http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
- 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
- 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
RISS 인기검색어
- 검색키워드
- 저자 : 박재완 (검색결과 581 건)
- 무료
- 기관 내 무료
- 유료
-
-
-
-
텍스트베이스에 관한 정보 검색을 위한 정보 표시 모델의 설계 및 구현
박재완 연세대학교 언어정보개발원 1992 언어사실과 관점 Vol.4 No.1
Human being can classify and memorize the necessary knowledge through many types of data information since his intelligence is very excellent in the several aspects. Since man's memory, however, is not unlimited, data remembered come to be lost as time goes by. By this reason, in the field of information science, the lexical database which is containing all of the information for a Korean information processing is being developed by recognizing the importance of language information and the necessity of Korean Electronic Dictionary Development using the recent computer technology has shown its head. Lexicographical Center in Yonsei University constructed three million corpus selecting sample data for the dictionary construction. The corpus was tagged to reserve all information except the text within itself because it can't classify and memorize the sample data naturally like human beings. Constructing corpus manually can provoke many kinds of errors. Among these errors, tagging error is a very serious problem. This paper is a study on the design and implemention of tagging automata for the error detection and correction as a link of Korean Electronic Dictionary Development, a study on the file processing for classifying and storing the sample data efficiently, and a study on the Tagging Model to retrieve efficiently information regarding textbase using the file-processed database.
-
박재완 한국민사소송법학회 2011 민사소송 Vol.15 No.2
A recently delivered Supreme Court decision(2008DA27615) gives us a chance to consider whether case laws on the cases where the defendant does not participated in the process at all because of defective service are appropriate. Current case laws provide defendants with different measures according to whether the service was done by mail or publication; to whether someone disguising the defendant appeared in the procedure or not; to whether the plaintiff intentionally provided false address of a defendant. Accordingly, the Supreme Court has been ruled that the defendant can appeal in a case where the plaintiff intentionally provided false address of the defendant, someone disguising the defendant took the service of the complaint and the judgment was delivered under the § 257 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act without any time limitation, cause the service is void; the defendant can file for reopening of the proceeding under the §451 (11),which should be raised within 5 years from the date when the period for appeal passed, in a case where the plaintiff provided false address or claimed the defendant is missing, and the service was done by publication; finally the defendant can file for reopening of the proceeding under the §451 (3),which does not have any time limitation, in a case where someone disguising the defendant appeared in the process and made admission. This article argues that current case laws are too complex and inconsistent; all the circumstances mentioned above have basically one common feature in that the defendant was not provided the chance to participate without any fault of his/her own; and reopening of the proceedings under the §451 (3) should be the common remedy for all the above circumstances.
-
박재완 건국대학교 법학연구소 2024 一鑑法學 Vol.- No.59
This article analyzes the scope of appeal and the scope of appellate court review in cases where the trial court overlooked an error in the form of consolidation - that is, where the plaintiff chose an incorrect form of consolidation - when rendering its judgment. The Supreme Court decision 2005Da51495 (delivered on December 11, 2008) addressed a case where the plaintiff initially chose selective consolidation at the trial court for independent claims that should have been joined by cumulative consolidation, and later attempted to change it to provisional consolidation at the appellate court. The trial court, without correcting the form of consolidation, fully accepted Claim A and made no determination on Claim B, reasoning that since Claim A was fully accepted, there was no need to examine Claim B. When only the defendant appealed, the appellate court in its conclusion reversed the trial court’s decision and dismissed Claim A without making any determination on Claim B, while stating in its reasoning that Claim B could not be consolidated as a provisional claim to Claim A. The plaintiff then filed an appeal to the Supreme Court. The Court held that since the form of consolidation cannot be transformed into a proper selective or provisional consolidation relationship, only Claim A was transferred to the appellate court while Claim B remained in the trial court. Furthermore, the Court ruled that, since Claim B was not transferred to the appellate court and the plaintiff’s change of consolidation form from selective to provisional consolidation at the appellate court constituted a modification of claims adding Claim B as a provisional claim to Claim A, and since Claim B had no logical connection to Claim A and thus could not be consolidated as a provisional claim, the plaintiff was not permitted to modify their claims by adding Claim B as a provisional to Claim A in the appellate court. This decision adopts an objective approach, holding that when an error in the form of consolidation is overlooked, the scope of appeal is determined by the nature of the relationship between the claims rather than the plaintiff’s intention. It also takes the position that proper selection of the form of consolidation is a requirement for claim modification. However, the objective approach taken by this decision often contradicts the principle of party disposition and is inefficient in terms of judicial economy. Therefore, it would be more appropriate to determine the scope of appeal based on the plaintiff’s intention (subjective approach). Under the subjective approach, Claim B would also be considered transferred to the appellate court. Furthermore, since the proper selection of consolidation form should be considered neither a requirement for claim consolidation (original consolidation) nor for claim modification (subsequent consolidation), the validity of this decision is questionable.
-
박재완 한국민사소송법학회 2013 민사소송 Vol.17 No.2
The aim of this paper is to figure out a reasonable standard to deal with the collision of actions related to exercises of subrogation right of an obligee. Normally, the collision of actions means only the situation where two or more actions are pending simultaneously, but in this paper it encompasses the situation where the ruling of an action is already finalized. The scholarly traditional approach applies the doctrines of prevention of duplicate actions and res judicata to the above mentioned collision of actions. But nowadays the approach that the doctrine of standing should be applied is getting stronger and stronger in the academia, and the Supreme Court also adopted this approach in some types of the collision of actions. This paper claims that the traditional approach is better than the standing approach and should be the standard to deal with the collision of actions, in that ① the standing approach lacks concrete statutory bases to back up its theory, ② the standing approach is not in harmony with the general rules on the ordinary collision of actions set by the Act of Civil Procedure of our country, ③ despite the anticipation of the supporters, the outcome of application of the standing approach sometimes goes against with the outcome of application of the traditional approach and creates confusions, ④ the standing approach disturbs operations of the current debt collection system which embraces the equal treatment of creditors at its heart, ⑤ by denying the right of joint action intervention, the standing approach neglects those who lose standing by its application.
-
-
-
KCI연관 검색어 추천
이 검색어로 많이 본 자료
활용도 높은 자료
