經濟諸量間의 基本的關係 : 경제제량간의 기본적관계

이현재 釜山大學校 商科大學 1961 釜山商大學報 : 부산대 Vol.7 No.1

國民所得의 槪念 : 국민소득의 개념

이현재 釜山大學校 商科大學 1958 釜山商大學報 : 부산대 Vol.4 No.2

乘數理論과 加速度原理 : 승수이론과 가속도원리

이현재 釜山大學校 商科大學 1959 釜山商大學報 : 부산대 Vol.5 No.2

한국노총, 50인 미만 사업장 ‘안전보건관리체계 구축 컨설팅’ 사업 실시

이현재 한국노동조합총연맹 2023 월간 한국노총 Vol.597 No.-

가사사건에 있어서 관련사건의 객관적 · 주관적병합과 관련재판적

이현재 전남대학교 법학연구소 2008 법학논총 Vol.28 No.1

Family Litigation Act, § 14, (1) provides that “when the counts of claims for the cases of several family litigations, or the cases of the family litigation and the family non-litigation, are based on the identical fact relations, if the propriety of one claim comes to be a pre-requisite for the propriety of the other claims, they may be instituted by a single litigation.” This section is the focus of this article. First of all, this article begins with joinder of claims (objective consolidation of cases). Joinder of claims in family disputes is possible, when each claim is the family case, inter-related, and each party is same. Three types of Joinder of claims: ⅰ) family litigation and family litigation, ⅱ) family litigation and family litigation, and ⅲ) family litigation and family non-litigation, are discussed. Joinder of claims is permissible, when each claim is an interrelated family case with identical parties. Second, it deals with the correlated forum in cases involving the “Objective Consolidation of Lawsuits.” When the competent courts for the cases under subsection(1) are different, a case may be transferred to the family court having jurisdiction over one claim from among the cases of the family litigations under Family Litigation Act, § 14, (2). In other words, the family court which has the venue in one case of the many inter-related cases may have the authority to hear them, even though it is not the proper venue for the others. Of course, the court must have personal jurisdiction for one case of the many inter-related cases and have the subject matter jurisdiction over the many inter-related cases. If the court has no subject matter jurisdiction, it should transfer the case to the courts that have the required subject matter jurisdiction. But the family court with the exclusive jurisdiction among the courts with proper venue, particularly, can not transfer the case to other family courts because of the doctrine of forum non conveniens. Third, civil cases and family cases may not be joined, even when they are inter-related. It is important to distinguish civil cases from family cases. The family court may not transfer family cases to the civil courts, because the family court has the exclusive jurisdiction over such cases. Also, the family court with the exclusive jurisdiction can not transfer the cases to the other family courts because of the doctrine of forum non conveniens. Finally, it deals with joinder of parties(or subjective consolidation of lawsuits or co-litigation) and correlated forum. Family Litigation Act is silent on these issues. Family Litigation Act §12 provides: “Except as otherwise prescribed in this Act, the procedures for family litigation shall be governed by the provisions of the Civil Procedure Act.” With respect to joinder of parties and correlated forum, Civil Procedure Act, §25, (2) provides that: “[t]he provisions of paragraph (1) shall apply mutatis mutandis to the case where the right or duty becoming the subject-matter of a lawsuit is common to many persons, or where these many persons become parties thereto as co-litigants due to the same factual or legal causes.” The same section provides for correlated forum in paragraph (1). Thus, “subjective consolidation of lawsuits” in family disputes is possible, only when each claim to co-litigants is a family case and inter-related. Family Litigation Act, § 14, (1) provides that “when the counts of claims for the cases of several family litigations, or the cases of the family litigation and the family non-litigation, are based on the identical fact relations, if the propriety of one claim comes to be a pre-requisite for the propriety of the other claims, they may be instituted by a single litigation.” This section is the focus of this article. First of all, this article begins with joinder of claims (objective consolidation of cases). Joinder of claims in family disputes is possible, when each claim is the family case, inter-related, and each party is same. Three types of Joinder of claims: ⅰ) family litigation and family litigation, ⅱ) family litigation and family litigation, and ⅲ) family litigation and family non-litigation, are discussed. Joinder of claims is permissible, when each claim is an interrelated family case with identical parties. Second, it deals with the correlated forum in cases involving the “Objective Consolidation of Lawsuits.” When the competent courts for the cases under subsection(1) are different, a case may be transferred to the family court having jurisdiction over one claim from among the cases of the family litigations under Family Litigation Act, § 14, (2). In other words, the family court which has the venue in one case of the many inter-related cases may have the authority to hear them, even though it is not the proper venue for the others. Of course, the court must have personal jurisdiction for one case of the many inter-related cases and have the subject matter jurisdiction over the many inter-related cases. If the court has no subject matter jurisdiction, it should transfer the case to the courts that have the required subject matter jurisdiction. But the family court with the exclusive jurisdiction among the courts with proper venue, particularly, can not transfer the case to other family courts because of the doctrine of forum non conveniens. Third, civil cases and family cases may not be joined, even when they are inter-related. It is important to distinguish civil cases from family cases. The family court may not transfer family cases to the civil courts, because the family court has the exclusive jurisdiction over such cases. Also, the family court with the exclusive jurisdiction can not transfer the cases to the other family courts because of the doctrine of forum non conveniens. Finally, it deals with joinder of parties(or subjective consolidation of lawsuits or co-litigation) and correlated forum. Family Litigation Act is silent on these issues. Family Litigation Act §12 provides: “Except as otherwise prescribed in this Act, the procedures for family litigation shall be governed by the provisions of the Civil Procedure Act.” With respect to joinder of parties and correlated forum, Civil Procedure Act, §25, (2) provides that: “[t]he provisions of paragraph (1) shall apply mutatis mutandis to the case where the right or duty becoming the subject-matter of a lawsuit is common to many persons, or where these many persons become parties thereto as co-litigants due to the same factual or legal causes.” The same section provides for correlated forum in paragraph (1). Thus, “subjective consolidation of lawsuits” in family disputes is possible, only when each claim to co-litigants is a family case and inter-related.

통화수요함수(通貨需要函數)의 장기적(長期的) 안정성(安定性) 검정(檢定) : 논평(論評)

이현재,Lee, Hyeon-Jae 한국개발연구원 1995 韓國 開發 硏究 Vol.17 No.1

생물공학의 현황과 전망

이현재,민홍식 한국생화학분자생물학회 (구 한국생화학회) 1983 생화학분자생물학회 소식 Vol.3 No.1

2.5Gb/s x 4채널 파장분할다중 광링크 실험모델 제작 및 전송 실험

이현재,이상수,이동호,박창수 한국통신학회 1997 韓國通信學會論文誌 Vol.22 No.1

2.5Gb/s x 4채널 파장분할다중 광링크의 실험모델을 제작하였다. 무중계로 120km를 전송하였으며 광선로증폭기 2대를 연결하여 240km까지 전송거리를 연장하였다. We developed the prototype of 4-channel WDM link with erbium-doped fiber amplifiers. Bit rate of each channel was 2.5Gb/s. The unrepeatered transmission over 120km with DSF was achieved and the transmission length was extended to 240km using two EDFAs.

PSR 알고리즘에 의한 특이점 회피 및 지상 실험을 통한 알고리즘 검증 연구

이현재,이일형,박종오,이동헌,김광연,방효충 한국항공우주학회 2007 한국항공우주학회 학술발표회 논문집 Vol.- No.-

석면관련 폐질환의 진단에 있어서 흉부고해상도전산화단층촬영검사(HRCT)의 유용성

이현재,손지언,,홍영습,,이영일,예병진,유창훈,정갑열,김상훈,임형준,장은철,김정만,김준연 大韓産業醫學會 2006 대한직업환경의학회지 Vol.18 No.2

목적: 석면에 노출된 근로자에서 석면관련 폐질환의 양상을 분석하고 진단에 있어 HRCT의 유용성을 연구하여 석면에 대한 의학적 감시프로그램의 개발에 기여하고자 하였다. 방법: 석면에 직접 노출되는 작업자 68명과 간접 노출되는 작업자 94명 등 총 162명에 대해 OSHA 석면 표준, 의학적 감시 프로그램에 따라 단순 흉부방사선검사, 폐활량검사 및 우리나라 실정에 맞게 일부 수정한 의학적 설문지를 통해 면접조사의 방식으로 환자에 관한 정보를 수집하였으며, 자료의 신뢰성을 확보하기 위하여 면접조사는 1달 이상의 기간을 두고 2차례에 걸쳐 실시된 후 확인, 수정하였다. 또한, 석면관련 폐질환을 확진하기 위하여 HRCT를 추가적으로 실시하였다. 결과: HRCT결과 석면관련 폐질환의 유병율은 162명의 근로자중 17명으로 10.5%였는데, 직접 노출군에서 10명 (14.7%), 간접 노출군에서 7명 (7.4%)이었다. HRCT와 비교할 때 단순 흉부방사선검사의 민감도와 특이도는 각각 70.6%와 98.6%이었고, 양성 예측도와 음성 예측도는 각각 85.7%와 96.6%으로, HRCT는 단순흉부방사선검사에 비해 민감도가 높아 초기 석면관련 폐질환을 진단하는데 효과적이었다. 석면관련 폐질환의 진단에 있어 HRCT와 폐활량검사 사이에 유의한 관련성이 관찰되었다. HRCT 결과 석면관련 폐질환의 유무와 의학적 설문조사 결과의 빈도분석을 실시한 결과, 유의한 변수는 작업기간, 흡연량, 호흡기질환의 과거력, 기침, 호흡곤란이었다. 결론: HRCT는 석면관련 폐질환의 진단에 있어 단순 흉부방사선검사와 비교하여 민감도가 높아 초기 진단에 유용하므로 단순 흉부방사선선검사 결과 석면관련 폐질환소견을 보일 때뿐만 아니라, 정상소견을 보이더라도 폐활량 검사결과와 근무력, 흡연력, 호흡기질환의 과거력, 기침, 호흡곤란 등의 호흡기 증상을 참고하여 HRCT검사를 고려해야 한다. 또한, 본 연구에서 관련성이 없었던 요인들에 대해서도 향후 연관성을 규명하는 광범위한 전향적 연구가 필요하다. Objectives: This study was carried out to improve the medical surveillance program of workers exposed to asbestos by examining the usefulness of High Resolution Computed Tomography (HRCT) in the diagnosis of asbestos-related lung disease. Methods: The study subjects comprised 162 workers in a ship-repairing yard, 68 of whom had been directly exposed to asbestos and 94 indirectly exposed. The 'Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA) asbestos standard, medical surveilance program' and HRCT were conducted to analyze the aspects of the asbestos-related lung disease. The OSHA asbestos standard, medical surveilance program consists of simple chest x-ray, spirometry and medical questionnarie. Results: Seventeen (10.5%) of the 162 subjects, 10 (14.7%) directly exposed and 7 (7.4%) indirectly exposed, revealed asbestos-related lung disease on HRCT. The sensitivity and specificity of simple chest x-ray for asbestos-related lung disease were 70.6% and 98.6%, and the positive and negative predictive values were 85.7% and 96.6% respectively, as compared with HRCT, HRCT was an effective diagnostic tool especially to detect early asbestos-related lung disease. The study results indicated a relative significant association between the results of spirometry and HRCT. The variables significantly associated with asbestos-related lung disease on HRCT were work duration, smoking history (pack-years), past history of respiratory disease, cough and dyspnea. Conclusions: In the diagnosis of asbestos-related lung disease, HRCT should be considered not only for workers with positive findings on simple chest x-ray, but also workers with specific findings on spirometry, occupational history, smoking history, and past history of respiratory disease, or with respiratory symptoms such as cough and dyspnea.