미국 연방민사소송규칙상의 소송참가에 관한 고찰

강수미 한국민사소송법학회 2011 민사소송 Vol.15 No.1

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure establishes only intervention requirements, doesn’t provide intervention effects. Federal Rule 24 distinguishes between intervention as of right and permissive intervention. When intervention as of right, there is an implicit judgment that the nonparty’s right to right to participate should predominate; when intervention is declared to be permissive only, the court must ascertain whether the interests of the original parties will be prejudiced by allowing the outsider access to the litigation. Whether the intervention sought is as of right or permissive, an application for leave to intervene must be timely. The court which shall decide as to whether or not to permit an intervention, intervenor’s status in the U. S. considers the concrete circumstances in the individual cases and the details of an intervenor’s interests. The discrimination between intervention as of right and permissive intervention is not practically definite and there is the tendency to consider miscellaneous factors in defining the boundaries of an intervenor’s authority. Therefore, it would seem that intervention is not perfect system. However, it is worthy of notice the operating situation that represents an attempt to adjust the competing interests of the existing parties and those who seeking to participate. When intervention is an issue, it is necessary to take the background to the intervention into consideration and accommodate the procedural rights of the original parties and the intervenor. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure establishes only intervention requirements, doesn’t provide intervention effects. Federal Rule 24 distinguishes between intervention as of right and permissive intervention. When intervention as of right, there is an implicit judgment that the nonparty’s right to right to participate should predominate; when intervention is declared to be permissive only, the court must ascertain whether the interests of the original parties will be prejudiced by allowing the outsider access to the litigation. Whether the intervention sought is as of right or permissive, an application for leave to intervene must be timely. The court which shall decide as to whether or not to permit an intervention, intervenor’s status in the U. S. considers the concrete circumstances in the individual cases and the details of an intervenor’s interests. The discrimination between intervention as of right and permissive intervention is not practically definite and there is the tendency to consider miscellaneous factors in defining the boundaries of an intervenor’s authority. Therefore, it would seem that intervention is not perfect system. However, it is worthy of notice the operating situation that represents an attempt to adjust the competing interests of the existing parties and those who seeking to participate. When intervention is an issue, it is necessary to take the background to the intervention into consideration and accommodate the procedural rights of the original parties and the intervenor.

보조참가 제도에 관한 재론(再論)

최광선 조선대학교 법학연구원 2019 法學論叢 Vol.26 No.2

Any third party interested in the result of a lawsuit may intervene in the lawsuit pending before the court in order to assist either party. Interest in the result of a lawsuit functions in deciding whether a third party can intervene an action. Interest in the result of a lawsuit should be related to the text of judgment not the reason for judgment. Interest in the result of a lawsuit should be legal cause. It is the matter whether intervention is admitted broadly or not. A judgment shall also be binding on an intervenor, if it does not fall under any one of the reason determined by Civil Procedure Act Article 77. With respect to application of Article 77, the nature of ‘effect of intervention’ is being discussed. Generally it is understood that effect of intervention is binding on intervened and intervenor. A defeated intervenor of former litigation can not set up against an intervened. Supplementary intervention can be abused to make lawsuits more complicated, but current Civil Procedure Act refuses significant retardation of the litigation procedures. It is possible to determine that intervention is th procedural mechanism by which someone seeks to become a party to an action that already commenced. So Supplementary intervention is a effective method to solve relevant disputes with all legally interested persons. It is necessary to adress the relevant lawsuits simultaneously through single lawsuit by admitting supplementary intervention. What is the relationship between interest of intervention and effect of intervention? The interest of intevention is one requirement of supplementary intervention. The effect of intervention is the result of supplementary intervention when intervened was defeated. If intervened won the case, the effect of intervention is not necessary. 보조참가는 소송의 계속 중에 그 소송의 결과에 관하여 이해관계를 가지는 제3자가당사자의 한쪽을 보조해서 승소판결을 받음으로서 그의 이익을 지킬 목적으로 소송절차에 참가하는 제도로서 제3자의 절차보장을 위한 제도이다. 사회가 복잡해져 갈수록원고와 피고 이외에도 그 소송으로 인하여 영향을 받는 사람이 늘고 있다. 만약 원고와 피고라는 양 당사자에게만 집중하여 분쟁을 해결한다면 이해관계인은 다시 소를 제기하는 방식으로 분쟁을 해결하는 수밖에 없다. 따라서 이해관계인이 존재하는 소송사건에서는 그 이해관계인도 절차권을 보장받아 본인의 이익을 보호할 수 있도록 제도를마련해야 한다. 현행법도 이를 위하여 다수당사자 제도를 마련하고 있는데 독립당사자참가, 공동소송참가 등은 그 요건이 엄격하여 활용도가 높은 편은 아니었다. 반면 보조참가는 민사소송 뿐만 아니라 행정소송에서도 자주 사용되고 있어 실무상 활용도는높은 편이라고 하겠다. 보조참가는 소송결과에 이해관계가 있으면 소송을 현저히 지연시킬 염려가 없는 한인정된다. 그런데 보조참가를 어떻게 볼 것인가에 따라 그 요건에 대한 해석론에도 차이가 발생하여 그 활용도에 차이가 생기게 된다. 소송결과에 대한 이해관계란 판결주문에 직접적으로 영향을 받는 관계이지만 ‘직접적’이라는 의미를 좁게 해석할 필요는없어 보인다. 당사자 한 쪽이 패소하면 제3자가 구상 또는 손해배상을 부담하는 전통적인 관계는 당연히 참가의 이익이 있다. 나아가 제3자의 법률상 지위가 소송당사자의지위에 의존하고 있는 경우에도 참가의 이익이 있다고 해석해야 한다(예를 들어 채권자의 주채무자에 대한 소송에 보증인이 참가). 제3자의 구상권이 당사자 사이의 소송의 결과에 좌우되는 경우에도 참가의 이익이 있다고 해석할 필요가 있다는 점이다. 이경우는 참가인의 권리 또는 법률상 지위에 현존하는 위험이 있다고 한다면 참가가 유효적절한 수단이며 특히 소송에 현저한 지장을 주지 않을 경우 참가의 이익이 있다고볼 수 있다고 생각한다. 그렇다면 참가의 이익과 참가적 효력은 어떠한 관계를 가지는가? 전통적으로 참가의 이익을 좁게 해석한다면 원래의 소송에서 패소하였을 경우 반드시 참가적 효력을통하여 후소에서 구상권 등이 문제되는 사안에서 보조참가가 기능하게 될 것이다. 그러나 참가적 효력은 원래의 소송에서 피참가인이 승소했을 경우라면 특별히 문제가 되지 않는 효력이다. 따라서 참가의 이익과 참가적 효력이 반드시 필연적인 관계를 맺을필요는 없으며 참가의 이익이 인정되어 참가인이 소송절차에서 다투어야 한다면 참가적 효력이 반드시 구상권 등 청구권으로 실현되어야 할 필요는 없다고 생각한다.

편면참가의 법적 성질에 대한 고찰

오시영 한국민사소송법학회 2010 民事訴訟 : 韓國民事訴訟法學會誌 Vol.14 No.2

The ‘either side intervention’ system under ‘intervention as independent party’ principle has been incorporated in the current code of civil procedure in Korea. However, scholars still have tendencies to discuss the legal nature of either side intervention system under representative doctrines regarding the legal nature of ‘both side intervention’ system, such as ‘the indispensible co-litigation’ theory, ‘the merger of the original lawsuit and intervention’ theory, ‘the three litigation merger’ theory, and ‘the three sides co-litigation’ theory. Furthermore, because either side intervention is totally different from both sides intervention in every legal questions regarding necessity of consolidation/confirmation of decision, count of the object of a lawsuit,legal effect of withdrawal of legal case or intervention, necessity of consolidation/confirmation of decision in appellate trial in cases of withdrawal, acceptance, and reconciliation by one-side of the parties to a suit, approval of effect of excluding further litigation to a party who is not intervened by participant, legal discussion on this new system has been inadequate for full understanding of its legal nature. Therefore, to reflect fundamental differences between either side intervention and both sides intervention into the related legal discussion, I suggest to discuss the legal nature of both sides intervention under the theory for the merger of three parties and three lawsuit and to argue the legal nature of either side intervention under the theory for the merger of three parties and two lawsuit. Furthermore, my approach will explain why the Article 67 of the Korean Code of Civil Procedure, special rule regarding necessary joint action should be applied to either side intervention, which legal essential is closely related to that of a common joint action. Finally, I expect that my new argumentation, the theory for the merger of three parties and two lawsuit about either side intervention and the theory for the merger of three parties and three lawsuit about both sides intervention, will be actively discussed in legal academia. 현행 민사소송법은 독립당사자참가(intervention as independent party) 중 편면참가(Either Side Intervention)제도를 도입하였다. 그런데 그 법적 성질에 대한연구가 미흡하여, 쌍면참가의 법적 성질에 대한 학설인 공동소송설(the indispensible co-litigation), 주참가소송병합설(the theory for the merger of the original lawsuit and intervention), 3개소송병합설(the three litigation merger theory), 3면소송설(the three sides co-litigation theory) 등이 여전히 주장될 뿐이다. 그러나 편면참가는쌍면참가(both sides intervention)와 비교해 볼 때 판결결과의 합일·확정필요성여부, 소송물을 몇 개라고 볼 것인지, 본소나 참가신청의 취하에 따른 법적 효과,당사자 일방의 청구의 포기나 인낙 및 화해의 경우, 상소심에서의 판결의 합일·확정여부, 非被參加人(party who is not intervened by participant)에 대한 기판력인정 여부 등에서 그 법적 효과가 차이가 있을 수밖에 없다. 따라서 종래의 쌍면참가에 대한 법적 성질을 편면참가에 원용하여서는 편면참가의 효과를 제대로 규명할 수 없는 한계에 직면하게 되었다. 그리하여 필자는,쌍면참가의 법적 성질을 3당사자3개소송병합설(the theory for the merger of three parties and three lawsuit)의 입장에서, 편면참가의 법적 성질을 3당사자2개소송병합설(the theory for the merger of three parties and two lawsuit)의 입장에서 새롭게 고찰하고자 한다. 필자가 편면참가 및 쌍면참가에 대하여 주장하는 3당사자2개소송병합설이나 3당사자3개소송병합설을 따르게 되면, 앞서 양자가 효과면에서 차이가 있을 수밖에 없는 위 문제점들에 대한 해결책이 제시될 수있다고 본다. 뿐만 아니라 그 본질이 통상공동소송에 속하는 편면참가에 대하여필수적 공동소송에 관한 특칙인 민사소송법 제67조가 적용되어야 하는 절차법적당위를 제대로 설명할 수 있다고 하겠다. 앞으로 학계에서, 필자가 주장하는 새로운 견해인 편면참가에 대한 3당사자2개소송병합설, 쌍면참가에 대한 3당사자3개소송병합설에 대하여, 비판적 견해가 있기를 기대한다.

Behavioral Interventions for Autism Spectrum Disorder: A Brief Review and Guidelines With a Specific Focus on Applied Behavior Analysis

정경미,정은선,이후명 대한소아청소년 정신의학회 2024 소아청소년정신의학 Vol.35 No.1

We conducted a comprehensive review of behavioral and educational interventions for individuals with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). The most prominent type of intervention, Comprehensive Early Intervention, often referred to as Early Intensive Behavioral Intervention (EIBI), has been found to be particularly effective in improving intelligence and adaptive behaviors. The naturalistic developmental behavioral intervention, designed to enhance social and communication abilities, showed effectiveness in improving language, cognitive function, and social initiation. However, more studies are needed to examine its effectiveness. Intensive individualized intervention, which provides a tailored intervention for a specific target behavior, was effective in improving social skills and communication, as well as reducing sleep, eating, and toileting problems. Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) is the most effective method for dealing with emotional difficulties, but it has not been widely used because of the shortage of trained experts. Parent-mediated intervention (PMI) involves parents acquiring knowledge and specific skills to improve their child’s functioning or reduce challenging behaviors. Speech and language therapy, sensory integration, Treatment and Education of Autistic and related Communications Handicapped Children, developmental approaches, and social stories are frequently used interventions. However, evidence of their effectiveness has yet to be well established. Based on these findings, intervention recommendations for autism include EIBI, Early Start Denver Model, intensive individualized intervention, CBT, and PMI. The choice of intervention should be tailored to the individual’s needs and delivered by qualified professionals with expertise in the specific intervention.

인권기반 경찰 동료개입프로그램의 한국형 모델에 관한 고찰: 동조와 복종의 선행연구를 중심으로

이창용 경찰대학 치안정책연구소 2023 치안정책연구 Vol.37 No.1

The Rights-Based Korean Police Peer Intervention Program is a program that prevents colleagues who become aware of misconduct from intervening immediately to maintain or exacerbate misconduct. Starting in 2020, the National Police Agency has recruited and trained instructors to teach The Rights-Based Korean Police Peer Intervention Program among incumbent police. Since than, in 2022, 20% of all police stations will be designated as pilot management offices, and mass-produced instructors will educate front-line police on fellow intervention programs. As such, This program continues to spread. Currently, the main content of the Korean-style human rights-based police peer intervention program is the character of each technical and microscopic approach, such as Background of the Appearance of The program, Disadvantages that may occur when fellow police who discover unjust or unlawful conduct do not intervene and intervention method, etc. Theoretic and macroscopic approaches, such as the theoretical background of peer intervention, are relatively deficient because they do not present any other theories other than Active Bystandership. This lack of theoretical background may lead to poor understanding of peer intervention and poor empathy formation to the need for peer intervention. As a result, police officers who have learned this educational program may not use the learned program when they encounter situations requiring peer intervention. or Problems such as public complaints can be caused by distorted peer intervention that deviates from the original purpose. Repeated situations like this can create an atmosphere in which a peer intervention program is not needed. Therefore, in order to improve educational comprehension of the peer Intervention Program, it is necessary to organize the theoretical background of the main contents of this program. In addition, I studied the US colleague intervention program, which was the starting point of the The Rights-Based Korean Police Peer Intervention Program. and I would like to propose a more systematic educational program design by including the theoretical background for conformity and obedience, which may become an obstacle to the ethical police activity of peer intervention, in the educational content. 한국형 인권기반 경찰 동료개입프로그램이란 경찰의 부당 행위가 발생하였을 때 이를 인지한 동료 경찰이 즉각 개입하여 부당행위의 유지 및 악화를 예방하는 프로그램으로 경찰청은 2020년부터 현직 경찰 중 한국형 인권기반 경찰 동료개입프로그램을 교육할 강사를 모집·양성하였다. 이후 2022년 전 경찰관서 중 20%를 시범운영 관서로 지정하여 양산된 강사들에게 일선 경찰을 상대로 동료개입 프로그램을 교육하는 등 한국형 경찰 동료개입프로그램의 확산을 위한 활동을 지속하고 있다. 현재 한국형 인권기반 경찰 동료개입프로그램의 주요 내용은 본 프로그램이 나오게 된 배경, 부당·불법한 행위를 발견한 동료 경찰이 개입하지 않으면 발생할 수 있는 불이익 및 개입하는 방법 등 기술적이고 미시적인 접근의 각론 성격이 주 내용을 이루고 있다. 반면에 동료개입의 이론적 배경과 같은 원론적이고 거시적인 접근은 적극적 주변인(Active Bystander) 이외의 다른 이론을 제시하고 있지 않아 상대적으로 부족한 면을 가지고 있다. 이와 같은 이론적 배경의 결여는 동료개입에 대한 이해 궐여와 동료개입의 필요성에 대한 공감대 형성 부족으로 연결될 수 있고 이는 본 교육 프로그램을 학습한 경찰이 동료개입 필요 상황을 마주쳤을 때 동료개입을 하지 않거나 본래의 취지를 벗어난 왜곡된 동료개입으로 민원 야기 등의 문제를 발생시킬 수 있다. 또한 이와 같은 상황이 반복되다면 동료개입 프로그램 무용론으로 이어질 수 있기에, 동료개입 프로그램에 대한 교육 이해도를 높이기 위해서는 본 프로그램의 주요 내용에 대한 이론적 배경을 정리할 필요가 있다. 이에 한국형 인권기반 경찰 동료개입프로그램의 시발점이 된 미국의 동료개입 프로그램을 살펴보고 동료개입이라는 윤리적 경찰 활동에 장애가 될 수 있는 동조와 복종에 대한 이론적 배경을 교육내용에 포함함으로써, 좀 더 체계적인 교육프로그램 설계를 제시하고자 한다.

국내외 아동 말더듬 중재에 대한 문헌 고찰

김효정,신명선 한국언어치료학회 2019 言語治療硏究 Vol.28 No.2

Purpose : Many techniques for childhood stuttering interventions have been proposed and used. The purpose of this study was to examine the types of childhood stuttering interventions by reviewing the interventions for child stuttering in Korea and abroad. Methods : The subjects of this study were 82 childhood stuttering intervention studies published from 1990 to 2018. The status of research was confirmed by year, subject, type of intervention, measurement variables, and the characteristics of the studies were examined by type of intervention. Results : The number of studies in the 2000s was largest by period, but then decreased. The proportion of school-age children was highest in Korea and the ratio of preschool children was highest abroad. The proportion of speech motor intervention was highest in Korea, and the ratio of direct intervention by parents including Lidcombe program was highes abroad. The measurement variables showed the highest frequency of stuttering or disfluency. Intervention types were separated parent involved intervention and intervention by SLP. In detail, parent education and interaction intervention, parent direct intervention, behavior modification intervention, speech motor intervention, feedback and technique intervention, and multiple elements intervention were categorized. Finally, papers comparing intervention were categorized separately. Conclusions : There are differences in the research trends of domestic and foreign studies on the status of childhood stuttering intervention. In addition, it is necessary to verify the effectiveness of parental direct intervention on the domestic environment and to conduct intervention studies that meet the criteria of evidence-based research. In this study, we can summarize the previously published childhood stuttering interventions as a whole and hope that they will be useful for selecting children's stuttering intervention techniques in clinical settings. 목적: 아동 말더듬 중재에 대하여 많은 기법들이 제시되어 사용되고 있다. 국내외에 발표된 아동말더듬 중재 연구의 고찰을 통하여 아동 말더듬 중재의 유형을 확인하고, 중재유형에 따른 대상자특성, 중재 특성, 측정변수 등을 확인하고자 하였다. 방법: 연구대상은 1990년부터 2018년까지국내외에서 발표된 아동 말더듬 중재 연구로 선정기준에 적합한 82편의 연구를 대상으로 하였다. 연도별, 대상자별, 중재유형별, 측정변수에 따라 연구현황을 확인하였고, 중재유형별로 연구들의특성을 조사하였다. 결과: 시기별로는 2000년대의 연구의 수가 많았으나 이후 감소되는 추세를보였다. 중재연구의 대상은 국내에서는 학령기 아동의 비율이 높았고, 국외에서는 취학전 아동의비율이 높았다. 중재유형에 따라서는 국내에서는 구어운동 중재의 비율이 높았고, 국외에서는Lidcombe 프로그램을 포함한 부모 직접 중재의 비율이 높았다. 측정변수는 말더듬 또는 비유창성빈도가 가장 높게 나타났다. 중재유형별 분석을 위하여 부모개입 중재에는 부모 교육을 포함한상호작용 중재와 부모 직접 중재를 나누었고, 치료사 중심 중재에는 행동수정 중재, 구어운동 중재, 피드백 및 기기 중재, 다중요소 중재로 구분하였고, 마지막으로 중재비교 연구를 분석하였다. 결론: 아동 말더듬 중재 연구의 현황에서 국내와 국외의 연구 동향의 차이가 있었다. 국내 환경을 기반으로부모직접 중재의 효과 검증이 더 필요하며, 근거기반 연구의 기준에 부합하는 중재 연구가 필요하다. 본 연구를 통해 이전에 발표된 아동 말더듬 중재를 전반적으로 정리할 수 있었으며, 임상현장에서 아동말더듬 중재 기법 선택에 도움이 될 것으로 기대한다.

The Use of Force, Humanitarian Intervention, and the Responsibility to Protect

OH, Byung-Sun(오병선) 대한국제법학회 2011 國際法學會論叢 Vol.56 No.4

이 논문은 2011년 리비아의 내전으로 인한 양민학살과 대량난민이 발생한 사태에서 UN과 NATO의 인도적 간섭이 수행된 선례를 통해 북한의 급변사태에서 일어날 수도 있는 유사한 문제를 고찰한다. 즉 리비아 사태와 유사한 대규모의 인권유린의 참상이 북한에서 일어나는 경우 국제사회의 인도적 간섭이 이루어질 수 있는가 여부를 통해 인도적 간섭과 보호책임의 법리를 고찰한다. 인권유린의 참상이 일어난 나라에 대하여 그 인접국들이나 국제사회에서 무력을 사용하여 개입하는 소위 인도적 간섭의 허용여부에 대하여 이 논문은 먼저 인도적 간섭 부정설, 실정국제법 준거의 긍정설, 관습국제법 준거의 긍정설의 세 가지 접근법을 검토한다. 현대 국제법체제하에서 인도적 간섭에 의한 무력행사는 UN 안전보장이사회의 수권이 있는 경우에만 그 적법성을 인정받는다고 보는 것이 보통이지만 예외적으로 UN 안보리의 수권이 없더라도 부득이 인도적 간섭을 허용해야만 하는 경우를 고찰한다. 이 논문에서 필자는 1999년 코소보사태에서 UN의 수권을 받지 않은 상태에서 NATO의 무력에 의한 인도적 간섭과 같은 경우 이를 정당화할 수 있는 논증방법은 관습국제법에서만 그 근거를 가장 잘 찾아볼 수 있다는 주장을 하고 있다. UN헌장 제2조4항의 무력행사의 금지의 원칙, 제2조7항의 타국의 국내문제불간섭의 원칙, 그리고 UN헌장 제7장의 안전보장이사회의 무력행사 통제권과 같은 현행 실정국제법 체제의 범위 내에서 안전보장이사회의 수권 없이 인접국가집단이나 지역기구 등에 의한 소위 ‘일방적 인도적 간섭’을 현대 국제법체제 이전인 근대국제법의 성립이래 인정되고 발전되어 온 인도적 간섭에 관한 관습국제법의 원리에서 찾으려는 노력을 하고 있다. 요컨대, 인도적 간섭은 국가의 주권존중과 함께 인권보장에 역점을 두어야 하는 국제적 법치주의의 원리 하에서 적법성과 정당성을 확보하기 위하여 구비해야 할 최소한의 요건들은 갖추어야 한다. 이는 정당한 전쟁론이 요구하는 조건들로서 유권적 권위가 인정될 수 있는 국가집단이나 국제기구의 정당한 동기와 목적이 인정되어야 한다. 또한 예외적이고 최종적인 선택성, 무력행사에 따른 가해와 피해예방과의 비례성, 집단적 행사 요건 등을 충족하여야 한다. This paper attempts to analyze the conditions to be met in the case of armed intervention for humanitarian purpose. Under the current regime of international law, a most controversial issue of international law today is that if and when without UN Security Council authorization or General Assembly action, any use of armed force for humanitarian intervention would be regarded as lawful or not. Because of inaction from Security Council owing to veto power wielded by Permanent Member states or no endorsement from General Assembly due to lack of consensus among member states, there arises a legal impasse of being no action for supporting a proposed case of humanitarian intervention, overlooking the human rights catastrophe. With these cases the overwhelming majority of contemporary legal opinion has been addressed against the existence of a right of humanitarian intervention. The rationale to defend conservatively the current collective security framework of the UN Charter is that at most the doctrine of humanitarian intervention has a tenuous basis, not yet crystallized, in current international customary law. On the other hand, still a substantial body of opinion and of practice has supported the view that when a state commits cruelties against and persecution of its nationals in such a way as to deny their fundamental human rights and to shock the conscience of mankind, intervention in the interest of humanity is legally permissible. My position in this paper is to take an affirmative approach to the issue based on customary rule of international law. Although careful analysis is needed for armed intervention to pass the current criteria of legality under international law system, a genuine case of humanitarian intervention should not be frustrated which might be caused by malfunctioning of UN driven not by interest of peoples but by interest of super power countries. Conditions to pass for humanitarian intervention by intervening states would be as follows: first, when faced with an overwhelming humanitarian catastrophe, which a government has shown it is unwilling or unable to prevent or is actively promoting, the international community should intervene. Because Intervention in internal affairs of other country is a sensitive issue, so there must be convincing evidence of extreme humanitarian distress on a large scale, requiring urgent relief. it must be objectively clear that there is no practical alternative to the use of force to save lives; secondly, any use of force should be proportionate to achieving the humanitarian purpose and carried out in accordance with international law; thirdly, any use of force should be collective. No individual state can reserve to itself the right to act on behalf of the international community. Furthermore in some extreme cases such as genocide or crime against humanity, a right of humanitarian intervention may be turn into a duty to intervene where the doctrine of responsibility to protect would be employed. At present this doctrine of responsibility to protect may be better justified in terms of enhancing the legitimacy of international law system rather than by merely satisfying the legality of its action under current system of international law. In this regard I would take an affirmative view on the possibility of humanitarian intervention in an extreme case of human rights catastrophe. With this view I would take also an affirmative stance in the case of probable North Korean crisis of human rights catastrophe with a similar magnitude and gravity. If the escalating worst scenario of the chaos and humanitarian catastrophe in North Korea would bring forth an international intervention to stabilize the situation in North Korea. then such an event requires aforementioned conditions to be met for permitting humanitarian intervention.

공동소송적 보조참가의 허용요건으로서 참가이익에 관한 검토

최성호 전남대학교 법학연구소 2013 법학논총 Vol.33 No.2

Calling it joint action assisting intervention says the case where the third partydoes assisting intervention by the lawsuit which the effect of a trial exerts on a thirdparty (intervenor). In the civil procedure, specific provisions on joint actionintervention for assistance are established, and as for joint action intervention forassistance, the effectiveness of a trial reaches to the intervener. Therefore, in order torestrain lawsuit process damaging benefit of the intervener, special provisions wereestablished on mandatory joint action related to litigation of intervener(Article 78). The question is whether legislation of joint action intervention for assistance isnot sufficient. It is setting up a concrete standard clearly to the requirement alsounder the matter over the permissible level of joint action assisting intervention. As for the writer, joint action assisting intervention must satisfy the requirementsfor assisting intervention first. And although the effect of judgment to an intervenordid, however when an intervenor was not permitted legal standing, it was definedas being a form which participates in a lawsuit.(Article 71 of Code of CivilProcedure)After all in which the participating profits (it is an interest to a lawsuit result)whose joint action assisting intervention is the requirements for enactment ofcommercial assisting intervention must exist. (same Article 78 of law) which theeffect of a trial must exert on an intervenor next Therefore, just by there being“profits of assisting intervention”, it is said that joint action assisting intervention ismaterialized. After all, in order to materialize joint action assisting intervention, you have to provide the profits of the participation which is a formation element ofassisting intervention. (Article 71 of Code of Civil Procedure)The profits of participation are the interests accompanying a lawsuitresult(same Article 78 of law), therefore joint action assisting intervention whichthe effect of a trial must exert on an intervenor next must be an intervenor who hasprofits of assisting intervention in enactment carrying out. 공동소송적 보조참가라 함은 재판의 효력이 제3자(참가인)에게 미치는 소송에서그 제3자가 보조참가를 하는 경우를 말한다. 민소 제78조에서 ‘공동소송적 보조참가’라는 제목으로 재판의 “효력이 참가인에게도 미치는 경우에는 그 참가인과 피참가인에 대하여 제67조 및 제69조를 준용한다” 고 규정하고 있을 뿐, 구체적으로 공동소송적 보조참가의 허용기준에 대한 사항이나, 그 요건에 대하여서는 구체적인 기준이 마련되어 있지 않은 상태이다. 그러나 이러한 참가인에게는 재판의 효력이 미치는 경우이기 때문에 절차보장이라고 하는 목적을 충분히 달성되는 소송절차상의 지위가 보장되어야 하는 한편, 기존의 본소송의 당사자들에게 보조참가인과는 달리 일정한 독립적 지위가 부여되어 기존의 당사자의 소송행위 내지 법률관계에 주도적으로 간여할 수 있다는 양면성을 가지는 점에서 공동소송적 보조참가의 허용기준을 명확하게설정할 필요가 있는 것이다. 필자는 공동소송적 보조참가는 우선 보조참가의 요건을 충족하는 경우, 그 참가인에게 판결의 효력이 미치나 그 소송절차에서 참가인에게 당사자적격이 인정되지 않는 경우에 허용되는 소송참가의 형태라고 정의하였다. 결국, 공동소송적 보조참가의 허용기준은 보조참가의 허용기준인 “소송결과에 이해관계”가 존재하여야 하고(민소 제71조), 그 다음에 재판의 효력이 참가인에게 미쳐야 하는(민소 제78조) 각각의 기준을 충족하여야 한다는 입장이다. 이에 공동소송적보조참가의 성립은 결국 “보조참가의 이익” 이라는 기준을 충족하여야 할 것이다.

Effectiveness of Interventions to Increase Screening for Gastric and Colorectal Cancer in Korea

Hong, Nam Soo,Kam, Sin Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention 2014 Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention Vol.15 No.21

Public health centers in Korea play an important role at the community level in encouraging residents to participate in cancer screening, usually by sending reminders in the mail and by making phone calls. However, there have not been any studies on the effectiveness of these interventions by public health centers in Korea. The purpose of this study was to evaluate this question. The study was limited to male subjects aged 50-59 years living in one district of Daegu, Korea. A total of 923 subjects were selected for the study among the target population for gastric and colorectal cancer screening as part of the National Cancer Screening Program in 2012. The subjects were randomly assigned to one of four groups: control, postal intervention, telephone intervention, and telephone and postal intervention. Three months after the interventions, the results were confirmed by the National Health Insurance Corporation. Logistic regression analyses were performed to find differences in participation rates in cancer screening for each group. Men who received telephone and postal intervention were most likely (40.5%) to undergo gastric cancer screening, in comparison to the men who received telephone intervention only (31.7%), postal intervention only (22.2%) and those in the control group (17.9%). Also, men who received telephone and postal intervention were most likely (27.8%) to participate in colorectal cancer screening, followed by the men who received telephone intervention only (24.3%), postal intervention only (16.5%), and men in the control group (13.5%). Combined telephone and postal intervention and telephone only intervention as well produced significantly increased rates of participation in cancer screening in comparison to the control group. There was no significant difference, however, between the postal intervention only and control groups for either colorectal or gastric cancer screening.

공동소송적 보조참가

김원태 한국민사소송법학회 2010 민사소송 Vol.14 No.1

In the new civil procedure, specific provisions on joint action intervention for assistance are established, and as for joint action intervention for assistance, the effectiveness of a trial reaches to the intervener. Therefore, in order to restrain lawsuit process damaging benefit of the intervener, special provisions were established on mandatory joint action related to litigation of intervener(Article 78). The question is whether legislation of joint action intervention for assistance is sufficient to attain the purpose of procedural guarantees of those who are related to the lawsuit. The purpose of this study is to examine benefit of intervention as a requisite of joint action intervention for assistance, status in lawsuit of intervener, and means of procedural guarantees, focused on domestic litigation. In general, it must not be concluded that there is benefit of intervention only from the fact that a third party is affected by a trial; in addition to extension of the effectiveness of a trial, a third party should have his/her own legal benefit that should be protected through intervention. In order for a third party to use joint action intervention for assistance, the presumption is that pending of lawsuit is known. To guarantee is, it may be desirable to introduce notification of pending of lawsuit by the family court. It may be appropriate that the scope of mandatory notification of pending of lawsuit by the court should be limited to those whose position as status may be depended on ruling of domestic litigation, or more especially, to those whose position as status such as conjugal relations or parenthood may be depended on. Also, in order to perform ex post facto relief for a third party who could not make his/her own claim because no opportunity to participate in the relevant procedure during pending of the lawsuit due to incompleteness of procedural guarantees in advance, it may be desirable to establish regulations on demand for review nonparty such as Article 31, Administrative Litigation Act. In the new civil procedure, specific provisions on joint action intervention for assistance are established, and as for joint action intervention for assistance, the effectiveness of a trial reaches to the intervener. Therefore, in order to restrain lawsuit process damaging benefit of the intervener, special provisions were established on mandatory joint action related to litigation of intervener(Article 78). The question is whether legislation of joint action intervention for assistance is sufficient to attain the purpose of procedural guarantees of those who are related to the lawsuit. The purpose of this study is to examine benefit of intervention as a requisite of joint action intervention for assistance, status in lawsuit of intervener, and means of procedural guarantees, focused on domestic litigation. In general, it must not be concluded that there is benefit of intervention only from the fact that a third party is affected by a trial; in addition to extension of the effectiveness of a trial, a third party should have his/her own legal benefit that should be protected through intervention. In order for a third party to use joint action intervention for assistance, the presumption is that pending of lawsuit is known. To guarantee is, it may be desirable to introduce notification of pending of lawsuit by the family court. It may be appropriate that the scope of mandatory notification of pending of lawsuit by the court should be limited to those whose position as status may be depended on ruling of domestic litigation, or more especially, to those whose position as status such as conjugal relations or parenthood may be depended on. Also, in order to perform ex post facto relief for a third party who could not make his/her own claim because no opportunity to participate in the relevant procedure during pending of the lawsuit due to incompleteness of procedural guarantees in advance, it may be desirable to establish regulations on demand for review nonparty such as Article 31, Administrative Litigation Act.