법리 자체를 부정하는 것은 아니며, 개별적인 규정에 의하여 긍정하는 측면이 있을 뿐만 아니라 판례 역시 이 법리를 인정하는 부분이 있다. 다만 이러한 민법상의 규정과 판례는 당사자에게 계약관계의 변경 내지는 해소권을 특별한 경우에 특별한 조건을 전제로 인정하고 있을 따름이다. 현실적으로도 사정변경의 법리를 일반원칙으로 인정할 경우, 계약의 당사자는 이러한 원칙이 존재한다는 이유로 계약체결에 있어서 구체적인 계약내용의 확정에 소홀하게 되고, 궁극적으로 이 법리를 원용하여 일방적인 계약의 변경 또는 해소를 주장하는 결과를 야기하게 된다. 그러므로 오히려 계약의 당사자로 하여금 신중한 계약체결에 임할 수 있도록 그 계도를 통하여, 계약문언에 “급격한 사정의 변경이 있는 경우 계약내용에 대하여 법원의 화해권고결정이나 강제조정결정에 따른다”든가, “물가상승 등과 같은 사정의 변경이 있는 경우 합리적인 가격을 결정하기 위하여 중재판정을 따른다”는 등의 조항을 기재하도록 유도해야 할 것이다. 본 판례와 관련하여 우리 민법에서 소위 사정변경의 법리를 계약법의 일반원칙으로 인정하는 것은 부당하다고 생각한다. 만약 전혀 예견치 못한 사회적ㆍ경제적 격변으로 인하여 기존의 계약관계에 있어서의 불균형이 극히 심한 경우에는 계약유형별로 구체적인 조건을 명시하는 특별법 내지 행정입법의 신속한 제정을 통하여 이를 시정하는 것이 바람직할 것이다. 이러한 점에서 본 판결이 외부적인 사정으로서 공공공지로의 편입은 계약의 구속력을 배척할 정도의 사정변경에 해당되지 않는다고 판시한 것은 지극히 타당한 결론이다.

책임능력(責任能力)있는 미성년자(未成年者)의 부법행위(不法行爲)에 대한 감독자책임(監督者責任)의 근거재해석(根據再解釋)

정상현 ( Sang Hyun Jung ) 법조협회 2001 法曹 Vol.50 No.8

이른바 「반사적(反射的) 소유권취득론(所有權取得論)」의 재검토

정상현 ( Sang Hyun Jung ) 법조협회 2002 法曹 Vol.51 No.9

法律行爲의 要件體系와 土地去來許可

鄭相鉉(Sang-Hyun Jung) 한국비교사법학회 2008 비교사법 Vol.15 No.2

  The Article 118 of Program and Utilization for National Land Development Act provides that one who shall buy or sell the land must be acquire the gourvernment"s permission, for restraint the speculative trade of real estate in particular area. It also provides that the land transaction contract without such permission should be ineffective. However the general view and judicial precedents have interpreted the Article based on the Doctrine of Floating Void. Under this doctrine, a party could not demend the performance of the obligation, because prior to the permission, the contract does not carry it into effect. As legal obligations, the contracting parties must cooperate for getting the permission. If the permission is granted, the contract shall become valid definitely. But this doctrine cannot bar effectively any speculative trades. Moreover it is a theoretical repugnance that the legal duty of cooperation for getting the permission is based upon the validity of contract, while the contract without permission is null and void.<BR>  Therefore it is necessary to conceive a new idea for solution of this matter. It is appropriate view that the contract without permission is valid, provided that its effect ought to be suspended until the acquisition of permission. This article suggests that the permission for land transaction is the special condition. For the conditions of general contract, the general view have interpreted them to devide the condition of conclusion and the condition of effect. But this division of conception is incorrect from a different standpoint. In view of the nature of contract, it cannot be admitted that a contract concluded is ineffective. I think that there two kinds of conditions for the effective contract. The one is general conditions, that is to say, contractant of capacity, corrective intention, accordance of offer and acceptance, moral and lawful purposes, the other one is special conditions, that is to say, right representative, acquisition of permission, achievement of suspended condition, etc.<BR>  Therefore I suggests that all contracts are effective when the general condition is fulfilled, and the legal duty of cooperation for getting the permission ought to be recognized from the provisional validity of contract. And also suggests, the contract carries it into effect definitely when the special condition(permission) is fulfilled, and therefore the obligations of contractant, such as payment and registration, are actualized by the acquisition of permission.