RISS 학술연구정보서비스

검색
다국어 입력

http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.

변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.

예시)
  • 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
  • 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
닫기
    인기검색어 순위 펼치기

    RISS 인기검색어

      KCI등재

      대형마트의 임대점포가 영업규제 대상에서 제외되는지 여부 = Legal Study on the Issue of Whether Rented Stores in Large Retail Discount Stores Belong to the Scope of Business Restriction

      한글로보기

      https://www.riss.kr/link?id=A100400620

      • 0

        상세조회
      • 0

        다운로드
      서지정보 열기
      • 내보내기
      • 내책장담기
      • 공유하기
      • 오류접수

      부가정보

      다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract) kakao i 다국어 번역

      After the business restrictions of the Distribution Industry Development Act (Act) of 17, January 2012 came into effect, controversy arose over the issue of whether rented stores in large retail discount stores should also be included in the scope of restriction in the Act. The conflicting arguments are as following : Large retail discount stores argue that rented stores in large retail discount stores are also small and medium sized retailers, the party the Act aims to protect. Thus they argue that the rented stores in large retail discount stores should not be restricted. On the other hand, small and medium sized retailers argue that in order to protect the bushiness community of street markets rented stores in large retail discount stores albeit their size should be restricted considering the fact that they are also part of the large retail discount stores. The controversy over rented stores in large retail discount stores seems to reflect the improperness of regulation in protecting small and medium sized retail industries. It divides small and medium sized retailers to those who are regulated and who are not and the collision between these two parties result in the fight over the scope of regulation. However, the underlying cause of such collision lies in the imprecision of the Act, in that its definition and classification of the retail industry is not sophisticated enough. In other words, the Act first classifies small retail stores and then aims to protect them accordingly. However the classification itself is inaccurate and thus has led to such controversy. Moreover, restrictions inconsistent with the whole system of the Act were added and this has made it harder to make consistent, unified interpretations of the Act. To toggle such problems, I first reviewed the specific clauses of the Act and studied relevant foreign precedents. Then I reviewed and analyzed the arguments for and against restricting rented stores in large retail discount stores and tried to analyze the situation in the perspective of the distribution law. Finally, I propose some solutions to the problems that might appear as the result of the restriction.
      번역하기

      After the business restrictions of the Distribution Industry Development Act (Act) of 17, January 2012 came into effect, controversy arose over the issue of whether rented stores in large retail discount stores should also be included in the scope of ...

      After the business restrictions of the Distribution Industry Development Act (Act) of 17, January 2012 came into effect, controversy arose over the issue of whether rented stores in large retail discount stores should also be included in the scope of restriction in the Act. The conflicting arguments are as following : Large retail discount stores argue that rented stores in large retail discount stores are also small and medium sized retailers, the party the Act aims to protect. Thus they argue that the rented stores in large retail discount stores should not be restricted. On the other hand, small and medium sized retailers argue that in order to protect the bushiness community of street markets rented stores in large retail discount stores albeit their size should be restricted considering the fact that they are also part of the large retail discount stores. The controversy over rented stores in large retail discount stores seems to reflect the improperness of regulation in protecting small and medium sized retail industries. It divides small and medium sized retailers to those who are regulated and who are not and the collision between these two parties result in the fight over the scope of regulation. However, the underlying cause of such collision lies in the imprecision of the Act, in that its definition and classification of the retail industry is not sophisticated enough. In other words, the Act first classifies small retail stores and then aims to protect them accordingly. However the classification itself is inaccurate and thus has led to such controversy. Moreover, restrictions inconsistent with the whole system of the Act were added and this has made it harder to make consistent, unified interpretations of the Act. To toggle such problems, I first reviewed the specific clauses of the Act and studied relevant foreign precedents. Then I reviewed and analyzed the arguments for and against restricting rented stores in large retail discount stores and tried to analyze the situation in the perspective of the distribution law. Finally, I propose some solutions to the problems that might appear as the result of the restriction.

      더보기

      동일학술지(권/호) 다른 논문

      동일학술지 더보기

      더보기

      분석정보

      View

      상세정보조회

      0

      Usage

      원문다운로드

      0

      대출신청

      0

      복사신청

      0

      EDDS신청

      0

      동일 주제 내 활용도 TOP

      더보기

      주제

      연도별 연구동향

      연도별 활용동향

      연관논문

      연구자 네트워크맵

      공동연구자 (7)

      유사연구자 (20) 활용도상위20명

      이 자료와 함께 이용한 RISS 자료

      나만을 위한 추천자료

      해외이동버튼