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 : 한종열 (검색결과 14 건)
- 무료
- 기관 내 무료
- 유료
-
-
-
韓宗烈 慶北大學校 1981 論文集 Vol.31 No.-
In our judicial system, on especially capacity of judge, the appointment of one and the capacity of lawyer, there is nothing changed since the second world war. Even though our society is changing into industrial one, the judical thinking of people continues staying at predevelopment-time, and so people in Korea thinks a man who institutes a law-suit is unmoral. The writer doubts this judicial system is enough for our people to protect his right through judgment by court, if people's thinking is changed to the idea that the conflict-settelement by court is best rearonable way. This writer is trying to devise a reasonable system for our country by studying one of America, English and Japanese. In our country, the capacity of lawyer is the same as the one of judge and attorney, and so the lawyers could become judges and attorneys, and also judges and attorneys could become lawyers. To recognize of one's capacity is depends on the bar examinotion enly, the numbre of passing the bar examination is very limited because of contraining the increase of the number of practical lawyers, now a days practical layers in 1980 are less than 1,000 persons. Under this situation, more than half number of them have their office in Seoul unballa nceablly, and so it is hard for clients withoutmoney to meet them, by that reason people have used to ask judicial scriveners for their legalproblems. The capacity of judicial scriveners is obtained by working more than 5 years in court or prosecutor's office as clerk, they have not been trained for legal bussines and legal education. In order to protect their right, people should easily ask lawyers for their pleading and all the documents related to Legal affairs must be exacted by witnessing of lawyer. In this sense, the writer thinks that the lawyer system in our country should be divided into two classes as the English one is reasonable. I want they could be called office'lawyer and suit-lawyer. The office lawyer works in making legal documents, and consults on the legalproblems e. t. c. The suit-lawyers works in pleading in count. A office-lawyer could become suit-lawyer by passing examination after someyear working. The testing should have to contain not only professional Knowledge but also human's morality. A judge must be adopted among office-lawyer who worked his bussines for certain years by adopting examination.
-
한종열,김한별 한국성인교육학회 2011 Andragogy Today : International Journal of Adult & Vol.14 No.2
본 연구는 방과후학교 운영과정에 참여하는 이해관계자들의 상호작용의 모습을 분석 함으로써 어떻게 방과후학교 프로그램의 운영과정과 결과가 애초의 취지와 다른 모습으 로 나타나는지 살펴보았다. 이를 위해서 서울의 N초등학교의 방과후학교 영어프로그램 사례를 중심으로 한 질적사례연구를 실시하였다. 연구결과, 이해관계자인 운영자와 참여자 그리고 방과후학교 영어강사는 프로그램에 대해서 서로 다른 관심과 기대를 가지고 방과후학교 영어프로그램에 관여하고 있었으며 그로 인한 원활하지 못한 상호작용이 방과후학교 영어프로그램이 당초의 기대와 다른 모습으로 이어지고 있었다. 구체적으로 이해관계자들 사이의 원활하지 못한 상호작용의 원인은 학교에 대하여 만 연하고 있는 부정적인 인식이 방과후학교 영어프로그램에 대한 인식으로 전이되어 방과 후학교 영어프로그램에 대한 선입견으로 작용하고 있는 것으로 나타났다. 그리고 이들이 상호작용하는 과정에서 서로가 가지는 이해의 차이는 방과후학교 영어프로그램 운영과 관련된 부분에서 서로를 다른 관점에서 바라보게 하는 요인으로 작용하고 있었다. 또한 동등하지 못한 권력관계가 작용함으로써 방과후학교 영어프로그램에서 인식하는 문제점 이나 애로사항을 적극적으로 해결하기보다는 수동적으로 대응해가는 모습을 보였다.
-
-
韓宗烈 慶北大學校 1979 論文集 Vol.28 No.-
It has been prescribed at the end of 71 of civil procedure that justice gives to the person judicial effectiveness who supplement a prime part as intervenenr. It remains still in the problem to be interpreted whether this effectiveness raises only between the intervener and prime part or not. The conclusion depends on the view whether the said effectiveness is deemed as res judicata or another special one. If it would be res judicata, It is raised between the intervener and counter part. If another special, It is raised only between the intervener and prime part. The controversy about this problem which is the right view has been argued among scholars. Because the proof of the effectiveness recognized justice is different from each other and the effectiveness is extended to the cause of justice, and the cause precluded effectiveness makes parties very accidental to prepare for a new trial. A few of them it is res judicat, and the most of them say it is the special effectiveness. If the liability of intervener's suit-performance for prime part is on a proof of intervention-effectiveness, the intervener is out of the liability to the pre`me part. By the present law there is no reason the intervener owns Liability to counter part. we know that the proof of the intervention-effectiveness elicted from the intervener's situation to the counter part involves the relation to the one. If the proof of intervention is on the principle of equity for the participation to build basic materiats in the judgment, there is no reason to limit only the relation between the intervener and prime part. If the effectiveness of intervention is recognized on the ground of prohibiting to rebut, there is no reason to limit the speaking partner only to prime part. If the boundary of recognized justice is in the operation of the view of equity, state why the cause of recognized justice is from subsequent Law-suit to be maode for intervener, There is no reason to permit only as to prime part to file action. on the views from all relevant points. This writer thinks, the effectiveness of intervention raise not only between intervener and prime part but to counter part.
-
韓宗烈 慶北大學校 1978 論文集 Vol.25-26 No.-
It is important to desolve the issue fairly between parties in the lawsuit, but more important to desolve it quickly. It is more needed in the developing country, and so our civil procedure abolished entirely the system of judgment by default which existed in the past, Because it was used to delay lawsuit. The loss-judgment was sentenced to the party which was absent, as only his absence in the system of judgment by default, and for without good cause shown, the court may have set aside judgment by default if the party to receive the loss-judgment wanted. Then the lawsuit should have been the situation before sentenced. For the return it could always do without any limitation. Therefore sometimes it was used to delay lawsuit. The existing law adopts the system of judgment by pleading instead of that, if the party to be absent files the prepared papers, he is supposed to attend and plead, Occasionaly final judg-ment is sentenced. It is unneeded kindness to let the idle party get the winning-judgment without attending from the begin. writer consider it is far better that after droping the weak point in the system of judgment by default, as giving the appropriate limitation to demanding, the opposed party has to have a right to elect one of the systems of judgment by default or by pleading.
-
-
-
연관 검색어 추천
이 검색어로 많이 본 자료
활용도 높은 자료
