CH4 가스중에서의 전자군 파라미터의 해석

문기석,서상현,송병두,하성철,유회영,김상남 ( Ki Seok Moon,Sang Hyun Seo,Byung Do Song,Sung Chul Ha,Heoi Young Yu,Sang Nam Kim ) 한국전기전자재료학회 1997 한국전기전자재료학회 추계학술대회논문집 Vol.1997 No.1

미국 소수주주축출 제도의 最近 動向에 관한 硏究 : 거래 형태에 따른 相異한 사법 심사 기준의 발달을 중심으로

문기석 사법발전재단 2012 사법 Vol.1 No.19

By enacting new provisions at KCL §§ 360 et seq and amending the provisons at section 523(4), Korea has officially introduced the so-called freezeout rules. These new rules will be effective on April 15, 2012. This paper attempts to examine the experiences regarding such freezeout rules in the U.S.A., so that Korean practitioners can use in future operation of these new rules. First, it will discuss the origins of freezeout practice from the early 20th century to the present time, and examines the main techniques used to carry out freezeout by majority shareholders. Specifically, it focuses on two main techniques - Cash-out Merger and Tender Offer followed by short-form merger. Then, it proceeds to discuss the standards of review for each type. It notes that typical cash-out mergers have been subject to the entire fairness standard, a demanding judical standard for controlling shareholders. Then, it reviews the standard for the second technique - Tender Offer followed by short-form merger, which has been popular since 2001 after the Siliconix case. Then, it notes that similar transactions have been subject to two different review standards, and reviews a recent Chancery Court case, the CNX Gas case, which attempts to articulate a unified standard. In conclusion, it is a global trend now to allow freezeout transactions, and Korea has done the right thing to introduce new rules. In implementing these new rules, Korea should consider a standard that is similar to the one used by the Delaware courts in Tender Offer followed by short-form merger transactions. 2012년 4월 15일부터 시행이 되는 개정상법은 제523조 제4호의 개정과 제360조의24부터 제360조의26까지의 신설을 통하여 소수주주 축출제도를 도입하고 있다. 영미법하에서 freezeout이라 불리는 소수주주축출제도는 이제 세계적인 흐름이 되었다. 대한민국도 이제 소수주식의 강제매수제도의 도입과 현금교부합병의 허용을 하게 되었으므로 앞으로 많은 freezeout 거래가 발생 할 것이다. 대한민국 상법상의 새로운 제도를 운영함에 있어서 미국 델라웨어주에서 발달해온 축출거래에 대한 심사기준 등의 법리를 직접 참고하는 것은 미국과 대한민국의 기업환경과 회사법의 정책, 기타 사회문화적 환경은 크게 相異하므로 당연히 무리이겠지만, 지난 몇 십년간 판례를 축척해온 미국의 경우를 참고하는 것은 의미가 있다 하겠다. 이 논문에서는 소수주주축출제도가 우리나라에서 안정되게 정착되고 관련 법리가 발전되어 나가는 데 있어서 이 제도를 지난 수십 년간 이미 운용하여온 미국의 법리를 살펴보는 것이 필요하다는 전제에서 출발하여 회사법 분야에서 선도적인 역할을 해온 델라웨어(Delaware)주의 소수주주축출 관련 법리를 정리ㆍ분석하고, 최근 2010년 5월에 나온 새로운 움직임을 소개함으로써 우리 제도 운영에 대한 시사점을 찾아본다. 소수주주축출제도의 발전과정과 유형을 살펴본 후 다른 형태의 축출에 다르게 발달되어온 사법 심사기준을 분석한 후 이러한 심사기준을 통일하는 시도의 시작으로 보이는 2010년의 판례를 소개하였다. 향후 이 제도를 운영함에 있어 미국이 특별위원회의 구성 및 활동 여부를 형식에 관계없이 강조하고 있음을 염두에 두고 이러한 제도의 도입이 우리나라에도 필요할 것인지의 토론이 필요할 것이며, 2010년 CNX 판결로 시작되고 있는 델라웨어주의 심사기준 통합움직임은 앞으로도 많은 후속 연구를 통해 관심을 가지고 지켜볼 필요가 있을 것이다.

각종 전문인배상책임보험 계약에서 부정직행위 면책조항의 해석 - 영미법 국가의 사례를 중심으로 -

문기석 전북대학교 동북아법연구소 2022 동북아법연구 Vol.15 No.3

전문인책임배상보험(Professional Liability Insurance)은 미국에서 처음 만들어지고 보급된 것 으로 개인이 업무를 수행하면서 제3자에게 손해를 입힌 경우 배상책임과 소송비용 책임을 전보 하는 보험이다. 이런 약관에 따라 보험 배상금 지급 요청 시 보험사고를 유발한 행위와 관련하여 우리나라 미국 모두 공방이 있는 약관이 바로 부정직행위 면책약관이다. 부정직행위 면책약관 관련 이 논문에서 다룰 주제는 다음 두 가지 쟁점이다. 첫째, 부정직면 책의 선행조건으로 과연 부정직행위의 존재와 그 고의성을 결정한 확정판결이 있어야 하는가와 둘째, 흔히 intentional 혹은 deliberately, 혹은 wilfully 등으로 규정되는 ’고의성‘의 개념과 그 범위 이다. 우리나라도 이러한 면책조항을 적용할 때 유사한 논쟁이 발생할 것이고 아직 대법원의 판단이 없는 상황이다. 또한 우리나라에서도 영문약관의 해석이 중요한 것이, 이런 보험들은 통상 국문약관과 영문약관으로 발행되는데 그 기본은 영문약관이고, 두 약관상의 내용 불일치 발생 때 통상 영문약관이 우선하므로 미국에서 이미 발생하고 정리된 이런 공방의 결과물을 살펴보는 것은 의미가 있다 할 것이다. 이에 이러한 보험의 발원지이며 비교적 오랫동안 판례를 축적해온 미국의 사례를 살펴보고자 한다. PartI의 서론에 이어지는 Part II에서는 확정판결의 필요성에 대한 미국 법원의 견해를 소개한 후 보험사의 보험사기 예방에 관한 이익과 피보험자의 기대이익 간의 균형의 중요성을 살펴보고 예외적인 경우가 아니라면 확정판결의 존재가 부정직행위 면책의 필요요건이라고 결론 내린다. 다음 Part III에서는 미국 법원들의 “고의성”에 대한 입장을 세 가지로 정리하여 소개, 분석한 후 영국 대법원의 2021년 판결 또한 분석한다. 미국과 영국의 판례에 다양한 접근 방식이 있음을 살펴본 후, 이런 해석 차이의 존재 자체가 고의라는 개념이 본질에서 불분명하니만큼 보험약관 해석의 일반적 원칙에 따른 해석이 필요하다는 최근의 추세를 살펴본다. Part IV에서는 우리의 경우 면책약관 해석의 범위를 어떻게 할 것이냐에 대한 제언을 담으면서 이 글을 마무리한다. Professional Liability Insurance was developed in the U.S.A., to insure the risks stemming from individual’s injurious wrongdoings while performing her or his tasks by covering defense costs and liability compensations. Both in the U.S.A. and in Korea, one of the aspects of such insurance policies that ha resulted in hot debates is the so-called dishonesty exclusion. Regarding this exclusion, this paper will mainly deal with two issues. First, whether or not a final adjudication on dishonesty itself is required to invoke this exclusion. Second, how broadly the intent element of dishonesty acts, often described as intentionally, deliberately or willfully, shall be defined. Since Korea still has no definite conclusion on these issues handed down by the Supreme Court, there are and will be debates on the same. Also, since Korea also uses policies in English, it is important for us to take look at the results of such debates in the U.S.A. to assess the merits of each position. This paper will have four parts. Part I introduces the issues. In Part II, the paper will look at the cases that talk about the necessity or the importance of having a final adjudication. The paper will recognize the interest held by the insurer to prevent insurance fraud, while acknowledging the importance of enabling the insureds to fulfill their expectations. The paper will argue that, a balnace should be found by requiring a final adjudication to invoke dishonesty exclusion. However, in exceptional circumstances, where the disestablish at issue is very clear or where there has been a settlement of underlying claims with the insurers’ involvement, insurers shall be permitted a chance to invoke the exclusion at trial. Following Part II, Part III will look at various approaches mainly by the federal appeals courts. It will discuss three approaches to the issue, and further, will analyze a very recent case from the Supreme Court of the U.K. Out of these appraoches, the author will argue that the last approach that requires only specific intent is in harmony with general principles of insurance law. In the conclusion, the paper will make suggestions to Korean practitioner on theses issues.

Penumbras Finally Emanating Over Korea — A Comparative Analysis of a Recent Korean Constitutional Case on Criminality of Abortion —

문기석 한양대학교 법학연구소 2019 법학논총 Vol.36 No.4

On April 11, 2019, the Constitutional Court of Korea handed down a historic decision finding the decades-old criminal provisions criminalizing abortion unconstitutional. This decision shows a dramatic shift in the positions of the Court on the abortion issue, because the same Court found the same criminal prohibition constitutional only seven years ago. Out of nine Justices of the Court, a total of seven Justices found the prohibition either in non-conformity or in simple violation of the Korean Constitution. Four Justices, while finding that prohibition unconstitutional, have decided to give the Korean Legislature until December 31, 2020. In contrast, three Justices have found the prohibition outright unconstitutional and urged immediate invalidation of this prohibition. The end result is that the Legislature has been given one year and ten months of time to legalize or decriminalize abortion. It definitely is a remarkable decision that will reshape the issues on women’s reproductive rights and the governmental interests in protecting mothers’ heath, in regulating medical practice, and in protecting potential human lives. It should be also noted that, unlike the American approach, represented by the landmark case of Roe v. Wade, these Justices found direct grounds for their positions right in the Constitution itself. Although the approaches by these two countries are different in their constitutional theories and their mechanisms in decriminalization of the pre-viability abortions, it now appears that there two countries now share an important norm on this thorny issue. In this paper, following the introduction, we will take a look at the rationale behind this landmark decision from the Korean Constitutional Court. While we are at it, we will consider the unique situation surrounding this issue in Korea. We will then look at its counter-part decisions in the United States of America. After that, we will compare these lines of cases in terms of reasoning, cultural, historical and constitutional differences. In the conclusion section, we will summarize the similarities and differences between the approaches adopted by these two countries. As the Korean legislature is directed to follow up with legislative modifications in conformity with this decisions, we will try to make some proposals to the Korean National Assembly as well.

미국집단소송제의 최근 동향에 대한 고찰- 美國 2005년 集團訴訟 公正法을 중심으로 -

문기석 한국기업법학회 2007 企業法硏究 Vol.21 No.3

On February 18, 2005, President Bush signed into law the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 ("CAFA") after congressional efforts spanning over a decade. CAFA has two expressed legislative goals: (1) to expand federal diversity jurisdiction in class actions and (2) to ensure the fairness of class settlements to class members. The expansion of federal jurisdiction over class actions was sought to remedy the abusive and manipulative practice in state courts. Indeed, Congress has already experimented with this idea in the area of securities class actions -- namely the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 and the Securities Litigation Uniform Standard Act of 1998. This article analyzes the CAFA, one of the most important and significant legislative attempt to modify the class action practice in America. It will first review and analyze some of the important provisions in the CAFA. It will then discuss the impact of the CAFA on American class practice for the two years following the enactment of the CAFA. It will also review some of the appellate cases interpreting the CAFA. The author believes that the CAFA's fairer settlement provisions and congressional directives in that regard have induced American courts to scrutinize any proposed settlement terms invoking non-cash compensation and argues that it evidences a paradigm shift in American judges. The CAFA is a relatively young legislation, and only time will tell if it will be able to have a long-term impact on class action practice, as desired by the Republican party and big businesses. As Korea has already authorized security related class actions since January of 2005, we need to continue to watch how this young legislation will unfold in the future. In the meantime, the CAFA's consumer class bill of rights provisions merit our further study, as they have already made the American courts protect consumer class members more vigorously.

법인대용화 가능성을 가진 기업형태로서의 미국 사업신탁제도에 관한 小考

문기석 전남대학교 법학연구소 2013 법학논총 Vol.33 No.2

사업신탁(business trust)은 영국과 미국 매사추세츠주에서 起源한 후, 영미법 국가들에서 100여년이 넘게 전통적인 회사법인(business corporation)의 代案으로 사용되어온 기업조직의 하나이다. 사업신탁은 비록 신탁이라는 명칭은 사용하고 있지만 사실 회사법인과의 유사점이 훨씬 많은 기업조직이다. 일반적으로 영미법국가에서 사용되는 寄附性 혹은 무상양도 신탁(gratuitous trust)의 구조에서는 위탁자가 자산양도에 대한 어떠한 금전적 배상을 받지 않으나, 사업신탁의 위탁자는 신탁으로 명의 이전되는 자산에 대한 배상을 받는다. 또한 사업신탁의 위탁자는 신탁의 사업이 종료되면 잔존 자산을 환수한다. 따라서 사업신탁은 신탁의 형태가 주는 이점을 향유하기위한 영리추구 목적의 계약관계인 것이다. 사업신탁의 활용이 세계적으로 퍼져가고 있고, 아시아에서 우리의 경쟁상대인 싱가포르나 홍콩은 사업신탁의 허용을 넘어서 신탁수익증권의 상장까지 허용한다. 우리나라도 2011년의 신탁법개정을 통하여 국제경쟁력 강화와 글로벌스탠더드에 부합하는 개선된 신탁법제의 기틀을 마련하였고, 특히 신탁의 법인대용화를 기대할 수 있는 사업신탁과 유사한 제도를 도입하였다. 따라서 사업신탁의 기원지이면서 지난100년 이상 사업신탁제도를 운용해온 미국의 경우를 살펴보는 것은 향후 우리나라 사업신탁제도의 성공적인 정착에 도움이 될 수도 있을 것이다본 논문에서는 미국 사업신탁의 기원 및 판례법하의 발달 과정 등을 살펴보고자 한다. 또한 델라웨어 주의 입법으로 대표되는 사업신탁의 제정법화 과정을 살펴본 후2004년에 초안 작업이 개시되어 2009년에 승인된 미국통일제정법상신탁법인법을 살펴보아 우리에 대한 시사점을 찾고자한다. 미국의 통일법이나 한국의 개정신탁법하의 유한책임신탁이나 모두 새로운 기업조직으로서 법인의 대안이 될 수 있는 새로운기업조직을 선보이고 있다. 향후 이러한 제도들이 얼마나 사업신탁의 활용을 활성화시킬 것인가는 더욱 지켜보아야 할 것이나, 법인을 대신할만한 기업조직으로서 사업신탁이 갖는 비교 우위적 장점에 대한 연구 및 홍보가 따라야 할 것이며, 다른 분야의법 개정이나 제정이 필요한 지에 대한 후속 연구도 진행되어야 할 것이다. Business trusts, originated in the State of Massachusettes, have been used formore than a century as an alternative form of business enterprise inAnglo-American countries. Although this form is called a trust, in actuality, thisform has more similarities to corporations than to traditional trusts. In a traditionaltrust, a settler does not get compensated for the property transferred to the trust,however, a settlor of a business trust gets compensated for the property in the formof transferable securities. Also, the settlor reserves his right of reverter for theproperty. Therefore, unlike traditional trusts, business trusts are established forcommercial purposes. Business trusts have become a very significant form of business operationthroughout the world, spreading beyond the U.K. and the U.S.A. In Asia, Japan,Singapore and Hong Kong have already adopted this new form of businessenterprise. Singapore and Hong Kong even permit such trusts to go public. Koreaalso introduced a system similar to a business trust in 2011, and therefore, it isimportant for us to take a look at the history and the current state of this form in theU.S.A., where it is used to operate businesses worth billions of dollars. This paper reviews and examines the origin of business trusts and thedevelopment of common law legal theories thereto. Further, it examines thelegislative attempts to codify this practice by various states, focusing on Delaware. It also reviews the drafting process of the Uniform Statutory Trust Entity Act and themain characteristics of the Act, by comparing it to the common law theories. It remains to be seen if this new form of business entity will be welcomed by Koreanlawyers and business community. Further studies on the comparative benefits ofthis form shall be conducted, and the benefits shall be well explained to thebusiness community. Also, further research is needed to determine if there are anyother legislative supplements are required to implement this system moreeffectively.

Double Jeopardy Limitations on Prosecutorial Appeals of Acquittals in the United States: Is There a Lesson to Be Learned?

문기석 한양법학회 2016 漢陽法學 Vol.27 No.3

The Double Jeopardy doctrine in the United States somehow created a unique rule: prosecutors are generally prohibited from appealing acquittals, even where the acquittals were erroneous. The American prohibition or limitation is unique even among Anglo-American countries, and shows a striking difference as compared to the civil law countries’ approach in that most civil law countries provide the same appeal rights to both prosecution and defense. This difference was noted in the negotiation process for the 2002 Revisions to the Korea SOFA, and the adoption of this American approach by the SOFA was criticized as unequal to other SOFAs. This difference was again pointed out by some commentators in Korea when they expressed concerns about the undue hardship to be suffered by the defendants who have obtained acquittal yet have to go through appeal process because of the appeals that are mechanically filed by Korean prosecutors. Given this background, this paper reviews the development of the limitations imposed upon prosecutorial appeals of acquittals in the United States, and also reviews the justifications behind this rule from a critical view point. These reviews reveal that the rule has been controversial from the beginning. They also reveal that the justifications used to defend the rule are not particularly persuasive. The policy favoring finality is problematic if one recalls that one of the most important functions of the criminal justice system is accuracy. And this is especially true in Korea where trials are conducted under the inquisitorial model. The reduction of false conviction argument is also not very compelling because, by allowing the prosecution only one shot, this rule has the potential to actually increase false conviction. The protection against politically-motivated prosecution or overzealous prosecution rationale is likewise not convincing, and this justification ignores the fact that prosecutorial discretion is an executive prerogative. The justification of reduction of defense expenses is outdated and not convincing especially in light of modern practice of providing free public defender services to the criminal defendants. In sum, the American approach does not appear to be a great feature for Korea to consider adopting. Korea has a different legal culture and system. Indeed, the single-continuing jeopardy argument works perfectly for Korea, given its appeals court structure. In any event, the American approach is not free from serious criticism, and therefore, this paper concludes that there is no lesson for Korea to learn from the American approach. To the extent that the prosecution’s unconditional appeals of acquittals somehow are concerns to Korea, therefore, such concerns shall be resolved by the prosecution’s self-regulating abilities and the community’s pressure and support thereto, and the higher courts’ giving more deference to the trial courts.

당뇨병 환자의 N.P.H.인슐린에 대한 혈당반응

문기석,강창일 인제대학교 1986 仁濟醫學 Vol.7 No.4

인슐린 투여가 필요한 입원 환자 40명의 N.P.H 인슐린에 대한 혈당 반응을 알기 위해 N.P.H. 인슐린을 이용, 공복에 투여함과 동시에 아침 식전(6AM), 점심 식전(11AM), 저녁 식전(4PM), 취침시(9PM)에 혈당을 측정한 결과 그 중 정상적 반응형이 20명(50.0%), 지연적 반응형이 13명(32.5%), 일시적 반응형이 7명(17.5%)이었다. To study the pattern of response to the intermediate acting N.P.H insulin, 40 patients who required insulin injection was evaluated with four times of blood sugar measurements. Each blood specimen obtained at the pre-breakfast, pre-lunch, pre-dinner and bed time respectively. And following results were obtained. 1.Among 40 diabetics studied, 20 cases (50.0%) had "B" type, 13 cases (32.5%) "C" type, 7 cases (17.5%) "A" type, respectively. 2."B" and "A" types were the most common in 7th decade and female as three times. "C" type was the most common in 6th decade and not observed sex difference. 3.In B type (20 patients), diabetes under 5 years was 10 cases (50%), from 5 years to 9 years was 5 cases (25%) and over 10 years was 5 cases (25%). In C and A types were showed imilar distribution. 4.In the mean doses of N.P.H. insulin, B types was injected 35 units daily, A type 44 units, C type 35 units. The difference was not significant (P>0.05)

불교는 인생의게 무슨 혜택을 준것인가

문기석 불교사(불교) 1930 불교사 불교 Vol.71 No.-

The Laws on Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in the United States and Korea: A Comparative Review

문기석 전남대학교 법학연구소 2016 법학논총 Vol.36 No.1

Many nations around the world are parties to judgment-enforcement treaties or conventions with other nations. However, the United States is not a party to any such conventions or treaties with any other countries. Likewise, there is no bilateral treaty or multilateral convention in force between Korea and any other country dealing with the recognition and enforcement of judgments. While Korea has a straightforward and easy to follow system, the U.S. has three different systems currently in place. Given the trade volumes between these two countries, it is important for the practitioners in the two countries to have understanding of each other’s legal system on this important and practical issue. This paper therefore aims to examine the developments in the laws on the recognition and enforcement of judgments from foreign countries in the U.S., and will have a comparative comment on the same. Following the introduction, it will look at the beginning of the legal doctrine in the U.S. in Part II. In Part III, we will discuss the three different bodies of laws, namely the 1962 Act, the 2005 Act, and the Common Law approach with respect to recognition and enforcement of foreign country money judgments. Part III will also contain a critical discussion on the shortcomings of the current legal schemes in place in the U.S. In Part IV, the paper will briefly review the Korean system. In Part V, the paper will conclude that the U.S. should try to adopt a uniform national standard like the Korean approach. Korean system is straight forward and easy to understand, and includes a reciprocity requirement, thereby being more in conformity with the international trend. The American system is problematic in that it lacks uniformity and predictability. Given the ever increasing trade volumes and the interaction between the citizens of these two countries, the U.S. should try to improve its system. Of course, if two countries can sign a well-drafted international treaty, all these problems will go away, and we will be able to achieve nice uniformity and predictability. However, both countries have not signed any international treaties in this area, and it is unlikely that both countries will sign a treaty any time soon. Therefore, if the U.S. wants to improve on this area, the easiest and quickest solution has to come from its federal Congress. Federalization of recognition and enforcement of foreign country judgments will be a solution to all the concerns that this paper has identified and discussed. In this regard, it is unfortunate that the U.S. Congress has not acted upon the proposal by ALI for the past ten years. The author hopes that the U.S. Congress considers this issue in due course and that it enacts a federal statute that is as straightforward and as broad as the laws of Korea.