노인주거의 설계기준(완)

강병근,Kang, Byoung-Keun 대한건축사협회 1996 建築士 Vol.1996 No.12

ISDS로 인한 규제권 제한 관련 주요 쟁점과 각국의 대응 태도에 관한 연구

강병근(Pyoungkeun Kang) 법무부 국제법무정책과 2020 통상법률 Vol.- No.147

신림1구역 재개발, 신속통합기획 의도와 실제

강병근(Kang, Byoung-Keun) 대한건축학회 2023 建築 Vol.68 No.1

여객자동차터미널의 장애물 없는 생활환경 인증 평가에 관한 연구

강병근 ( Byoung-keun Kang ),강태성 ( Tae-sung Kang ),김상운 ( Sang-woon Kim ),이주형 ( Joo-hyung Lee ) 한국의료복지건축학회(구 한국의료복지시설학회) 2016 의료·복지 건축 Vol.22 No.2

Purpose: Caring for weak person in society, which increases the population of the elderly and people with disabilities is essential. By increasing along with the increase of the use of passenger facilities for travelers and pedestrian is increasing the demand for convenient and secure facilities for everyone. The emerging importance of the passenger-related facilities, but a representative study of the bus terminal facilities is lacking. Bus terminals are the most popular passenger facility. Thus, the bus terminal can be conveniently used by anyone in everyday life, however, the applied elements considering the use of the transportation Poor are not sufficient. Methods: This study was conducted to evaluate BF certification standards targeting bus terminals across the country to determine the availability of the transportation Poor in bus terminal. Result: As a result of the bus Terminal possibility BF certified it appeared to be very low. Also, items received the lowest rating of each item was evaluated in the informative facilities and items. Bus terminal is a facility used by the unspecified individuals, the proportion of first-time user is high, but there is a lack of consideration for the transportation Poor bus terminals. Implications: In the future, this study can guide the next research on the application of BF certification standards in bus terminal. Further studies can be presented to the improvement of the BF certification indicator in bus terminal.

장애인 및 노약자의 생활시설 통합모델 설정을 위한 조사연구 -해외 시범사업 사례를 중심으로-

강병근 ( Byoung Keun Kang ),성기창 ( Ki Chang Seong ),박광재 ( Kwang Jae Park ),윤영삼 ( Young Sam Yun ),김상운 ( Sang Woon Kim ),이주형 ( Joo Hyung Lee ) 한국의료복지건축학회 2009 의료·복지 건축 Vol.15 No.2

특수학급 공간구성에 대한 특수학급교사의 의식에 관한 연구

강병근 ( Byoung Keun Kang ),성기창 ( Ki Chang Seong ),김진철 ( Jin Chul Kim ) 한국의료복지건축학회 2009 의료·복지 건축 Vol.15 No.2

시각장애인 점자블록의 현황조사 및 실효성 분석에 관한 연구

강병근(Kang Byoung-Keun),성기창(Seong Ki-Chang),박광재(Park Kwang-Jae),윤영삼(Yun Young-Sam),김은경(Kim Eun-Kyoung) 대한건축학회 2007 대한건축학회논문집 Vol.23 No.11

Although the『The Law Related to Guarantee of Promoting Convenience for Handicapped, Elderly and Pregnant Women』 enacted in 1997 has become effective to install raised blocks which is convenient facility for blind people at sidewalks and buildings, the reality is that there's a serious need of groundwork research such as the analysis of its usage because its actual usage is low, there are many instances of installing wrong convenient facilities that aren't helpful in promoting convenience of disabled and many wasteful factors exist such as the low investment effect compared to expenses. Also, the reality is that the raised block itself made for the blind becomes a hindering factor for non-disabled or other types of handicapped people and its effectiveness hasn't been verified even for blind people. Therefore, we are at a point where its accurate verification and considerations have to be accomplished. Although the raised blocks aren't very effective and suitable for blind people to walk independently in present circumstances for installation, the installation is necessary for few users who are in desperate need while the "the principle of securing safe areas" and "warning-centered installation method" would have to be improved progressively in order to add safety and effectiveness to the installation site and the method.

장애인 자립생활센터의 서비스 프로그램과 공간구성에 관한 연구

강병근(Kang Byoung-Keun),김상운(Kim Sang-Woon),윤영삼(Yun Young-Sam),정은영(Jung Eun-Young) 대한건축학회 2008 대한건축학회논문집 Vol.24 No.9

The purpose of this study is to offer the basic information that will be needed when center for independent living for disabled people are built. In order to make it clear, analysis surveys have been taken, such as space composition, and area distribution. Some other programs form the center that's already operating as a model. The results of the study follow in short form: 1) Support of independent living, experience and education programs has been operating, and they have been doing in limited space by space management mainly. 2) It has been operating without considering systematic construction's design, so there is a quite shortage of space. It turned out that they would need the passage to use a wheelchair, and consider a business room and a toilet. 3) Form what we survey, they would probably need a consultation room and education room, and have to consider a service room for volunteers. 4) They have been designed to function on a small scale, a medium scale and large scale depending on the need, but first of all a small scale example will be provided.

국제법적 관점에서 본 일제강제징용 배상판결의 주요쟁점에 관한 연구

강병근(Pyoungkeun Kang) 한국법학원 2014 저스티스 Vol.- No.143

최근 대한민국의 각급 법원에서 내려지고 있는 강제징용관련 판결은 법과 역사 양쪽에 모두 걸쳐 있는 매우 의미 있는 판결들이다. 이들 판결의 내용 중 국제공법과 관련한 사항으로서 가장 두드러진 부분은 원고의 청구권이 1965년 청구권 협정으로 소멸되지 않았기에 원고들이 피고를 상대로 해당 청구권을 행사할 수 있다는 점이다. 국내 국제법학계에서는 1965년 청구권 협정의 내용 중 청구권에 강제징용으로 인한 손해배상 청구권이 포함된다는 의견이 매우 강하다. 이러한 입장은 2005년 민관공동위원회의 정리의견 중 일부 내용과 대한민국 정부의 추후 관행을 근거로 하고 있다. 이러한 이견을 종식시키는 첩경은 1965년 청구권 협정 자체와 부속 합의서 등을 분석하는 것이다. 적어도 청구권협정의 문언에 따르면 제1조에 의해 일본 정부가 대한민국 정부에 지급한 경제협력자금은 제2조에 의한 권리문제의 해결과 법적 대가관계에 있지 않다. 이 점에서 대법원의 판단은 논리적으로 타당하다. 문제는 소위 추후관행으로 1965년 청구권 협정의 규정을 달리 해석할 수 있는지의 여부이다. 한국 정부는 군대위안부와 관련해서는 명확히 1965년 청구권 협정의 대상이 아니었다는 입장이지만, 강제징용과 관련된 사안에 대해서는 명확한 입장을 표명하지 않고 있어서 행정부의 입장과 사법부의 입장이 서로 다르다는 추측이 분분하다. 이 점을 반영해서인지, 현재 한일 양국의 국장급회담에서는 군대위안부 문제가 의제로서 논의되고 있지만, 강제징용에 관한 사항은 의제로도 올라가 있지 못한 상태이다. 결국 이 문제는 한일 양국 정부가 피해자를 가장 우선시하는 입장을 취한다면 의외로 쉽게 해결점을 찾을 수 있을 것이다. 이로써 일본은 피해자들이 요구하는 바를 이행하고 더 이상 추가적인 소송이 제기되지 않도록 하는 방안을 모색할 수 있을 것이다. 또한, 한일 양국이 1965년 청구권 협정의 해석에 관한 이견을 신속히 해결하려면 우선 한일 양국 간 국제재판이나 1965년 청구권 협정 제3조에 따른 중재절차를 활용하는 것을 적극 고려해 볼 수도 있을 것이다. 먼저 공정하고 객관적인 위치에 있는 제3자로부터 1965년 청구권 협정의 적용범위에 대해서 의견을 받아낼 수만 있다면 한일관계의 장래를 다져서 한국과 일본의 공동 번영과 평화를 추구하고 동북아 지역 내 안정을 유지하는 데 큰 도움이 될 수 있을 것이다. A series of judgments by the Courts in Korea on war-time forced laborers in recent times are at the interface between law and history. One of the key-points of the judgments in light of public international law is the arguments by the Japanese defendant companies were rejected that all the claims by the Korean plaintiffs against them had been fully and completely settled by the so-called 1965 Agreement between the Republic of Korea and Japan. Many international law scholars in Korea criticized upon the rulings on the reasons the issue of compensation claimed by the war-time forced laborers was settled on lump sum basis by the 1965 Agreement. Furthermore, they asserted all the claims by the Korean war-time forced laborers had been depicted as resolved in the statement of the committee chaired by Mr. Lee Hae-chan, then Prime Minister of Korea made in August, 2005, and that various subsequent practices of the Government of Korea were in favor of their positions. For the present, one of the basic ways to settle down the confusions as to the coverage of the 1965 Agreement is to analyse thoroughly the words and phrases of the 1965 Agreement as such and its associated treaties. The close analysis of Articles 1 and 2 of the 1965 Agreement in question has shown the money provided for under Article 1 of the 1965 Agreement was not meant for a thing in return for the full and complete settlement of all the claims as allegedly provided for in Article 2 of the 1965 Agreement. The remaining issues are the queries of whether the actions of the Government of Korea made consistent subsequent state practices in favor of those critics with regard to the interpretation and application of the 1965 Agreement. As to the issue of enforced sexual slavery, the position of the Government of Korea is way apart from that of Japan as shown in the first-ever official meeting between Korea and Japan on that issue in April, 2014. But it is not clear whether Korea keeps the same position with regard to the matter of war-time forced laborers. The Government of Korea has not confirmed its position fully and clearly. It has been stated it would not intervene into a civil court case involving Korean nationals and Japanese companies before the Korean Courts. The current situations where Korea and Japan disagree with each other with regard to the coverage of the 1965 Agreement may harm the relationship between both sides of the Korean Strait. It seems high time Article 3 of the 1965 Agreement should be respected properly and operated immediately. According to Article 3 of the 1965 Agreement, disputes between the two Contracting Parties as to the interpretation and application of the 1965 Agreement shall be first settled through diplomatic negotiation and then such disputes shall be referred to an arbitration commission of three arbitrators. If Korea and Japan were really concerned about the victims from war-time atrocities, they should not waste time for calculating the advantages and disadvantages of applying the 1965 Agreement in diplomatic and political ways. They should not eschew using fair and objective third-party resolution processes put on by nerve-wrecking negotiations in the 1960s. Korea and Japan should consider first the needs of those victims and find a solution for their claims in an attempt to secure more prosperous and peaceful future in the North-East Asia.

투자자-국가 분쟁해결과 혜택부인의 관계

강병근(Kang, Pyoung-Keun) 한국국제경제법학회 2016 국제경제법연구 Vol.14 No.1

최근 투자자-국가 분쟁해결(ISDS)의 운용에 대해서 논란이 많다. ISDS에 따르면 외국인 투자자가 투자유치국을 상대로 국제투자협정을 근거로 국제중재를 활용할 수 있다. 이러한 국제투자중재는 1990년대 중반 이후 급격히 증가하였다. 이러한 상황에서 투자유치국은 투자 중재의 피청구국이 되지 않기 위한 여러 가지 방안을 모색하고 있다. 이들 방법 중 하나는 기존의 투자조약을 개정하거나, 새로운 투자조약을 체결할 때 투자자의 중재회부 권한을 제한하는 방안이다. 에너지헌장조약(ECT)은 1998년에 발효하였다. 현재 ECT에 근거한 중재사건은 80여건 이상으로 기록되고 있는데 이들 중 일부 사건에서 피청구국은 ECT의 혜택부인 조항을 활용하여 중재판정부의 관할권이 없다고 주장하였다. 이들 사건들은 혜택부인에 관한 ECT 제17조 제1항과 관련하여 적은 수이기는 하지만 매우 중요한 중재판정례를 형성하고 있다. ECT 규정상 제3국민의 소유나 지배 혹은 외국인 투자자가 투자유치국 내에서 실질적인 영업활동을 하지 않는 것은 혜택부인조항이 적용되기 위한 기본 요건이다. 이와 함께 이러한 사실관계에 대해서 누가 입증책임을 부담하는지 그리고 혜택부인의 효과는 소급적인지 아니면 장례적인 효과만 갖는지도 중요한 논쟁사항이다. 소위 론스타 사건에서는 벨기에 법인이 대한민국을 상대로 해서 ICSID 중재절차를 활용하고 있다. 이 사건과 관련해서 한-벨기에 BIT에서 혜택부인 조항을 규정하지 않은 점이 지적되었다. 이 점에서라도 ECT 혜택부인 조항을 둘러 싼 중재판정례는 장차 대한민국이 100여 개에 달하는 양자투자보장조약을 개정할 때 좋은 참고자료가 될 것이다. In recent times, there are pros and cons as to the operation of an Investor-State Dispute Settlement(ISDS). Under an ISDS, a foreign investor is entitled to initiate an arbitration against a host-state for the breach of an international investment agreement. There is a huge increase in the number of such arbitrations since mid-1990s. It is quite natural that a sovereign state may try to find a way to prevent the situations where she is involved in an arbitration as a Respondent State. She may want to limit the rights of investors to access to arbitration by amending her existing international investment agreements. For now, there are more than 80 arbitration cases brought under the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT) which entered into force in April, 1998. In a few cases among them, Respondent States have sought to limit the rights of investors to access to arbitration on the basis of a denial of benefits clause. On denial of benefits, a small but significant jurisprudence is evolving in light of Article 17(1) of the ECT. The benefits under the ECT may be denied to the Claimant investor when it is established that the Claimant is owned or controlled by a national of a third state which is not a member State of the ECT, and that the Claimant does not exercise substantial business activities in its home state which is a member state of the ECT. With regard to these two basic requirements for the operation of the denial of benefits clause, the questions may be made as to whether the burden of proof falls upon the Claimant investor or the Respondent State, and whether the benefits may be denied retrospectively or prospectively. It is not easy to extend the jurisprudence on the denial of benefits under the ECT to arbitration cases under other international investment agreements such as NAFTA, CAFTA-DR, and other various BITs. There is no clause on denial of benefits in Korea-Belgium BIT of 2006 on the basis of which the Belgian subsidiaries of Lone Star Funds initiated an ICSID arbitration against the Republic of Korea. Some critics say that Korea should have amended the Korea-Belgium BIT when she was negotiating to revise it. It seems that the jurisprudence on the denial of benefits clause under the ECT deserves a great attention as the Korean government is facing already two more investment arbitrations after the Lone Star arbitration.