AZ91마그네슘합금의 부식거동에 미치는 Mg17Al12 의 영향

조상희,서원찬,황운석 ( Sang Hee Jo,Won Chan Seo,Woon Suk Hwang ) 한국부식방식학회 1996 Corrosion Science and Technology Vol.25 No.1

환원황화합물에 대한 용기채취법의 비교 연구

조상희(Sang-Hee Jo),김기현(Ki-Hyun Kim) 한국대기환경학회 2012 한국대기환경학회지 Vol.28 No.3

사법행정가로서의 초대 대법원장 김병로

조상희 ( Sang Hee Jo ) 건국대학교 법학연구소 2014 一鑑法學 Vol.0 No.27

In the history of Korean Judicial system, the works and influence of the first Supreme Court Chief Justice, Kim Byungro, cannot be empathized too much. Although he studied law in Japanese universities of Tokyo, he was an activist lawyer against Japanese colonial rule in Chosun. After Korea`s emancipation from Japan (as it was defeated in WWII), he played a very important role as a Korean director of Justice of the Government of Korea under interim United States Military Governor. He was appointed as first Supreme Court Chief Justice by then President Lee Seung Man and built Judicial administrative system and prepared many basic legislations of Korea such as Criminal Code, Code of Criminal Procedure, Civil Code and Code of Civil Procedure, etc. Though he was appointed by the President, he tried hard to keep the independence of Judiciary against intervening court judgment and management by the executive and administrative department and other socio-economical powers. He even explained the adequacy of the each and individual judgment to the President and the newspapers and the press. He put great emphasis on the integrity, impartiality and righteousness of each judge and encouraged that kind of practical ethics.

Indoor Air Quality 및 VOC Clean Technology 워크샵을 마치고

조상희(Sang-Hee Jo),김기현(Ki-Hyun Kim) 대한토목학회 2018 대한토목학회지 Vol.66 No.1

논문(論文) : 학교법인의 임원 해임청구 대표소송 도입 검토 -미국의 모델 비영리법인법(NCA 2008)과 영국의 공익자선법(Charities Act 2006)에 비추어 본 사학분쟁조정위원회의 기능과 관련하여-

조상희 ( Sang Hee Jo ) 대한교육법학회 2010 敎育 法學 硏究 Vol.22 No.2

사립학교법이 2007.7.27. 법률 제8545호로 개정 시행되면서 등장한 것이 사학분쟁조정위원회이다. 사학분쟁조정위원회는 사립학교법 개정 이전의 교육부훈령에 의한 교육부장관 자문기구로서의 사학분쟁조정위원회와 대통령령에 의한 심의기구로서의 임시이사후보자심의위원회를 법률상 기구로 만들어 독립성을 강화한 것이다. 그런데 현행 사립학교법상의 학교법인의 임원취임승인취소와 임시이사선임과 관련하여 법적 논리의 일관성이 문제되고 있어서, 미국 ABA의 모델 NCA 2008과 영국 Charity Act 2006에서의 공익법인의 임원에 대한 규정 방식을 비교하여 현재의 임원취임승인취소와 사학분쟁조정위원회의 기능을 검토해 볼 때 절차적 규정방식을 전환해야 한다. 학교법인 임원의 취임승인 제도와 취임승인취소라는 행정청 주도의 행정절차적 규제 방식은 사적 영역에서의 학교법인의 임원해임과 임원해임청구, 대표소송의 구조라는 사법 절차형으로 전환되어야 하며, 사법 절차형으로의 전환이 사립학교법인이 가지는 종래의 사회적, 정치적 맥락과 행정규제를 벗어나 21세기에서의 다양성 추구와 민간 영역의 기능 확대와 행정규제의 축소, 교육의 정상화를 바라는 사립학교를 둘러싼 이해관계인의 의사반영 통로의 확보, 교육분야의 해외교류와 외국인투자의 증대라는 방향으로 나아가기 위한 길이 될 것이다. After the revision of Private School Act on July 27, 2007, the Private School Dispute Resolution Committee started to take the procedure of the appointment of interim directors and dismissal of private school foundations and discuss the methods on proper management of those foundations. But the power of removal of directors will still remain in the relevant administration. In the meantime there was one of the most important rules of Supreme Court about whether the interim board of directors could elect, appoint or designate the formal directors regardless of the intent of founders and the purpose of foundation. In comparing the procedure of appointment and removal of the directors in nonprofit corporation in United Stated of America and in charity organizations in United Kingdom, the present procedure of that in Korea has some problems. One is the possibility of much discretion, even capriciousness and arbitrariness of the relevant administration in ratification on the appointment and removal of directors. And the other is there is no chance or channel to reflect the intent of the person of interest in those foundation in the process of administration`s orders or directions. Therefore, I suggest that the weird procedure of ratification of the appointment (or election) of the directors should be repealed and the removal of directors and appointment of interim directors should be done in the judicial process and by the court. And we need the great change in the system of the present procedures regarding the directors of private school foundation in Private School Act, which will result in reducing the power of relevant administration.

미국 루이지애나(Louisiana) 법에서의 유류분 제도의 변천171)

조상희 ( Jo Sang-hee ) 건국대학교 법학연구소 2017 一鑑法學 Vol.0 No.36

상속법에서 가장 중요한 원칙의 하나가 유언의 자유일 것이다. 그러나 유류분 제도로 인해 이 유언의 자유가 중대하게 제한된다. 최근 유류분 제도에 대한 개선 논의가 시작되었다. 기부문화의 확산과 제고를 위하여 가장 걸림돌이 되는 것이 현재의 상속에서의 유류분 제도이다. 이 제도는 1977년 피상속인의 무사려한 유증으로 인하여 본처와 그 자녀들이 생존권적 피해를 입는 것을 막기 위하여 도입된 것이지만, 경제력이 많이 커진 작금에는 경제적능력이 충분한 자녀들이 기부된 재산을 피상속인의 의사에 반해 되찾아 온다든지 자녀들사이에 재산 싸움의 도구로 이용되고 있는 실정이다. 유언의 자유를 제한하고 있는 유류분 제도가 그 수정을 받아야 할 시점이 된 것이다. 유류분제도를 개선하고자 할 때 참고로 해야 할 외국의 제도로서는 특이하게 미국의 루이지애나주의 강제상속과 유류분 제도가 있다. 일반적으로 영미법계 국가인 미국에서 보통법 위주의 법체계가 아닌 대륙법인 민법 체계를 유지하고 있는 루이지애나주에서는 대륙법 계통의 전형적인 특징인 상속에서의 공동체의 개념을 유지하기 위하여 다른 주에서의 공격과 시대적 상황과 경제적 상황의 변화에도 불구하고 유류분 제도를 고수하여 왔다. 그러나 그러한 상황 변화를 거부할 수만도 없어서 루이지애나도 1995년 이 제도에 대하여 급격한 수정을 가하였다. 즉 피상속인 사망시 23세 이하의 자녀에게만 유류분권을 인정하였으며, 예외적으로 그 자녀가 심신상실 정도로 보호가 필요한 경우에는 나이에 관계 없이 유류분권을 인정하게 된 것이다. 즉 경제적 능력이 있는 성년 자녀들이 피상속인의 기부의사나 유언의 자유를 침해하지 못하도록 제한을 가한 것이다. 이러한 루이지애나주의 유류분 제도의 변천과정을 보면서 우리나라의 제도의 개선에 참고하고자 한다. One of the important principles in Estate law is testamentary freedom. But this testamentary freedom is restricted by the forced heirship and legitime. Recently in order to raise awareness of donation culture, there are many opinions that this forced heirship and legitime should be changed or even abolished. The forced heirship and legitime was introduced into Civil Law of Korea in 1977, to prevent the inappropriate and irrational disposition of estate of the wealthy deceased to newly-wed or concubine and their children (or illegitimate descendents) and protect the sustenance of the original wife and children. But nowadays the disputes over legitime have arisen between wealthy and able-bodied descendants and donees of the deceased for greed and money, not for the sustenance. And this tendency of propensity to dispute hinders the sound donation for charitable and educational purposes. Therefore it is time to reconsider and change the forced heirship system. At this perspective we had better looking up to the changes of the forced heirship in Louisiana legal system, which has a civil law system different from the other states of America with common law systems. The forced heirship is the unique characteristics of civil law system originated from French law and Spanish law and Roman law. Many attacks to abolish the forced heirship in civil code and even in constitutional law of Louisiana and have been done for nearly two hundred years and finally achieved to the extent that the forced heirship is an exceptional case in 1995 and 1996. The changes in the forced heirship in Louisiana would guide the direction of changes in that of Korean civil law. At present rules about that is “Forced heirs are descendants of the first degree who, at the time of the death of the decedent, are twenty-three years of age or younger or descendants of the first degree of any age who, because of mental incapacity or physical infirmity, are permanently incapable of taking care of their persons or administering their estates at the time of the death of the decedent.” This change of laws would be important implications for the efforts to revise the forced heirship in Korea.

직무상 취급한 사건의 수임 제한과 동료 법조인의 비위보고의무

조상희 ( Sang Hee Jo ) 한국법정책학회 2009 법과 정책연구 Vol.9 No.1

Attorney Law §31-1-3 provides that lawyer shall not accept private employment in a matter if he or she acted in a judicial capacity on the merits of that matter as (former) civil servant, mediator or arbitrator. Generally this rule applies to the former judge and prosecutor. And Attorney Law §31-2 imputes the adjudicative officer`s disqualification to all the members of law firm. By this time, there was only one court case regarding to the violation of the above Civil Procedure law. But about 21 questions and answers in the Korean Bar Association (KBA) bulletins about that theme among 401 questions and answers in the period between 1993.12.13. to 2009.3.31.. I hereby analysed and classified those questions and answers, so as to understand the standard whether the case is judged in the same matter or not. And I found that KBA interpreted the scope of the same matter even broader, to the extent that mere abstract relevance between the case and questioned matter would prevent the lawyer from representing the parties. However, the former judges and prosecutors have tendencies to be employed to the law firm in the wake of recession in economy and the recent trend of making a large law firm. At this stage, they recklessly (or knowingly) forgot the disqualification rule, since they seemed to think that matter is delegated to law firm not me personally. It is very dangerous aspect to undermine the integrity of judicial system. I propose the introduction of the reporting professional misconduct rule into code of lawyers` ethics. Because the peer group of lawyers do know the misconduct of the other lawyers better than any other people, so they should have an obligation to volunteer information of another lawyer`s serious disciplinable violations that raise a substantial question about that lawyer`s dishonesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects.

미국 FCC의 결정에 대한 미국 법원의 행정청의 해석 존중의 원칙의 적용

조상희(Jo Sang Hee) 행정법이론실무학회 2007 행정법연구 Vol.- No.18

One of the most venerable doctrines in administrative law is that a court will give great deference to an agency's interpretation of its own rules (In German administrative legal terms, Beurteilungsspielraum). This deference is even greater than that afforded an agency's interpretations of the statutes it enforces. However, courts have positively provided their own interpretations where they disagree with the agency. Although the doctrine requires deference, it does not require that courts give agency interpretations controlling effect; thus courts are free to substitute judgment if they strongly disagree with the agency's interpretation. However, in the Chevron case, U.S. Supreme Court established a new regime that significantly altered the judiciary's role in reviewing agency statutory interpretations by referring to political accountability of the incumbent administration and the Chief Executive and political branch. And in Brand X case, U.S. Supreme Court has invoked the Chevron doctrine in reviewing an FCC statutory interpretation that implements a significant communications policy direction. But It is desirable that a less deferential review standard should apply to independent regulatory agencies such as FCC, SEC and FTC. Because the ability of the President and Congress to influence the independent agencies in their own ways does not rise to the level of control that justifies ascribing political accountability of executive agencies.

부동산 매매계약에 있어서 중도금의 기일 전 지급과 이행의 착수

조상희(Sang-Hee Jo) 건국대학교 부동산도시연구원 2009 부동산 도시연구 Vol.2 No.1

부동산매매계약은 일반적으로 매매대금을 계약금, 중도금, 잔금 등으로 나누어 지급하게 되고, 이때 계약금은 해약금으로 해석되어 당사자의 일방이 이행에 착수하기 전까지는 매도인은 계약금의 배액을 상환하고, 매수인은 교부된 계약금을 포기하고 매매계약을 해제할 수 있다. 그리고 중도금의 지급을 이행의 착수로 보고 있다. 그런데 매매계약 이후에 부동산 가격이 상승할 경우 매도인으로서는 매매시기의 착오로 손해를 보았다고 생각하게 되고, 매수인은 매매시기의 선택으로 계약 자체로 이익을 실현했다고 여기기 때문에 이해관계가 완전히 상반되게 된다. 이때 그 가격 상승폭이 매우 클 경우에 즉 계약금의 배액을 상환하더라도 이익이 발생되는 상황이라면 매도인은 계약금의 배액을 상환하고서라도 계약을 해제하려고 할 것이고, 이때 매수인은 중도금 지급시기까지 기다리지 않고 미리 중도금을 지급하여 계약을 해제시키지 못하게 만들려고 할 것이다. 이때 매수인이 중도금의 지급시기 이전에 미리 중도금을 지급하는 것이 이른바 이행의 착수 시점으로 인정되어서 매도인이 더 이상 계약을 해제할 수 없게 되는 것인가가 문제로 된다. 왜냐하면 매도인으로서도 원래의 계약상의 중도금 지급시기까지 계약을 해제할 권한을 가지고 있어서 매수인의 중도금의 기일 전 지급이 이행의 착수로 인정될 경우 이러한 계약해제권을 박탈당하게 되기 때문이다. 최근의 대법원 판결은 당사자가 채무의 이행기 전에 이행에 착수하지 아니하기로 하는 것과 같이 볼 수 있는 ‘특별한 사정’이 있는 경우 이외에는 중도금의 이행기는 채무자인 매수인의 이익을 위하여 존재하는 것이라고 해석하여 중도금의 기일 전 지급에 이행의 착수 시점을 앞당기는 효과를 발생시킬 수 있다고 본다. 그러나 이러한 판결은 매도인이 가지는 기한의 이익을 지나치게 제한하고 매수인이 임의로 매도인의 계약의 해제권한을 박탈하는 것이다. 그것은 중도금의 지급기일의 특정이라는 약정이라는 원칙적 상황을 이행기 전에 착수하지 않기로 하는 특별한 사정이라는 예외적 사정과 혼동한 것으로 문제가 있다고 본다. 중도금의 기일 전 지급에 대하여 매도인의 이익을 충분히 고려하여 이행의 착수 효과를 인정하는데 주의하여야 한다고 본다. According to Article 565 of Civil Law, seller can rescind the sale contract by giving to the purchaser the double amount of down payment and purchaser can rescind the sale contract by relinquishing the down payment made by himself or herself, with the proviso that the seller or purchaser does not make any substantial performance in implementing the contract. The “substantial performance in implementing the contract” in sales contract on real property may be done when purchaser makes the midterm installment to seller, if the price should be made by three installments, i.e., down payment (earnest), midterm installment and remaining balance payment. That principle was firmly established as court precedents. However, in the middle of the situation that the price of real property is rising rapidly, the purchasers have the tendency to prepay the midterm installment because, by fixing the time of the substantial performance in implementing the contract earlier than expected, they do not want the contract to be floating and prevent seller from rescind the contract. This kind of advance payment of midterm installment by purchaser may do harm to seller by depriving his or her right of rescission of the contract. The recent decision of the Supreme Court affirmed that the advance payment of midterm installment by purchaser should be recognized as the substantial performance in implementing the contract which prevents the seller from rescission, if there were not “mutual particular understanding” that seller also had the benefit from the time period inbetween midterm installment. But in my opinion this decion may be wrong in the point that the rescission right of seller can not be protected properly in the time of rapid price rising.

미국 연방통신위원회(FCC)의 신문ㆍ방송 겸영 허용 결정 검토

조상희(Jo Sang-hee) 행정법이론실무학회 2008 행정법연구 Vol.- No.21

FCC changed newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership rules on Dec. 18, 2007. FCC replaced the blanket ban on newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership with a rule that establishes clear presumptions as to the limited circumstances when FCC will presume a newspaper/broadcast transaction will be in the public interest and thus a waiver of the ban should be granted. The new rules adopt a presumption, in the top 20 Designated Market Areas ("DMAs"), that it is not inconsistent with the public interest for one entity to own a daily newspaper and a radio station or, under the following limited circumstances, a daily newspaper and a television station, if (1) the television station is not ranked among the top four stations in the DMA and (2) at least eight independent "major media voices" remain in the DMA. In all other instances, FCC adopt a presumption that a newspaper/broadcast station combination would not be in the public interest, with two limited exceptions, (1) a failed/failing station model and (2) a new source of a significant amount of local news in a market by a proposed combination. But, even if the changed rules were limited to the top 20 markets by a method of presumption, those would permit new cross-owned combinations from the largest markets down to the smallest markets. For many years, the underpinnings of FCC's public interest analysis with regard to media have been to promote localism, competition, and diversity. Yet as a result of newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership, there is less local news in the market as a whole and there is less competition for stories and ideas since two competing entities become one. There is also less diversity, as a voice in the market is lost, and broadcast outlets are taken even further out of reach of minority such as women and people of color. Recently it is said that there will be a policy of Korean government which will take a step toward newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership as result of FCC's changed rule. However the perfect survey and research should be done and the particular situation of market in newspaper and broadcast in Korea before the change of rules or laws, not merely following the FCC's precedents. And media ownership regulation must strengthen the vital function the media plays in a democratic society: decreasing citizens' costs in monitoring government and maximize output of political news.