http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
- 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
- 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
RISS 인기검색어
- 검색키워드
- 저자 : Kenneth T.Kim (검색결과 3 건)
- 무료
- 기관 내 무료
- 유료
-
Information Exchange as a Type of Agreement?
윤신승,Kenneth T.Kim,김미정 서울대학교 아시아태평양법연구소 2015 Journal of Korean Law Vol.15 No.1
Article 19(1) of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act prescribes that an anticompetitive “agreement” among enterprisers exists as a requirement for establishing an unreasonable col-laborative act. The requirements and standards that are necessary for finding the existence of an “agreement” based on information exchange as evidentiary grounds when there is an in-formation exchange without any explicit agreement or direct evidence has become a critical legal issue in Korea While lower courts previously provided legal standards in regard to such issue, in July 2014, for the first time the Korean Supreme Court rendered a landmark decision regarding the re-quirements and determination standards for finding information exchange among competitors as an agreement in the case concerning information exchange by sixteen life insurance compa-nies. In the above case, the Korean Supreme Court held that (i) under the MRFTA the existence of an unreasonable collaborative act was not directly established based solely on the existence of information exchange, although information exchange can be used as compelling evidence in finding reciprocity in meeting of the minds among enterprisers and (ii) in such case, the exist-ence of an agreement has to be established by comprehensively considering the totality of cir-cumstances, such as the structure and special characteristics of the relevant market and the na-ture and details of the exchanged information, etc. In sum, it may be viewed that courts in Korea continue to develop an autonomous theory of interpretation in order to regulate information exchange as an unreasonable collaborative act, while not damaging the significance of the existence of an “agreement” under the current MRFTA regime. Article 19(1) of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act prescribes that an anticompetitive “agreement” among enterprisers exists as a requirement for establishing an unreasonable col-laborative act. The requirements and standards that are necessary for finding the existence of an “agreement” based on information exchange as evidentiary grounds when there is an in-formation exchange without any explicit agreement or direct evidence has become a critical legal issue in Korea While lower courts previously provided legal standards in regard to such issue, in July 2014, for the first time the Korean Supreme Court rendered a landmark decision regarding the re-quirements and determination standards for finding information exchange among competitors as an agreement in the case concerning information exchange by sixteen life insurance compa-nies. In the above case, the Korean Supreme Court held that (i) under the MRFTA the existence of an unreasonable collaborative act was not directly established based solely on the existence of information exchange, although information exchange can be used as compelling evidence in finding reciprocity in meeting of the minds among enterprisers and (ii) in such case, the exist-ence of an agreement has to be established by comprehensively considering the totality of cir-cumstances, such as the structure and special characteristics of the relevant market and the na-ture and details of the exchanged information, etc. In sum, it may be viewed that courts in Korea continue to develop an autonomous theory of interpretation in order to regulate information exchange as an unreasonable collaborative act, while not damaging the significance of the existence of an “agreement” under the current MRFTA regime.
-
액적 열전달 향상에 미치는 Dissolved 가스의 영향에 관한 연구
이정호(Jungho Lee),Jungho Kim,Kenneth T. Kiger 대한기계학회 2003 대한기계학회 춘추학술대회 Vol.2003 No.4
Droplet evaporation can be used to transfer large amounts of energy since heat is transferred across a thin<br/> liquid film. Spreading the drop over a larger area can enhance this heat transfer. One method of accomplishing<br/> this is to dissolve gas into the liquid. When the drop strikes the surface, a gas bubble nucleates and can grow<br/> and merge within the liquid, resulting in an increase in the droplet diameter. In this study, time and space resolved<br/> heat transfer characteristics for a single droplet striking a heated surface were experimentally investigated.<br/> The local wall heat flux and temperature measurements were provided by a novel experimental technique<br/> in which 96 individually controlled heaters were used to map the heat transfer coefficient contour on the<br/> surface. A high-speed digital video camera was used to simultaneously record images of the drop from below.<br/> The measurements to date indicate that significantly smaller droplet evaporation times can be achieved. The<br/> splat diameter was observed to increase with time just after the initial transient dies out due to the growth of<br/> the bubble, in contrast to a monotonically decreasing splat diameter for the case of no bubbles. Bursting of the<br/> bubble corresponded to a sudden decrease in droplet heat transfer.
-
Special Articles on Fair Trade Law : Information Exchange as a Type of Agreement?
( Sin Sung (sean) Yun ),( Kenneth T Kim ),( Mi Jung Kim ) 서울대학교 아시아태평양법연구소 2015 Journal of Korean Law Vol.15 No.1
Article 19(1) of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act prescribes that an anticompetitive “agreement” among enterprisers exists as a requirement for establishing an unreasonable collaborative act. The requirements and standards that are necessary for finding the existence of an “agreement” based on information exchange as evidentiary grounds when there is an information exchange without any explicit agreement or direct evidence has become a critical legal issue in Korea While lower courts previously provided legal standards in regard to such issue, in July 2014, for the first time the Korean Supreme Court rendered a landmark decision regarding the requirements and determination standards for finding information exchange among competitors as an agreement in the case concerning information exchange by sixteen life insurance companies. In the above case, the Korean Supreme Court held that (i) under the MRFTA the existence of an unreasonable collaborative act was not directly established based solely on the existence of information exchange, although information exchange can be used as compelling evidence in finding reciprocity in meeting of the minds among enterprisers and (ii) in such case, the existence of an agreement has to be established by comprehensively considering the totality of circumstances, such as the structure and special characteristics of the relevant market and the nature and details of the exchanged information, etc. In sum, it may be viewed that courts in Korea continue to develop an autonomous theory of interpretation in order to regulate information exchange as an unreasonable collaborative act, while not damaging the significance of the existence of an “agreement” under the current MRFTA regime.
연관 검색어 추천
이 검색어로 많이 본 자료
활용도 높은 자료
