2016, Vol., No.73

A Comparative Study on the Accrediting Organizations of Law Schools in Korea, USA and Japan

Lee, Young-Ho | 2016, (73) | pp.1~26 | number of Cited : 2

This study compares and examines accrediting organizations of legal education, which are supervised by the Korean Law School, the USA Law Education Council and the Japan Bar Association and Legal Research Funds. Furthermore, it has a target to seek more rational and efficient legal education of accreditation standards for the organizations in this article. The main conclusion of this comparison study on law school accreditation organizations within Korea, USA and Japan is as follows. First, regarding the USA Law Education Council, it belongs to the ABA(American Bar Association), but its accreditation standards have independence without any intervention, they have a guarantee independence from the lawyer association of evaluation committee, which is a precondition aiming for standards and rules of procedure for approval itself. Second, the professional committee areas for each need in the development of accreditation standards, need the guarantee professional evaluation members, the guarantee of finance for accreditation standards and the guarantee of fairness of the accreditation decision. The operation of USA professional committee in these areas is a good example. Third, we need to ensure the equitability of the team visiting to evaluate and use the team's fact-finding investigation separately in order to verify for all objections. The USA Law Education Association has introduced this system already, but Japan and Korea have not applied it. Fourth, we need to recruit workers in an executive office at the minimum to support the activities related to the work of accreditation. Finally, the budget has a precondition for the stable operation of the organization of accreditation; the guarantee of expertise of accreditation; and the continuity of accreditation. Businesses like the educational work of Japan Bar Association and Legal Research Funds, legal examination, ability testing for the law are good examples in consideration of the guarantee of finance of Law School Accreditation Association in Korea.

A Study on Il-Tae Hoh’s Research on ≪Hyeongbeob Daejeon/刑法大全≫

LEE, KYUNG LYUL | 2016, (73) | pp.27~49 | number of Cited : 0

A Critical Review on the Practice Handling the Criminal Complaints - From the Perspective of Victims’ Rights -

KIM HYEOK | 2016, (73) | pp.51~81 | number of Cited : 9

The Allowability of the Alternative/Selective Joinder of Parties or Additional Joinder Party, and the Limitation thereon

황형모 | 2016, (73) | pp.83~118 | number of Cited : 3

In the process of a lawsuit which started from filling a written complaint, there occurs such an event where the change or addition of not only the claim but also the party (especially the defendant) is required. In case of the preliminary or selective co-litigation, the question arises where the claims can not withstand each other. The courts in the cases view that the alternative or selective co-litigation is established not only where the claims can not withstand each other based on the substantive law but also where they can not withstand based on the procedural law and based upon the facts in the case or the evaluation on the facts. However, in terms of procedural laws, where the claims can not withstand in acknowledging the party’s capacity, it does not mean that the claims do not withstand. There the withstanding should not be allowed because it is against the notion of litigation economy and effectiveness and the change of the precedent case is requested. In case where the claims may not withstand together based upon the facts, the cases acknowledging the withstanding is proper because it is due to the application of the substantive law. However even in such a case where the case acknowledging the facts or acknowledging selective facts allows the alternative selective joint litigation, such litigation may not be initiated abusively where there is dispute over the facts and the liable party may change and the factual situation should be constructed precisely so that the claims may not legally withstand together. Next, though it is the majority view to understand that the courts in the cases did not allow additional participation by acquisition, it is proper to understand that the courts’ position in cases is to allow the same in limited circumstances. Therefore the attorney representing the case does not have to be negative to the application for the participation by acquisition and it is proper to allow the same for the purpose of the litigation economy and one time resolution of the dispute like the majority academic theories. However, it should be viewed as limited to the cases where the obligations (or rights) acquired by the assignee are derived from assignor’s’ rights or obligations which are the subject matters of the litigation or arise subject to the existence of the same.

A Study on Legal and Historical Background on Vietnam's Accession to the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods(1): Focusing on the Adoption and Substance of the Doi Moi policy

SHIN CHOONG IL | 2016, (73) | pp.119~146 | number of Cited : 4

The Study on the Decent Work of the Occupational Safety and Health Act

hmhak Cho | 2016, (73) | pp.147~173 | number of Cited : 4

Comments on Korean Supreme Court`s Decision regarding the Scope of Application of Himalaya Clause under the Surrendered B/L

Yang,Seok-Wan | 2016, (73) | pp.175~213 | number of Cited : 3

On surrender of the bills, no further bill need be produced by the buyer (as consignee) and release is granted. If original bill of lading is surrendered at port of loading, a surrender message can be arranged from carrier or his agent’s office at load port to their counterpart at destination port advising them not to insist for original bill of lading from consignee to release the goods. A shipper of goods, when negotiating a contract of carriage, will be aware that the obligations arising from that contract will rarely be performed personally by the contractual carrier but will be delegated to employees of the carrier or to independent contractors engaged to carry out a particular function, such as stevedores engaged to load or discharge the cargo. Himalaya clause will be placed within the bill of lading or such other transportation contract. By such a device, the carrier or shipper attempts to cover and shield companies or persons it employs to assist in the transportation or loading or unloading of goods, with whatever liability exemptions, limitations, defences it may have with the owner of the goods. The Bill included an express clause stipulating that any servant, agent or independent contractor employed by the carrier should be entitled to the protection of every exemption available to the carrier and that, in respect of this clause, the carrier was contracting not only on his own behalf but also as agent or trustee on behalf of the parties named. Two requirements must be satisfied before such an exception will operate. First, the limitation of liability of liability clause must either expressly or impliedly extend its benefit to the employees seeking to rely on it; and, secondly, such employees must have been performing the very services provided for in the contract between their employer and the customer when the loss incurred. There is, however, one proviso in relation to contracts for the carriage of goods by sea. In such a context the statutory right to enforce a contractual provision is not intended to confer positive rights on a third party, its effect being expressly restricted to enabling a third party to avail himself of an exclusion of limitation of liability provision in such a contract.

KJCKorea
Journal Central

DONG-A LAW REVIEW 2023 KCI Impact Factor : 0.65

2016, Vol., No.73