株主의 代表訴訟에 관한 硏究

梁碩完 제주대학교 1991 논문집 Vol.33 No.1

미국법상의 적합성원칙과 투자권유자의 책임

양석완 제주대학교 동아시아연구소 2002 東아시아硏究論叢 Vol.13 No.-

증권관련집단소송법(안)의 제정에 따른 문제점

양석완 제주대학교 관광과경영경제연구소 2003 産經論集 Vol.19 No.-

미국연방순회항소법원의 판례에 나타난 특허침해소송에 있어서의 균등성이론

양석완,송석언 제주대학교 1994 논문집 Vol.39 No.1

The main purpose of patent law is to promote the progress of science and technology by encouraging research and disclosure of results. To support this goal, the patent system gives the inventor a property right and protection from infringement. On the other hand, inventors are also required to specify their patent rights so that the public may know what they are prohibited from doing during theexistence of the monopoly……" Although the patent system intends to protect the patented inventor from would be infringers, there is strong public policy for limiting patent protection to the terms of the claim. patent infringement occurs where either the alleged infringing device li-terally falls within the scope of the claim, or where the accused device performs substantially the same function, in substantially the same way, to obtain substantially the same result as the claimed invention. The latter is the doctrine of equivalents designed to prevent a patented invention from being pirated by minor and unsubstantial changes. This doctrine may be a significant tool for proving infringement, and its use is becoming important to patent infringement litigation. One issue important in applying the doctrine of equivalents concerns the means plus function claim stated in the patent Act of 1952, §112(6). The purpose and the scope of this section has often been confused with the application of doctrine of equivalents. The CAFC has distinguished statutory equivalents from the doctrine of equivalents in interpreting the means plus function claims. Until 1982, infringement actions were heard in district courts and of Appeals of the several circuits. The courts in each circuit decided the same issue independently, and a great inconsistency arose among the circuits. After the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) was establishedby merging the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals (CCPA) and the Appellate Division of the Court of Claims (Ct. Cl.), the CAFC addressed several major issues concering claim interpretation in patent infringement litigation, including the doctrine of equivalents. In the application of the doctrine of equivalents by the Federal Circuit, there has been much controversy over the judicial standards for infringement analysis. A most controversial and inconsistent issue is whether infribnge-ment under the doctrine of equivalents should be determined by looking at the invention as a whole" or on an element by element" basis. This controversy relates to the balancing requirement between public policy for limiting the patent claim by restrictive claim interpretation and protection of patented inventions by expensive interpretation of patent claims.

英國어음法(Bills of Exchange Act)上 融通어음에 관한 法律關係

梁碩完 제주대학교 1987 논문집 Vol.24 No.1

In the bill institution, the accrommodation bill that is a straightforward expression of credit has long been institutionalized in the Anglo-American legal system. while the Continental legal system, including the Law of Bills of our country has no codified regulatlons concerning it. The use of the accommodation bill, however. has long tern widely prevalent in the countries of the Continental legal system that has no substantive enactment as well as in the Anglo-American legal system. In our country, the accommodation bill has played an important role in our country's economy, yet the settlement of thr legal relations in regard to the accommodation bill is committed only to theories and judicial precedents, because there is no regulation concerning it. In the law of England and America, the regulations regarding the control of accommodation bills are Bills of Exchange Act(BEA) of England and Uniform Negotiable Instruments Law(UN I.L) of America and the provision concerning commercial paper, the third article of Uniform Commercial Code(U.CC.). With the establishment of convention portant lot uniforme sur les lettres do change et billets a' ordre in 1934. access of the Continental legal system was had to the Anglo-American legal system and our country's Law of Bills has been close to that of England and America, but there is still a wide difference between them. In England the law of bills of exchange has long been developed as a customary law and in 1882 Bills of Exchange Act was enacted by means of collecting and arranging the former customary laws, special laws and the judicial precedents This B.E.A has stipulated regulations concerning the legal concept of the accommodation bill in partirular. and became the basis of the legislation of UNIL in America. The aim of this paper is to examine the system of interpretation for facilitating the solution of the legal relations of our country's accommodation bills by studying the legal structure of function of the accommodation bill with the theories and precedents as its materials, and with the Engllsh Bills of Exchange Act as its central subject matter

전자상거래와 전자적 의사표시에 관한 고찰

양석완 제주대학교 관광산업연구소 2001 産經論集 Vol.15 No.1

전자문서의 소송법상의 지위와 법적 문제

양석완 제주대학교 동아시아연구소 2000 東아시아硏究論叢 Vol.11 No.-

融通어음에 관한 硏究

梁碩完 제주대학교 1990 논문집 Vol.31 No.1

The accommodation bill that is a straightforward expression of credit has long been institutionalized in the Anglo-American legal system, while the Continental legal system, including the Law of Bills of our country has no codified regulations concerning it. The accommodation bill is considered to be a phenomenon of bill utilization, yet the settlement of its legal relations is committed only to theories or precedents, for no direct provisions are made in the Law of bills of our country. On the contrary, in the Law of Bills of England and America, the regulations relating to accommodation bills are codified and strict control is exercised. In the Law of Bills of England and America, the regulation concerning the control of accommodation bills are Bills of Exchange Act(B.E.A.) of England and the provision regarding commercial paper, the third article of Uniform Commercial Code (U.C.C.), and Uniform Negotiable Instruments Law (U.N.I.L.) In England the Law of Bills has long been developed as a customary law and in 1882 Bills of Exchange Act was enacted by means of collecting and arranging the former customary laws, special laws and the judicial precedents, This B.E.A. has stipulated regulations concerning the legal concept of the accommodation bill in particular, and became the basis of the legislation of U.N.I.L. in America. With the establishment of convention portant loi uniforme sur les lettres do change et billets a`ordre in 1934, access of the Continental legal system was had to the Anglo-American legal system and our country's Law of Bills has been close to that of England and America, but there is still a wide difference between them. The accommodation bill is one of them. The accommodation bill, however, is in general use as a matter of business in our country and many cases have been found that accommodation bills were utilized for unrighteous purposes, and in this sense certain legal regulation by means of institutionalization is now in the stage of enactment. The purpose of this paper is to have the legal relations of our country's accommodation bills settld facilely by comparing and analyzing how the theories of legal relations between the accominodation parties shown in precedents have changed and in which directions the theories based on this have been being elaborated with the English Bills of Exchange Act and with the U.N.I.L. and U.C.C. of America as the central points.

주식매수선택권(Stock option)에 관한 고찰 : A Study on the Stock Option

梁碩完 제주대학교 지역사회발전연구소 2000 社會發展硏究 Vol.16 No.-

적합성원칙과 투자권유에 따른 민사(民事)책임 이론

양석완 濟州大學校 社會發展硏究所 2003 社會發展硏究 Vol.18 No.-