산상수훈의 관점에서 본 사형제도에 관한 고찰

범경철 ( Kyung Chul Beom ) 단국대학교 법학연구소 2012 법학논총 Vol.36 No.1

The principal of punishment should be not nemesis and retaliation but forgiveness and love, But the current system of criminal law requires to keep the rules imposed to the community, and when someone broke the law he must take the disadvantage by the revenge of penalty, Specially, the death penalty, the symbol of revenge, has been asked for the long time ``is that against the spirit of constitutional law and the principal of preserving human life, For this, I would like to answer the questions of policies and issues of current criminal law by recapping that in the point of penalty system in this report. And I want to criticize the system of criminal law centered retaliation and figure out what ``the sermon on the mount`` teaches us as the principal of non-resistance, Furthermore I want to introduce some examples as the spirit of ``to love your enemy`` the penalty in the point of punishment of a criminal, to reconfirm the penalty as a field of loving and humanitarian view. And I will introduce some opinions about the debates of the system of death penalty, Especially about the problems of support of death penalty, I would like to discuss the pro-abolition of the death penalty for the development of the human`s criminal law system, and the fulfillment of civilized country, At last, I want to recall the problems of the existing paradigm which hope to build the country`s principal as the abuse of criminal penalty in the name of authority of nation in the time of horror, I suggest some logics which sublimates the criminal law into the spirit of love and forgiveness in the time of Love and Grace. I will project the lesson of ``the sermon on the mount`` to the system of criminal law as a field of the Love and Forgiveness, However It is natural that people require the execution and the retention of the death penalty because of the endless heinous crime and sexual harassment to the kids, But the start of the Love Community should be on the guarantee of the dignity of human beings and the extermination of the crime from the roots So I write this report to support strongly the abolition of the death penalty against humanity and for the realization of the core-value in the community "Love and Forgiveness"

처분권주의 발현으로서 불이익변경금지의 원칙

범경철(Beom, Kyung-Chul) 동아대학교 법학연구소 2011 東亞法學 Vol.- No.53

민사소송법 제415조는 항소를 받아들이는 범위라는 표제하에 제1심 판결은 그 불복의 한도안에서 바꿀수 있다. 다만, 상계에 관한 주장을 인정한 때에는 그러하지 아니하다고 규정하고 있고, 제425조에서는 상고와 상고심의 소송절차에는 특별한 규정이 없으면 제1장의 규정을 준용한다고 하여 제415조의 규정은 항소심과 상고심의 절차 모두에 적용되는 것이다. 위 조문의 해석의 지배적인 견해와 판례의 태도는 변론주의와 처분권주의 적용 하에 운용되는 민사소송절차에서 법원은 당사자가 신청하지 아니한 사항에 관하여 판단할 수 없고, 상소심도 예외는 아니어서 상소심의 심판범위가 상소인의 신청한 범위내로 제한된다는 신청구속의 원칙과 그 연장선상으로 상소심의 심판범위가 제한되는 결과로 상소심의 상소인이 신청한 불복의 한도를 넘어서 하급심의 판결을 불이익으로 변경하거나 이익으로 변경할 수 없다는 불이익변경금지와 이익변경금지원칙을 인정한 것이라 볼 것이다. 그런데 근래에 불이익변경금지원칙에 관하여 명문의 규정이 없으며 또한 불이익변경원칙에 따른 상소인의 상소권 보장의 해석이 법원의 업무부담을 가져와서 정책적으로도 인정할 실익이 없다고 하여 개념 자체를 부정하는 해석이 제기되고 있다. 그러나 현행 민사소송은 개인의 이성을 바탕으로 한 당사자들이 사권도 사적자치의 원리의 발현으로 처분권주의와 변론주의원칙과 아울러 법원이 직권으로 절차를 쌓아가며 승소판결확정을 목표로 하여 진행된다. 이러한 과정은 근대 시민혁명의 산물인 자유주의 세계관의 소송법적으로 구현된 지배원리로서 인간중심의 절차를 이루어 절차에 있어 인간의 존엄을 확보한다는 것은 자명한 것이다. 따라서 근대 자유주의의 절차법적 요소인 처분권주의와 그 발현형태인 불이익변경금지원칙은 법규정 전반에 흐르는 민사소송의 정신일 것인바, 명문의 규정이 없다고 하여 개념자체를 인정하지 않는 것은 타당하지 않다. 또한 정책적으로도 상소권은 재판받을 권리의 내용으로 보장되어야 할 성질이며 단지 법원의 업무폭주라는 이유로 국민의 기본권을 형해화 하는 것은 국민의 재판 받을 권리의 침해로 연결되는 것이다. 본고는 이러한 문제점을 인식하여 불이익변경금지원칙의 연원을 살펴보고 그 존재형식에 대한 비판론과 인정론을 논하고 불이익변경금지원칙을 존재형식으로 상소제도에서 인정했을 경우 처분권주의와 연동하여 해석하고 민사소송절차에서 각각 영역에 있어 핵심적으로 논란이 되는 부분을 처분권주의의 발현으로서 불이익변경금지원칙을 관통하여 적용하고자 한다. With a consideration that the Civil Proceedings Act No 415 is a scope of accepting an appeal, the verdict of the first trial can be changed within the bounds of insubordination. However, it is not same when a contention in relation to commerce is conceded, and the Act No 425 states that if there is no specific regulations on procedures of the appeal and the trial at the Supreme Court, the regulation from the first chapter would be applied, therefore, the regulation of the Act No 415 applies to both the appeal court and the trial at the Supreme Court. According to the predominant view and the precedent inclination of interpretations of the foregoing provisions, under Principle of disposition, the court cannot determine any matters that the applicant did not request in the civil suit procedures, and so as the appellate trial. Thus, it can be said that, the doctrine of request arrest which limits the scale of judgment within an appellant himself and Prohibition of disadvantageous alternation which precludes turning findings of lower courts into favor or the opposite far beyond the bounds of the insubordination as a result of the constraint are conceded. While, negative interpretations that deny the concept of Prohibition of disadvantageous alternation are arising today and they argue that there is no substantive enactment defining the concept and there is no practical benefit as it aggregates work burdens for the court. However, the current civil suit is based on Principle of disposition and Prohibition of disadvantageous alternation as a manifestation of the principle of private autonomy, and processes by rational persons involved and the court taking proceedings in order to win an irrevocable favor judgment. The process is established by the view of liberalism, as the result of modern civil revolution, which procures human dignity by accomplishing peopleoriented procedures. Therefore, the element of an adjective law of modern liberalism, Principle of disposition and Prohibition of disadvantageous alternation are the spirit of the civil suit and hence, disallowing the concept because of lack of the substantive enactment is not appropriate. Furthermore, the right of appeal must be guaranteed as a part of right to have a trial and thus, wrecking basic human rights just because of court’s work burden is an infringement of the right to have a trial. This paper perceives those problems. Thus, this paper examines the origin of Prohibition of disadvantageous alternation and discusses both criticism and praise on its form of existence. Then analyze the form in the appeal system in connection to the Principle of disposition. In addition, apply the Prohibition of disadvantageous alternation as a manifestation of Principle of disposition to the salient parts of the civil suit that is being the object of controversy.

문서제출의무에 관한 비판적 고찰 -문서제출의무의 범위·제출거부사유와 관련하여-

범경철 ( Kyung Chul Beom ) 홍익대학교 법학연구소 2015 홍익법학 Vol.16 No.3

The new code of civil procedure has improved the order to submit documents to confirm the conflicting issues arising during the process of the legal action, for the purpose of realizing the fairness and the justice of the civil suit. Thus in this study, we intend to demarcate the extent in accordance with the prescribed codes of the obligation to submit documents under the current law, and to review the in-camera session which is controversial in the procedure of trial for the refusal reason. In addition, we intend to explain, with relevant theories and precedents, if the documents are not sent in, how the court interprets and deals with it in certain ways, and to provide the desirable way of interpretation and the tasks we should be oriented to, from the viewpoint of the law suit of today. Firstly, with the fact that not only the extent of the obligation to submit documents under the former code of civil procedure was too limited to function properly in correcting the structural maldistribution of evidence, but also there was no reasonable ground for particularly limiting the obligation to submit documents since the obligation of the witness is regarded as the general obligation, the amendment has been made with a view to inclusively extending the obligation to all documents. In this regard, we intend to take a close look at this matter with a rational viewpoint. Secondly, in the obligation to submit documents under the former code of civil procedure, the article 316, in regard to generally mandating the obligation of the witness in the article 275, set limits of the obligation to submit documents to quoted documents (item 1), transferable documents(item 2), benefit documents(item 3 former part), and legal document(item 3 latter part). On the other hand, under the new code of civil procedure, the obligation to submit documents has been inclusively extended with the exception of some cases where reasonable causes such as the invasion of privacy or the refusal of witness are involved. Therefore, even for the general documents where particular relation between the documents and the person directly concerned doesn``t exist, the obligation to submit documents was generally mandated like the obligation of the witness with only some exceptions. Under the former code of civil procedure, the extent of the documents was too limited to be adequately used to correct the structural maldistribution of evidence. So, the need for consideration about whether the theory can survive under the new code of civil procedure has arisen, which is what we intend to discuss in this study. Thirdly, the in-camera session was introduced under the new code of civil procedure, of which the trial process and the contents of trial are generating some controversy. Besides, the reason for the refusal of submitting and then who is responsible for providing the evidence are also being discussed under the legal context. In this regard, we intend to seek reasonable ways of interpretation.

변론주의 보완책으로서 석명권

범경철(Kyung-Chul Beom) 한국비교사법학회 2009 비교사법 Vol.16 No.3

For engaging the legal relations between privates, the process of Right actualizing procedure must be fair. That is, a fair judgement would be made within the guarantee of self-pleading chances and speaking one's assertions in the process of pleading, interpretation and application of law founded on the justifiable principal of law. This pleading process institutes the rational suit with taking a one's assertion and collecting the corroborative facts which is based on the one's egoistic mind But in the present court, there are lots of cases which make a alternative conclusion on the trial due to the lack of legal knowledge or false examination. It makes people distrust the court and damage the people's belief about the legal emotion. Therefore the Civil Proceeding Acts 136 text 1 which is to make the lawsuit relation clear asks the legal and actual facts in the suit process, and text 4 confirms that give a chance to a person who have surly missed his speaking chances or connived over the legal facts at the court. But there are a lot of theories and disputes for this text on the interpretation and application. This paper is to find a way to conquest this shortcomings of principals of oral proceeding and, as a complement, the principal of explication for the fair suit. On the bases of this principals I will discuss about the CPA 136 text 1 and 4's legal natures. Also I'll discriminate whether we admit positive pleading duty relate to the range of the oral pleading, as a core of this dispute or not. At last, I'll analyse the legislation process of indication duty at the newly revised CPA in 1990, and the Deutch's debates over this principals. In the process of the suit, for understandng the ideology of the once settlement in dispute and concentrated inquiry, I'll analyse the pattern of indication and the interpretation of text on the legal point of view. And I'll catch the leading cases which the court positively leads the one's opinion expression at the beginning of the oral proceeding. In conclusion, this paper is to make up for the weak point of the principal of pleading rights, and to make clear the lawsuit relation with the purpose of this text, to study its legal character and the essential issue of the pleading right and indication duty approved to the rational lawsuit.

기판력의 객관적 범위에 관한 비판적 고찰 -판결주문과 이유의 판단과 관련하여-

범경철 ( Kyung Chul Beom ) 홍익대학교 법학연구소 2012 홍익법학 Vol.13 No.3

At present, a civil lawsuit is composed of parties with individual rationality as an expression of the principle of private autonomy among their private rights. It is processed according to the principles of disposition and pleading as well as the court`s authority in order to reach a favorable judgment. The process is the principle of dominance, a realization of legal liberalism which is a product of the modern civil revolution, and it assures that human dignity is maintained by putting the human perspective first in the lawsuit. Furthermore, the principle of a lawsuit is the settlement of a legal dispute in which each party presented their own standpoint and the court made a well-reasoned decision. The conclusion of the case continues to affect future lawsuits according to the justice of the proceedings. The res judicata accepts a decision of a lower court in an appellate court. To understand the scope of the res judicata, we must examine civil procedure code No. 216 section 1, which states that excluding further litigation applies to the text of the decision. Hence, it does not apply to the legal cause. However, civil procedure code No. 216 section 2 indicates that the res judicata can be applied to the sum of opposing positions even if they fall under the reason of decision if it is a decision for a set-off defence. This is to promote one-time settlement of conflicts since a previous lawsuit is rendered meaningless if there is a separate dispute about the existence of an automatic bond. Moreover, disputes are more complicated and diverse in the highly developed barter economy of today. As a result, the number of one-time settlement inquiries of litigation economy and disputes are increasing. Therefore, there is an ongoing debate through theories and cases on the necessity of giving the law binding force for legal cause as well and not merely the text of the decision. Thus, this paper defines that civil procedure code No. 216 section 1 has the res judicata on the text of a decision. Concurrently, this paper examines section 2 based on the principle that it has the effect on a sum of an opposing position for a set-off defence to determine the systematic interpretation of the reason and text of decision as well as the scope of the effect based on lawsuit objective theory. Furthermore, theories and cases related to the binding force of a reason of decision are introduced to suggest suitable directions for interpretation.

현행법상 스와핑에 대한 법적 고찰 -스와핑 처벌에 관한 규제 논의를 중심으로-

범경철 ( Kyung Chul Beom ) 연세대학교 법학연구원 2008 法學硏究 Vol.18 No.4

Although the swapping have violated public morals, we dont` have any legal regulation about the swapping. So, I wrote whether we can control the swapping with legal regulation. Before I exhibit the regulation about the swapping, I made the practice about theoretical study. and I have made an observation about social discussion as well as punishment about swapping. Compared punishment with social recognition, I found the present foreign condition and the present foreign regulation formerly. After that, I compared punishment with social recognition and I want to find a possibility that I can do regulation about the swapping. Lastly, I went over the present a provision about the swapping and I will find that I can make laws. I have went over all of things related to the swapping. After years of consideration, I suggested that we must make laws about controling the swapping. The reason why I suggested making the laws is following reasons. First, the regulation about the code of civil procedure According to the law now in force, the civil law is ordained a monogamy saying that it is not polygamy. So, a public prosecutor can claim withdrawal of a case to a law court for keeping the marriage. In conformity to the existing law, a criminal conversation is punishable under Article 241 of the Criminal Code that it is necessary condition to having a victim`s complaint. But, almost swapping is that it is conducted under the agreement in exterior view. So, it is not adjusted under the law and also there is a bit chance to adjust enforce of crime. But if the swapping is done with the mutual agreement, it is not punishable under Article 324 of the Criminal Code. To protect the benefit and protection of the law, I suggest that it must be made a provision through making the swapping of crime. Because the marriage is private field, the nation can not control that. But, to protect public order, we can discuss the swapping about a administrational system. I have gone over swapping focussing on regulation and making provision. It is basic right and important to protect civil liberties and sexual decisive power by themselves is also. It is written by the constitution that say The civil liberties is not disturbed against someone. But, it is important to keep good public morals and the benefit and protection of the law. The swapping is not used to all of the people and social customs. To keep the benefit and protection of the law and the cause of justice, I am just suggesting making new provision now.

‘문서의 진정성립’을 통한 문서의 증거능력과 증거력 고찰

전세영(Jeon, Se-Young),범경철(Beom, Kyung-Chul) 경희법학연구소 2021 경희법학 Vol.56 No.2

민사소송에서는 원칙적으로 증거능력의 제한이 없다고 하면서 그 이유로는 민사소송법이 자유심증주의(민사소송법 제202조)를 채택하고 있기 때문이라고 보는 것이 통설의 태도로 보이며 통설은 이것이 판례의 입장이라고 하고 있다. 그러나, 증거능력에 대한 제한을 두고 있는 형사소송에서도 자유심증주의(형사소송법 제308조)를 택하고 있는바, 과연 자유심증주의가 증거능력에 제한을 두지 않는 데 대한 근거로서 타당한 것인지를 살펴보고자 하였다. 위의 고찰을 통하여, 증거 가운데 특히 민사소송에서의 문서의 증거능력과 증명력을 살펴보고, 민사소송법과 형사소송법이 공통적으로 문서를 증거로 할 때 사용하는 문서의 ‘진정성립’의 의미가 어떻게 다른지, 민사소송에서의 문서의 ‘진정성립’은 과연 통설적 태도와 같이 증명력의 문제로 형식적 증거력과 동일한 의미로 파악할 수 있는지를 대법원 판례의 태도로 반추해 보겠다. 종래의 통설적 견해는 민사소송에서는 증거능력의 제한이 없다는 전제하에 문서의 ‘진정성립’ 인정을 형식적 증거력의 요건으로 파악하고 있는 것으로 보인다. 또한, 종래의 대법원 판례들 역시도 판시 내용에 따라서는 우리 민사소송법은 증거능력에는 제한을 두고 있지 않다고 볼 가능성이 농후한 예들이 존재한다. 그러나, 민사소송에서도 역시 증거능력의 제한은 이루어져야 할 것이고, 형사소송에서와 마찬가지로 증거능력의 문제는 증거방법이 아닌 증거자료의 측면에서 접근하여야 할 것으로 보인다. The common opinion of scholars said that there is no limit to the admissibility of evidence as a general rule in civil litigation because the Civil Procedure Act adopts the Principle of free evaluation of evidence (Civil Procedure Act Article 202). They also argue the Court takes the same attitude with them. However, the Principle of free evaluation of evidence (Criminal Procedure Act Article 308) can be applied in criminal litigation which limitation on the admissibility of evidence still exists. I examine that the adoption of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in the Civil Procedure Act can be valid as a ground to support the common opinion. Through a review as above, based on the attitude of the Supreme Court cases, I examine the evidence especially the admissibility of evidence and probative power of the documents in civil litigation, the difference in the meanings of ‘establishment of genuineness’ of the documents used by the Civil Procedure Act and the Criminal Procedure Act, the meaning of ‘establishment of genuineness’ of the documents in civil litigation, which is a matter of probative power, is the same as formal evidence like the common opinion discussed. According to the common opinion of scholars which argue that there is no limitation on the admissibility of evidence, the recognition of ‘establishment of genuineness’ is regarded as a requirement for formal evidence. From the existing Supreme Court cases, there are some examples that are likely to be read as having no limitation on the admissibility of evidence in the Civil Procedure Act. However, I assert the limitation on the admissibility of evidence should be made in civil litigation and the matter of admissibility of evidence should be discussed in terms of evidence material rather than means of evidence as in criminal litigation.

선택적ㆍ예비적 병합의 구별과 판결 및 상소에 따른 제(諸) 문제(問題)

곽승구 ( Kwak Seung-koo ),범경철 ( Beom Kyung-chul ) 연세대학교 법학연구원 2020 法學硏究 Vol.30 No.1

여러 개의 청구를 나눠 재판하는 것보다 서로 관련성 있는 청구끼리 묶어 심리하게 되면 소송경제를 도모할 수 있고 판결의 모순 저촉을 방지할 수 있다는 이점 때문에 우리 법은 청구의 병합을 인정하고 있다. 그 모습은 병합되는 청구들이 불가분적으로 결합되어 있는지, 양립 불가능한 관계인지 등 상호 관련성 정도에 따라 단순병합, 선택적 병합, 예비적 병합으로 구별된다. 그리고 청구병합은 소송물을 특정할 책임이 있는 원고가 소 제기 시부터 병합할 수도 있고, 아니면 소송 도중 병합할 수도 있다. 그런데 각 청구의 병합이 어떤 모습인지에 따라 변론의 분리 여부, 일부판결 가능 여부, 판단을 누락한 부분의 위법성, 이 경우 당사자의 구제 방법, 항소할 경우 항소심의 심판 범위 등에 있어서 많은 차이점이 있다. 하지만 실무상 청구 병합의 모습을 일의적으로 구별하기 쉽지 않다. 판례도 당사자의 의사가 아닌 병합청구의 성질에 따라 판단하여야 한다고 하면서도, 구체적인 구별 방법에 대해 제시하지 않고 있다. 본 연구에서는 선택적 병합과 예비적 병합에 대해 간략히 살펴보고, 이들을 구별할 수 있는 방법에 대해 모색해보았다. 그리고 각 병합 태양 별로 종국판결, 즉 전부판결이 되는 경우와 변론의 분리 및 일부판결이 가능한지 여부에 대해 살펴보고, 판결에서 누락된 경우 구제책에 대해 살펴보았다. 그리고 종국판결에 대한 항소가 있는 경우 이심의 범위와 심판의 범위에 대해 살펴보았다. 특히 심판의 범위와 관련해서는 제1심 판결의 모습 및 이에 대해 원고 또는 피고가 항소할 수 있는 가능한 모든 경우를 다루려고 했다. To tie up related claims can be economical and prevent the ruling from changing according to the court. Because of these advantages, our civil law provides for the merging of claims. The appearance is divided into simple merger, selective merger, and preliminary merger according to the degree of correlation, such as whether the merged claims are inseparably combined or incompatible relationship. The plaintiff, who is responsible for specifying the litigation, can either merge from the time of filing or merge during the litigation. However, there are many differences depending on what the merger of claims looks like. It is particularly concerned with whether the pleadings can be separated, whether only part of the judgment can be made, whether it is unlawful to do so, how to relieve the parties, and what is the scope of the appeal. However, it is difficult to simply distinguish the merger in the trial. The precedent does not provide a specific method of discrimination, although it should be judged according to the nature of the merger claim, not the plaintiff's intention. In this study, I have briefly reviewed selective merging and preliminary merging, and studied how to distinguish them. And depending on what each merge looks like, I examined whether arguments can be separated or whether some judgments are possible. And I examined how to remedy them in the case of missing judgments, and the scope of the judgment in the case of appealing the judgment. Especially with regard to the scope of judgment, I tried to investigate the appearance of the first judgment and all cases in which the plaintiff or defendant appealed.

기업의 사회적 책임 규범화에 대한 국제기준과 법적 과제

박수곤(Park, Soo-Gon),범경철(Beom, Kyung-Chul) 한국재산법학회 2021 재산법연구 Vol.38 No.1

20세기에 들어 자유방임적 시장경제질서가 그 한계를 드러내자 기업의 사회적 책임 또는 기업윤리에 대한 논의가 촉발되기 시작하였다. 특히, 20세기 후반에 들어서는 정보화와 세계화라는 경제환경의 변화에 따라 ‘기업의 사회적 책임’(Corporate Social Responsibility)에 대한 관심이 확대되었다. 따라서 우리 사회에서도 이제는 기업의 사회적 책임이라는 표현이 어느덧 익숙한 개념으로 자리 잡고 있다. 그리고 기업의 사회적 책임과 관련하여 근로기준법, 소비자기본법, 환경정책기본법, 산업발전법, 중소기업진흥법 등 다양한 특별법에서 관련 규정을 두고 있는 것이 사실이다. 그리고 이들 규정들 중 일정부분은 국제기준을 참조하여 기업의 사회적 책임을 법적 의무화하고 있는 것으로 평가할 수 있는 경우도 있다. 이와 같이 기업의 사회적 책임 활동에 대해서는 국제기구들에 의한 다양한 국제적 기준들이 제시되어 그에 대한 각국 국내법에서의 반영절차가 이루어지기도 하였으나, 여전히 기업의 사회적 책임이라는 개념 자체에 대해서도 그 의미가 다양하게 사용되고 있는 것도 현실이다. 또한 CSR 활동 중에는 본질적으로 기업의 자율규제에 맡겨야 할 부분과 법적 강제수단을 동원하여 그 이행을 강제하여야 할 부분이 구분될 필요가 있기에 CSR을 규범화하는 것이 용이하지 않은 것도 사실이다. 또한 CSR을 규범화하고 더 나아가 법적으로 의무화한다고 하더라도 이를 모든 기업에 공통적으로 적용할 수 없는 경우도 있다. 특히, 중소기업의 경우에 있어서는 CSR을 규범화하여 강제할 경우, 기업경영에 있어서 큰 부담으로 작용할 수도 있으므로 자율규제에 맡기는 것이 합리적인 경우도 있을 수 있으나, 그와 같이 자율규제에 맡길 경우에는 기업의 경쟁력 약화와 더 나아가 이해관계자를 포함한 공동체의 이익에 위해가 초래될 수 있는 경우도 있다. 따라서 CSR 활동의 긍정적인 측면에도 불구하고 예상되는 부작용을 최소화하기 위해서는 CSR 활동의 유형을 나누어 공동체의 이익과 직접적으로 관련되는 영역에 대해서는 그 이익의 경중을 고려하여 이를 법적 의무로서 규율하되 기업의 규모 등을 고려하여 수범자의 범위를 조정하는 탄력적 태도를 취할 필요도 있다. 그리고 공동체의 이익과 직접적인 관련이 없거나 그 이익의 크기가 중대하지 않은 영역에 있어서의 CSR 활동과 관련하여서는 자율규제와 법적 규제를 혼용하는 방안을 마련할 필요가 있을 것이다. 무엇보다도 CSR 활동과 관련하여서는 기업의 인식이나 의지가 중요하므로 기업이 주도하여 CSR활동을 전개할 수 있는 동인을 제공하는 방향으로 관련 제도를 설계할 필요가 있다. In the late 20th century, Interest in ‘CSR’ has expanded as the economic environment of information and globalization has changed. Therefore, the expression corporate social responsibility is now becoming a familiar concept in our society. In fact, Related regulations are in place in various special laws, such as the Labor Standards Act, the Framework Act on Consumers, the Framework Act on Environmental Policy, the Industrial Development Act, and the Small and Medium Business Promotion Act. Some of these regulations may be assessed as legally mandated by reference to international standards. Various international standards by international organizations have been proposed for CSR, and procedures have been made to reflect them in national laws. However, it is also true that even the concept of corporate social responsibility itself is used in various ways. It is not easy to standardize CSR because there is a need to distinguish between parts of CSR activities that are essentially subject to corporate self-regulation and parts that are subject to enforcement by means of legal enforcement. In addition, even if CSR is normative and further legally mandated, it may not be common to all entities. In particular, in the case of Small and Medium-sized Enterprises, if CSR is standardized and enforced, it may be a huge burden in corporate management. Therefore, it may be reasonable to leave it to self-regulation. However, such self-regulation may result in weakening the competitiveness of the entity and in the interests of the community, including stakeholders. In spite of the positive aspects of CSR activities, in order to minimize the expected side effects, the types of CSR activities are divided into areas directly related to the interests of the community, and the importance of those interests is considered and regulated as a legal obligation. In addition, it is also necessary to take a resilient attitude to adjust the scope of the best practice considering the size of the company. In addition, there will be a need to come up with a mix of self-regulation and legal regulations in relation to CSR activities in areas where the interests of the community are not directly related or the size of those interests is insignificant. Above all, since the entity s perception or willingness is important in relation to CSR activities, it is necessary to design related systems in a way that provides drivers for the company to take the lead in implementing CSR activities.

미국 프로농구 선수협회의 선수대리인 관리 규정에 관한 소고

위길복 ( Kil Bok Wi ),범경철 ( Kyung Chul Beom ) 홍익대학교 법학연구소 2018 홍익법학 Vol.19 No.3

최근 국내 프로야구는 선수대리인 규정을 제정하여 현재 126명의 선수대리인이 활동하고 있다. 아직 선수대리인의 업무영역이 선수계약 교섭 및 연봉 계약 체결 업무, KBO규약상 연봉조정신청 및 조정업무의 대리로 제한되고 있으나, 프로야구도 선수대리인 제도를 운영하게 되면서 관련 산업이 더욱 발달할 것으로 예상된다. 이러한 선수대리인 제도는 스포츠산업을 활성화하려는 스포츠산업 진흥법 취지에도 부합하는 것이다. 하지만 프로농구의 경우에는 선수대리인 제도를 아직까지 시행하지 않고 있다. 선수들은 선수대리인 제도를 통해 자신들의 권익을 보호하고 더욱 운동에 집중할 수 있게 되어 더 높은 수준의 경기를 선보일 수 있게 된다. 따라서 프로농구도 내국인선수에 대한 선수대리인 제도를 시행할 필요가 있다. 국내 프로농구는 미국 프로농구로부터 많은 영향을 받았는데 미국 프로농구 선수협회는 선수대리인 관리 규정을 통해 선수대리인을 선발하고 관리하고 있다. 국내 프로농구 선수들을 위한 선수협회가 존재하지 않고, 선수대리인도 없어서 자유계약선수관리규정을 제대로 숙지하지 못한 선수들이 불공정한 계약을 맺는 경우도 발생한다. 국내 프로선수에 대하여 근로자성이 인정되지 않고 선수협회가 노동조합으로 인정되지 않기 때문에 프로농구 선수들도 프로야구처럼 사단법인으로 선수협회를 조직하여 선수대리인 제도를 시작해야 할 것이다. 미국 프로농구 선수대리인 관리 규정을 그대로 도입할 수 없지만 그 취지를 살려 적용할 수 있을 것이다. ① 선수대리인이 가능한 업무 영역을 정하는 것이 필요하다. 미국 프로농구 선수대리인 관리 규정은 선수대리인이 수행할 수 있는 업무에 대해 예시를 들어 구체적으로 설명하고 있어서 명확하게 업무 범위를 알 수 있다. ② 선수대리인 수수료의 상한을 정한다. 미국 메이저리그 선수대리인 관리 규정은 선수대리인 수수료의 상한을 정하지 않았으나, 프로농구 관리 규정은 수수료 상한을 정하고 있다. 선수들이 선수대리인 제도에 익숙하지 않아 협상력이 낮으므로 수수료 상한을 설정해야 한다. ③ 공인 받지 않은 자와 구단이 협상하지 못하도록 하는 방안이 필요하다. 미국처럼 단체협약이 아닌 전체 구단의 동의를 받는 형식으로 하거나 규약에 그 내용을 넣는 방식으로 가능할 것이다. ④ 선수대리인 결격 사유나 징계 사유를 명확히 규정해야 한다. 미국 프로농구 관리 규정은 결격 사유와 징계 사유에 대하여 구체적으로 나열하여 제시할 뿐 아니라 예를 들어 설명한다. 제도의 원활한 운영을 위해서는 구체적이고 명확한 기준 제시가 필요해 보인다. ⑤ 분쟁해결 방안으로 중재를 도입할 것인지 검토가 필요하다. 미국 프로농구의 경우 중재가 전속적인 분쟁해결 수단으로 간접적으로 강제되고 있는데 이러한 점을 그대로 도입할 것인지 아니면 다른 분쟁해결 수단에 의할 것인지, 중재자는 어떻게 선정할 것인지 등을 결정해야 한다. Recently, Korean professional baseball has enacted the regulations of the player agents, and now there are 126 players' agents. Although the scope of the agent's work is still limited to negotiating for player salary contracts, and the application for salary arbitration of KBO regulations, professional baseball is also expected to develop its related industry. Such a player agent system is in line with the purpose of the Sports Industry Promotion Act to promote the sports industry. However, in the case of professional basketball, the player agent system has not yet been implemented. Players will be able to protect their rights and focus more on their workouts through the player agent system so that they can show higher levels of competition. Therefore, professional basketball also needs to implement a player agent system for domestic players. Korean professional basketball has been influenced by National Basketball Association. National Basketball Player Association certifies and manages player agents through NBPA regulations of governing player agents. There are also cases where players who do not know the rules of free agent management because they do not have an athlete association for domestic professional basketball players and do not have an athlete agent make unfair contracts. Since professional athletes are not recognized as employees and the athlete association is not recognized as a trade union in Korea, professional basketball athletes should start a professional athlete association by organizing a professional athlete association as a professional baseball. It is not possible to adopt entire NBPA regulations of governing player agents, but it will be possible to apply them. ① It is necessary for the agent of the athlete to determine the possible work area. NBPA regulations of governing player agents clearly explain the scope of work because they are illustrative of the tasks that the player agents can perform. ② Set the upper limit of the fee for the player agents. US major league players agents regulations did not set a ceiling on commission agent fees, but NBPA regulations of governing player agents set a ceiling on commission fees. Since the players are not accustomed to the player agent system and negotiation power is low, the upper limit of the fee should be set. ③ It is necessary to prevent the unauthorized party or person from negotiating with the team. It can be done in the form of a consent of the all teams, not a collective bargaining agreement like the United States, or by putting the content into the protocol of KBL. ④ The reason for disqualification or disciplinary reasons for the agent shall be clearly defined. NBPA regulations of governing player agents specify and list specific reasons for disqualification and grounds for discipline. In order to operate the system smoothly, it seems necessary to present concrete and clear standards. ⑤ It is necessary to review whether to introduce arbitration as a dispute resolution method. In the case of US professional basketball, arbitration is indirectly imposed as a exclusive means of dispute resolution, and it must decide whether to adopt it or other dispute resolution methods, and how to select an arbitrator.