일본 최고재판소의 균등침해요건 중 “비본질적 부분 요건”의 의미

구대환 한국지식재산연구원 2016 지식재산연구 Vol.11 No.4

The first test of the doctrine of equivalents in Japan (i.e. the test of “pertinence to non-essential part”) requires the patentee to prove that the allegedly infringing invention does not replace an “essential part” of the patent. In order to adopt the doctrine of equivalents the allegedly infringing invention has to replace only non-essential parts of the patented invention. Japan’s courts interpreted “essential part” to mean the “characterizing part” of an invention, constituting the “problem-solving principle” of the patented invention. The term “essential part” can be seen as the patented invention’s specific part and technical idea. However, Japan's lower courts typically considered an “essential part” of an invention as essential elements constituting the patented invention and did not apply the doctrine of equivalents when an essential element was changed. Recently, the IP High Court did not consider the replacement of a constituent element of the patented invention as the alteration of an “essential part” of the patented invention since this replacement did not change the technical idea of the patented invention. This interpretation practically equates the test of “pertinence to non-essential part” in Japan with the test of “identity of problem-solving principle” in Korea. 일본 균등론의 첫 번째 요건(즉, “비본질적 부분의 요건”)은 확인대상발명이특허발명의 “본질적 부분”을 치환하지 않았을 것을 요구한다. 균등론을 적용하기 위해서는 확인대상발명은 특허발명의 “비본질적 부분”만을 치환해야한다는 것이다. 일본 재판소는 “본질적 부분”을 특허발명의 “문제해결의 원리”(즉, “기술적사상”)를 구성하는 발명의 특징적 부분을 의미한다고 해석하였다. “본질적부분”을 특허발명의 “특정 부분”과 “기술적 사상”으로 정의한 것이다. 그러나사실상 일본 하급법원들은 “본질적 부분”을 특허발명을 구성하는 필수 구성요소로 간주하고 구성요소가 치환되면 균등론을 적용하지 않았다. 그런데 최근 지적재산고등재판소는 특허발명의 구성요소에 변경이 있었음에도 불구하고, 이러한 변경이 특허발명의 핵심적 “기술적 사상”을 변경시키지 않았다는 이유로, 이를 특허발명의 “본질적 부분”에 대한 변경으로 보지 않고 균등론을 적용하였다. 일본 지적재산고등재판소가 “비본질적 부분의 요건”에 대하여 이처럼 해석한 것은 일본의 “비본질적 부분의 요건”을 우리 대법원의 “문제해결원리의 동일성 요건”과 실질적으로 동일시한 것이라고 할 수 있다.

과제해결원리의 동일성 요건과 비본질적 부분 요건의 차이점

구대환(Koo, Dae-Hwan) 동아대학교 법학연구소 2013 東亞法學 Vol.- No.60

대법원이 2000년 균등론 적용을 위한 5가지 요건을 제시한 후, 대법원은 균등론의 첫 번째 요건을 다음과 같이 해석하기 시작하였다. 즉, 두 발명의 “문제의 해결원리가 동일하다는 것”은, 일본 대법원이 볼스플라인축 사건에서 제시한 두 발명의 “차이가 본질적인 부분이 아닐 것”을 의미한다고 하였다. 이 논문의 목적은 우리 대법원과 일본 대법원의 균등론의 첫 번째 요건들이 대법원이 해석한 것처럼 동일한 것으로 볼 수 있는지를 검토하는 것이다. 이를 위해서 이 논문은 한국과 일본의 균등론에 있어서 “기술적 사상”, “문제해결의 원리”, “본질적 부분”, “문제해결 원리의 동일성” 등의 핵심용어의 의미를 조사한다. “본질적 부분”은 “문제해결의 원리”(즉, “기술적 사상”)뿐 아니라 발명의 특징적인 부분을 의미하는 것으로도 해석될 수 있다. “본질적 부분”이 추상적인 아이디어뿐 아니라 구체적이고 물리적인 부분을 의미하는 것으로 이해할 수 있는 한, 이것은 “문제해결의 원리”와 동일한 것이라고 할 수 없다. 또한 이 논문은 한국과 일본에서의 균등론 적용 비율을 서로 대비하여 보았다. 일본에서의 균등론 적용률은 현저히 낮을 뿐 아니라 이렇게 낮게 된 주요 원인은 “비본질적 부분의 요건” 때문이었다. 그런데 우리 대법원은 많은 사건에서 대법원은 특허발명의 “본질적 부분”이 치환되었음이 확인되었음에도 불구하고 균등론의 다른 요건들을 검토하고 있다. 우리 대법원이 “본질적 부분”이 치환되었음을 확인한 후에도 균등론을 적용하는 한, 우리 대법원과 일본 대법원의 균등론 첫 번째 요건을 서로 동일시하는 것은 부적절하다. 더구나 최근 대법원은 대부분의 균등관련 사건에서 특허발명의 특징적 구성을 추출하고 “과제해결원리의 동일성 요건”이 충족되지 않았다고 하는 이유로 균등관계를 부인하고 있다. 이것은 일본 하급법원이 맨홀커버 사건 및 중공골프클럽헤드 사건 이전에 “본질적 부분”을 특허발명의 특징적 구성으로 파악하여 대부분의 균등관련 사건에서 균등관계를 부인하던 태도와 유사하다. After the Korea Supreme Court (hereinafter, KSC) issued the first judgment providing five requirements for the application of the doctrine of equivalents in 2000, the KSC began to interpret the first requirement of the doctrine of equivalents rendered by the KSC, i.e. “identity of the problem-solving principle of the two inventions” to mean that “the difference does not pertain to an essential part of the patented invention” which was set forth by the Japanese Supreme Court (hereinafter, JSC) in the Ball Spline decision. The purpose of this article is to examine whether the first requirements of the doctrine of equivalents by the KSC and the JSC can be considered the same each other as the KSC interpreted. To accomplish this, this article introduces the doctrine of equivalents of Korea and that of Japan in general, and investigates the meanings of the key terms involved in the first requirements by the KSC and the JSC, e.g. “technical idea,” “problem-solving principle,” “essential part,” and “identity of problem-solving principle.” “Essential part” can be interpreted to mean “characteristic part” as well as “technical idea”(or “problem-solving principle”). As far as “essential part” can be understood as to mean concrete and physical part as well as abstract idea, it cannot be considered as the same as “problem-solving principle”. In addition, this article compares the adoption rate of the doctrine of equivalents between Korea and Japan. In Japan, the adoption rate is conspicuously lower than that of Korea and the low adoption rate mostly resulted from the first requirement of the doctrine of equivalents. The KSC applies the doctrine of equivalents even after it is confirmed that “essential part” of the patented invention is interchanged. Therefore, the equation of the first requirement of the KSC with that of the JSC is inappropriate as far as the KSC applies the doctrine of equivalents even after it is confirmed that essential part of the patented invention is interchanged. In addition, recently the KSC does not apply the doctrine of equivalents in many cases related with the doctrine of equivalents on the basis that “problem-solving principle” is not the same each other. This attitude is very similar to that of Japanese lower courts (before Manhole Cover case and Hollow Golf Club case) which denied equivalence on the basis that the characteristic part (i.e. “essential part”) of the patented invention was different from that of the accused product.

균등침해 요건 중 ‘과제해결원리의 동일성’ 요건에 대한 고찰 -일본의 ‘비본질적 부분’ 요건과의 대비를 중심으로-

김병필 한국지식재산연구원 2013 지식재산연구 Vol.8 No.1

The first requirement of the Doctrine of Equivalents(hereinafter DOE ) in Korea is substantially same with the first requirement of the DOE in Japan. According to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in Korea, the first requirement of the DOE, the identity of the principle underlying the solution to the problem should be determined by whether the accused product includes the characteristic element of the claimed invention. In Japan, the first requirement is defined that the different part between the claimed invention and the accused product should not be essential. So, the first requirement could be determined whether the accused product includes the characteristic element or the essential part of the claimed invention in Korea as well as in Japan. However, there are two fundamental approaches to determining the characteristic element or the essential part of the claimed invention. The one is to determine by considering the specific element related to the effects of the claimed invention. The other is to determine by considering the technical idea related to the principle underlying the solution to the problem. It seems to be necessary to unifying the approaches because the conclusion could vary depending on the approaches. In Japan, the jurisdictions seemed to be divided until the Intellectual Property High Court(IPHC) judged a case on the head of the golf club which was applied the approach of considering the technical idea. Since the jurisdiction on the case of the head of the golf club , the courts in Japan are likely to unify to the approach of considering the technical idea. It seems to be desirable that the courts in Korea also should determine by considering the technical idea rather than the specific element like IPHC in Japan. This is, I think, the way to realize the original purpose of the DOE. 균등침해 제1요건인 우리나라의‘과제해결원리의 동일성’요건과 일본의‘비본질적 부분’요건은 문언만 다를 뿐 실질적으로 동일한 요건이라고 할 수 있다. 우리나라의‘과제해결원리의 동일성’이란‘확인대상발명에서 치환된 부분이 비본질적 부분이어서 확인대상발명이 특허발명의 특징적 구성을 가지고 있는 것’을 의미하고, 일본의‘비본질 부분’요건은‘특허청구범위에 기재된 구성 중 침해제품과 다른 부분이 특허발명의 본질적 부분이 아닐 것’을 의미하는 것이어서, 우리나라와 일본은 모두 확인대상발명(침해제품)이 특허발명의‘특징적 구성’또는‘본질적 부분’을 그대로 가지고 있는지 아닌지에 의해 제1요건의 성립 여부가 결정된다고 할 수 있다. 그런데, 우리나라와 일본의 제1요건에 대한 판결은, 특허발명의 특징적 구성또는 본질적 부분을 파악하는 방법에 있어서 특허발명의 구성 중에서 특유한 작용효과를 발생시키는 구성으로 파악하는 방법과 특허발명의 과제해결원리와 관련한기술적 사상으로 파악하는 방법으로 나누어져 있다. 특허발명의 특징적 구성 또는 본질적 부분을 구성을 중시해서 판단할지, 기술적 사상을 중시해서 판단할지에 따라서 제1요건의 성립 여부가 달라질 수도 있기때문에 이에 대해서는 어느 정도 통일된 입장이 필요하다고 본다. 우리나라는 과제해결원리를 참작해서 특허발명의 구성으로부터 특징적 구성을 추출하거나, 과제 해결원리 자체를 특징적 구성으로 추출해서 침해제품과 비교하고 있어서, 어느 쪽을 더 중시하고 있다고 명확하게 얘기하기는 어려운 것같다. 일본에서는 지적재산고등재판소의‘중공 골프클럽 사건’이전까지는 우리나라와 비슷하게 두 가지 입장이 엇갈린 판결이 나오고 있었지만, ‘중공 골프클럽 사건’을 계기로 지적재산고등재판소만큼은 특허발명의 구성 그 자체보다는 기술적사상을 보다 중시하는 입장으로 통일되고 있는 것으로 보인다. 균등론이라는 것은 침해자가 특허발명의 보호범위를 너무 쉽게 회피할 수 있고, 발명자는 권리를 제대로 보호받지 못하는 불합리한 결과를 막기 위해 도입된것인 만큼, 발명자를 보호하는 입장에서 일본의 지적재산고등재판소와 같이 기술사상을 중시해서 제1요건을 판단하는 것이 타당하다고 생각된다.

동물모양의 도형과 문자를 결합한 상표의 유사 여부에 관한 판단 기준

손천우 사법발전재단 2018 사법 Vol.1 No.44

Most often than not, general consumers are given the impression that two or more letters and figures comprising a combined trademark are different. In other words, when letters and figures differ in terms of appearance, name, and concept, determining similarity with other marks is difficult. In particular, if a figure is an ordinary shape of an animal that is widely used and a number of similar animal-shaped trademarks have been registered in relation to the designated product before filing a registered trademark, the emerging issue pertains to whether that animal shape may be deemed an essential part. In Supreme Court Decision 2017Hu2697 Decided March 29, 2018, the Supreme Court held that determination as to whether a component of a combined trademark exhibits distinctiveness to function as an essential part ought to be made by taking into account “whether combined trademarks related to a product that is identical or similar to a designated product have been registered on multiple occasions.” In the subject case, the figure of the registered trademark is merely a representation of “the figure depicting the left side of a standing dog” using an ordinary method, and thus, cannot be deemed an essential part on the ground that said figure does not exhibit strong distinctiveness in terms of creativity and well-knownness. Moreover, in contrast to determining the similarity between two combined trademarks, the determination of the similarity between “a combined trademark consisting of letters and figures” and “a trademark comprising only of a figure” ought to be based on the degree of distinctiveness and similarity of the figure at issue. That being said, the subject case is significant in that it provides the criteria for determining the similarity of trademarks that include animal shapes. 도형과 문자가 결합된 상표는 일반 수요자들에게 도형 부분과 문자 부분이 전혀 다른 인상을 심어주게 되는 경우가 많다. 즉 도형 부분과 문자 부분의 외관과 호칭, 관념이 다른 경우에 다른 표장과의 유사 여부를 판단함에 있어서 여러 가지 어려운 문제를 일으키게 된다. 특히 도형이 일상적으로 널리 쓰이는 동물모양이고 등록상표의 출원 전에 그 지정상품과 관련하여 다수의 유사한 동물모양의 상표가 등록되어 있다면 그 동물모양을 요부로 파악하여 다른 표장과 대비할 수 있는지 문제 된다. 대상판결은 동물모양의 도형과 문자를 결합한 상표의 요부를 판단할 때 동일·유사한 지정상품과 관련하여 등록상표의 도형 부분과 유사한 형상의 도형을 포함하는 다수의 상표가 권리자를 달리하여 등록되어 있는 사정을 고려해야 한다는 판단 기준을 제시하였다. 이 사건의 등록상표의 도형은 ‘왼쪽을 바라보고 있는 서 있는 개의 옆모습 형상’을 보통의 방법으로 형상화한 것에 불과하여 창작성과 주지도의 면에서 식별력이 강하다고 볼 수 없어 요부로 볼 수 없다고 보아야 한다. 또한 ‘도형과 문자의 결합상표’와 ‘도형만으로 이루어진 상표’ 사이의 유사성을 판단할 때 도형 부분의 식별력 및 유사성 정도에 더 의존하여 유사 여부를 판단해야 한다는 점에서 ‘도형과 문자의 결합상표’와 ‘도형과 문자의 결합상표’를 대비할 때와는 차이가 있다고 볼 필요가 있다. 이런 점에서 대상판결은 향후 동물모양을 포함한 상표의 유사성 판단에 시사점을 줄 것으로 생각한다.

균등침해의 적극요건(대상판결: 대법원 2014. 7. 24. 선고 2012후1132 판결)

정택수 사법발전재단 2014 사법 Vol.1 No.30

The subject case can be evaluated as a progressive succession of the legal principles on affirmative requirements for infringement of equivalence, which have been affirmed in a consistent line of Supreme Court precedents, from Supreme Court Decision 97Hu2200 decided July 28, 2000, to Supreme Court Decision 98Hu836 decided June 15, 2001, and to Supreme Court Decision 2007Hu3806 decided June 25, 2009. First, the subject case summarized the expression concerning the disputed point of equivalence by the term, “variant” components. The greatest significance of the subject case lies in demonstrating that the first requirement (identity of the problem-solving principle) can be determined by substantively researching the “core of the technical idea” upon which the “unique problem-solving method” of the relevant patented invention is based, without reducing the first requirement to concepts such as “nonessential part” or “distinctive component.” Second, the subject case provided a typical model for affirming the second requirement by stating that, although the adoption of common technical means unrelated to the core technical idea may cause different secondary effects, both resulting effects may still be viewed as substantively identical. The subject case no longer determined the identity of purpose as an affirmative requirement for infringement of equivalence. Finally, the subject case summarized the explanation of legal principles on the third requirement, and postponed the explanation concerning the base point in time and the specific method to determine the third requirement, as they were not in dispute in the case. In sum, by resolving the theoretical and practical difficulties which could have made the first requirement an excessive barrier to acknowledging equivalence, the subject case implies that it would be necessary to likewise accumulate specific precedents in a balanced manner as to the second and third requirements as affirmative requirements for infringement of equivalence. 대상판결은 대법원 2000. 7. 28. 선고 97후2200 판결로부터 대법원 2001. 6. 15. 선고 98후836 판결과 대법원 2009. 6. 25. 선고 2007후3806 판결에 이르기까지 확인해 온 균등침해의 적극요건에 관한 법리를 발전적으로 계승한 것으로 평가할 수 있다. 먼저 대상판결은 구성의 ‘변경’이라는 용어로 균등이 문제되는 영역에 관한 표현을 정리하였다. 대상판결은 과제해결원리의 동일성이라는 제1 요건에 관하여 ‘비본질적 부분’ 또는 ‘특징적 구성’이라는 개념으로 환원함이 없이 특허발명에 ‘특유한 해결수단’이 기초한 ‘기술사상의 핵심’이 무엇인지를 실질적으로 탐구하는 방법으로 제1 요건을 판단할 수 있음을 보여주었다는 데에 가장 중요한 의의가 있다. 또한 대상판결은 기술사상의 핵심과 관련 없는 관용적 기술수단을 채택함에 따른 부수적인 효과의 차이가 있더라도 작용효과가 실질적으로 동일하다고 볼 수 있다고 명시함으로써 제2 요건을 긍정할 수 있는 대표적인 유형을 제시하였고, 한편 목적의 동일성을 균등침해의 적극요건으로 더 이상 판시하지 않았다. 마지막으로 대상판결은 구성변경의 자명성이라는 제3 요건에 관한 법리설시를 정리하고 그 판단의 기준시점과 구체적인 판단방법에 관하여는 사건의 쟁점이 되지 아니한 관계로 설시를 유보하였다. 요컨대 대상판결은 제1 요건이 균등침해를 인정하는 데에 과도한 장벽이 될 수도 있었던 이론적·실무적 난점을 해소함으로써 장차 균등침해의 적극요건으로서 제2 요건과 제3 요건에 관한 구체적인 판단사례도 균형 있게 축적될 필요가 있다는 점을 시사하고 있다.

『사분의극략사기(四分義極略私記)』 능연소연문(能緣所緣門)의 연구

박인성 ( In Sung Park ) 한국불교선리연구원 2014 禪文化硏究 Vol.16 No.-

능연과 소연의 관계에 입각해서 4분을 연구하는 이 논문은 네 가지 논제를 다루 고 있다. 첫째는 상분의 심은 연려할 수 없다는 것, 둘째는 견분의 심은 연려할 수 있다는 것, 셋째는 증자증분은 견분을 연려할 수 없다는 것, 넷째는 4분은 같지도 않고 다르지도 않기에 유식의 이치가 성립한다는 것이다. 첫째, 색경 같은 상분이 능연이 될 수 없는 것과 마찬가지로, 제6의식의 대상이 된 전5식이나 제6의식도 능연이 될 수 없다. 그것들은 과정 중에 있는 심의 작용이 아니라, 기억이나 반성과 같은 제6의식의 작용들에 의해 대상화된 심이기 때문이다. 둘째, 견분의 심은 자증 분의 소연이긴 하지만 능연이 될 수 있다. 자증분은 능연의 체 상의 의용(義用)이기 때문이다. 셋째, 증자증분이 견분을 연려할 수 있다면 자증분을 연려하는 증자증분 을 다시 제5분이 연려할 수 있게 되어 무한소급의 오류를 범하게 된다. 넷째, 4분은 각각의 공능이 있기에 같지 않고 하나의 식체 상의 의용이기에 다르지 않다. 그래서 유식의 이치가 성립한다. 식체의 본질적 성격은 자증분과 증자증분에 있는데, 자증분이 초월적 관계에서 본 자기의식이라면 증자증분은 내재적 관계에서 본 자기의식 이라 할 수 있다. This paper is dealing with four topics, which are based on the relationship between the perceiving and the perceived. The first topic is about the fact that the consciousness as the seen part of the mind[相分] is not able to perceive the object. The second topic is about the fact that the consciousness as the seeing part of the mind[見分] is able to perceive the object. The third topic is about the fact that the authenticating of the self-authenticating of the mind[證自證分] is not able to perceive the seeing part of the mind The last topic is about the fact that the four parts of the mind is neither different nor similar and so the principle of the mind-only is achieved. First, in addition to the fact that the seen part of the mind like matter is not able to be the perceiving, the five consciousnesses like the eye-consciousness and the mono - consciousness are not able to be the perceiving, because they are the seen part of the mind inso far as they are the objects of the mono - consciousness. Those consciousnesses are not the acts in process, but have been objectified by the acts like the recollection or reflection. Second, even though the seeing part of the mind is the perceived of the self - authenticating part of mind, it can be the perceiving. The self - authenticating of the mind is not to objectify the seeing part of the mind, because the self - authenticating of the mind is the inherent function within the seeing part of the mind. Third, if the authenticating of the self - authenticating part of the mind[證自 證分] is able to perceive the seeing part of the mind, then the fifth part of the mind is able to perceive the authenticating of the self - authenticating part of the mind, and result in regressio in infinitum. However, there is no fallacy of regressio in infinitum because the self-authenticating part of the mind is able to perceive the authenticating of the self - authenticating part of the mind. Last, the principle of the mind-only is achieved, because each part of the mind has its own function related to each other, and all parts of the mind is inherently existent within the mind itself. The essential feature of the mind lies in both the self - authenticating part of the mind and the authenticating of the self - authenticating part of the mind. The self - authenticating part of the mind can be understood as the self - consciousness in relation to the transcendence, while the authenticaing of the self - authenticating part of the mind the self - awareness in relation to the immanence.

대통령 소속 위원회 운영과 행정조직법정주의

김호정 ( Kim Ho-jeong ) 한국외국어대학교 법학연구소 2007 외법논집 Vol.27 No.-

The current government has established numerous committees to deal with major pending issues under the name of enhancing the level of democracy and promoting efficiency and consistency of administration by cutting the red tape to overcome the existing decision-making mechanism that has been so much dependent upon the centralized power system and by providing various social groups with more chances to participate in the decision making process. Establishment and management of such committees has certain advantages in that it could promote the efficiency and consistency of administration by overcoming the departmentalism and by guaranteeing various social groups more chance for participating in the governmental decision making process. However, such effort has now encountered significant Constitutional problems. Empowered by Presidential decrees, those committees, which are mostly consultative bodies, are taking places of administrative bodies in establishing policies and playing an important role in execution and enforcement of such policies. We should note that these replacements are highly likely to be against the basic constitutional principles on construction and empowerment of administrative bodies, specifically against the principle that the essential parts of the governmental bodies shall be prescribed by law (hereinafter referred to as "the principle"). In other words, the Blue House and the chamber of Prime Minister have neglected in utilizing the existing administrative bodies. Instead, they began adopting amateur ideological political figures and established numerous committees, which are not empowered by law but authorized by Presidential decrees or Ministerial ordinances wishing that such effort could grow the power of the influential figures of current government. We can easily find plural examples of such deviling national administrations, which resulted in the division of national power and the abuse of authority. The main points of the criticism are as follows. First, the current government is flooded with too many committees. Owing to the over supply of committees, they have acted more often as spokesmen of government or have performed almost same function as the exiting administrative bodies, all of which led to the inefficiency of system and caused the financial problems. Second, management and empowerment of such committees inside of the government does not have solid constitutional or legal foundation. Moreover, we don’t have sufficient and efficient system to hold such committees in check, which have already gone beyond their legal powers. However, we should note that there are certain advantages in organizing and running such committees. The supporters for such committees argue that the departmentalism and short-term performance-based evaluation system can be overcome by operating such committees, paving the way to reflect fresh nongovernmental ideas to the policy making process. In light of these advantages, it is required to review the whole system of such committees to obtain solid legal ground. First of all, when an administrative committee is established by the law and an advisory committee is installed by Ordinance, based on Article 4 and 5 of Governmental Organization Law, this can not fall into a category of violation of basic constitutional rules of government organization and the principle. This is because the legislative power, based on Article 96 of Constitution, has discretion in establishing governmental bodies. In other words, the legislative power, judging from the nature of official role of each body, can put a committee in the supervision of Prime Minister, who shall follow orders from the President, or in the direct supervision of the President. With respect to an advisory committee, no legal problem can be pointed out, because even if it is operated under the direct supervision of the President, it shall not enjoy the executive powers. Therefore, there may be no problem in legal foundation for establishing these two committees, an administrative committee and an advisory committee. However, in regard of the committees directly responsible to the President, especially the advisory committee, it should be noted that there exist not a few legal issues involving the manner of exercising their powers. In spite that the extent of power for an advisory committee is limited to producing and preserving consultative opinions, it is often witnessed for such an advisory committee to take part in deliberation or decision making processes. Such exercise of powers are clearly out of constitutional and legal boundary, and therefore constitute a violation of the principle. In addition, if the President doesn't stop attempting to take advantage of such advisory committees in an effort to impede the deliberation powers of Cabinet council and utilizing such committees to exercise his powers in an arbitrary manner, his acts shall be deemed to be totally unconstitutional. These acts shall be regarded as unconstitutional challenges to disregard the current law and to incapacitate checks and balance system required of in the government. In conclusion, as discussed above, there exist a number of legal problems regarding the committees directly responsible to the President, especially the advisory committees. To deal with this, it is imperative to rearrange related laws in order to hold such committees in check and to make clear their duties and responsibilities.

부분디자인의 유사 판단에 관한 연구

안원모 한국지식재산학회 2009 産業財産權 Vol.- No.29

In the similarity judgment of the partial design, how the broken line, which was depicted on a drawing, will be treated becomes a problem. In relation to this, there is confrontation between the opinion of aiming to handle broken line importantly and the opinion of aiming to ignoring this. However, the broken line is an element that decides on location, size, and range in partial design, thereby being reasonable to consider this in the similarity judgment. That is because the location, size, and range in partial design may lead to occurrence of difference in light of aesthetic impression and to difference even in the appearance of confounding articles. Additionally in the similarity judgment of partial design, there is necessity for examining whether the article, which becomes object of design, is similar or not and whether the form in a part itself is similar or not. However, the function or the use in a part has no need to be considered in the similarity judgment. That is because the partial imitation may be made easily when article, which becomes the object of design, is same even in case of being different in partial function or use, and because there is necessity for preventing this.

부작위에 의한 양심실현의 자유 : 양심적 부작위는 거의 절대적으로 보호되어야 한다

오승철(Oh Sung Chol) 한국헌법학회 2009 憲法學硏究 Vol.15 No.2

양심적 병역거부에 관하여는 그 동안 많은 연구가 이루어졌다. 그렇지만, 다른 양심적 부작위들도(예: 국가보안법상 불고지죄) 양심적 병역거부의 경우 못지않게 많은 사람들의 인권을 심각하게 침해하고 있으며 그 해결 또한 시급한 실정이다. 그러므로, 양심적 병역거부의 문제와 별도로 양심적 부작위 일반에 대한 논의가 필요하다. 필자는 ‘부작위에 의한 양심실현의 자유’가 거의 절대적으로 보장되어야 한다고 주장한다. 그 근거로 (1)양심적 부작위가 ‘양심의 자유’와 ‘인간의 존엄과 가치’의 본질적 내용과 필연적으로 그리고 매우 절박하게 연결되어 있다는 것과, (2)양심적 부작위권이 정신적 자위권으로 인정되어야 한다는 것을 증명한다. 이 글에서 말하는 “양심적 부작위”는 일반적으로 거론되는 양심적 부작위의 일부만을 포함한다. 필자는 이것을 ‘좁은 의미의 양심적 부작위’라고 부르고, 그 구체적 내용을 제시한다. 끝으로, 양심적 부작위권에 대하여 실제로 존재하거나 예상되는 아홉 가지 반론들을 소개하고 이를 하나씩 반박한다. Lately in Korea there have been many discussions on the conscientious objection to the military service. However, the other types of conscientious objection, such as refusal to report a suspected violation of National Security Act to the authorities or refusal to solute Korean flag, infringe human rights as seriously as the case of the conscientious objection to the military service; and accordingly is necessary the discussions on the conscientious objection in general. The author argues that the conscientious objection in the narrow sense should be guaranteed with little qualification as if it is the essential part of the freedom of conscience. To prove the argument, the author shows (1) that the conscientious objection is necessarily and crucially connected with the essential part both of the freedom of conscience and of 'the dignity and worth of the human person,' and (2) that the conscientious objection should be protected as a right of mental self-defense. The author calls the conscientious objection in the narrow sense the “conscientious abstention,” and gives its detailed description. The author also recommends that the court draw on the Korean Penal Code Article 20 to avoid the conflict between her personal conscience and her professional conscience, in case where the Constitutional Court declares the applicable law that the court believes unconstitutional is constitutional. Finally, the author contradicts some real or hypothetical counterarguments against his theory.

경판 30장본 <홍길동전>과 박태원의 <홍길동전>의 기호학적 비교 연구

박태상(Tai Sang Park) 한국현대소설학회 2015 현대소설연구 Vol.- No.59

Is there any discrimination between <Biography of Hong Gildong> in the 30-wood block version and <Biography of Hong Gildong> by Taewon Park(or Gubo)? The two works feature characters similarly different in their personality. The former confirms that it`s based on ‘fantastic nature’ as shown in characters repeatedly transforming themselves into other forms, performing magic art of shortening distances and etc. through its heroic description of characters and novelistically unfolded narration while Gubo`s <Biography of Hong Gildong> confirms that it`s based on ‘dailiness’ and ‘historicity.’ Gil-dong the bottom end plate when seen in terms of the topic 30 main role in the ultimate quest is to ‘Elimination of discrimination jeoksseo’ that social issues, while Gubo pays attention to increasing this redundancy through experiments of creative writing. He increases redundancy through fictitious characters like Eumjeonee and Chosaengwon. That is, stories evolving around Chosaengwon fall under ‘essential elements.’ However, Gildong`s undertaking of the captain of Hwalbindang (a gang of outlaws who rob in order to help the poor) following Chosaengwon`s tip, raiding Hamgeong Provincial Office or planing the Haeinsa(a Buddhist temple) incident fall under ‘redundant elements.’ What`s a problem with Gubo`s work is that it shows limitations to its dynamic structure because it lacks links or connectivity to what falls under ‘essential elements’ such as Gildong`s whereabouts with Hwalbindang and to Sung Euian & Park Wongjong`s party which attempted to enthrone Jungjong. Regarding features & heterogeneity of epic structure, the 30-wood block version takes an chronologically epic structure that unfolds its story with the hero, Gildong`s life at center while Taewon Park`s <Biography of Hong Gildong> takes a two-tracked epic structure of Gildong`s activities with Hwalbindang and enthronement of Jungjong following dethronement of Monarch, Yeonsan. What the 30-wood block version gained through its mystic fantasia is only Hwalbindang`s reinforced activities helping the poor, and the composition of a utopia named ‘The Nation of Yeuldo’ which the work explores towards its close eventually makes an error of getting out of the politico-social system, instead of fighting within the system for innovation. Contrary to this, Gubo`s <Biography of Hong Gildong> brings forth increased ambivalence through Gildong`s activities, leading to open a new horizon by loosely knitting the room in the bell tower with the forces seeking to enthrone Jungjong. The classic <Biography of Hong Gildong> sets its directions; continuity & succession through compromise and negotiation while Gubo seeks after multi-sense dynamism of a new, free, creative world through an explosion(Enthronement of Jungjong) resulting from discontinuity & catastrophe, forsaking continuity & succession. This makes Gubo`s work very meaningful.