E-Book, Englisch, Band 17, 296 Seiten, Format (B × H): 153 mm x 227 mm
Reihe: Recht in Ostasien
Contributions to the 6th Seoul-Freiburg Law Faculties Symposium
E-Book, Englisch, Band 17, 296 Seiten, Format (B × H): 153 mm x 227 mm
Reihe: Recht in Ostasien
ISBN: 978-3-8452-8049-3
Verlag: Nomos
Format: PDF
Kopierschutz: Adobe DRM (»Systemvoraussetzungen)
Mit Beiträgen von
Un Jong Pak, Matthias Jestaedt, Ralf Poscher, Hong Sik Cho, Kye Joung Lee, Frank Schäfer, Jinsu Yune, Jan von Hein, Sank Won Lee, Ok-Rial Song, Boris Paal, Maximilian Haedicke, Seongwook Heo, Dongjin Lee
Autoren/Hrsg.
Fachgebiete
Weitere Infos & Material
1;Cover;1
2; Section I Constitutional Law;11
2.1; Of Judicial Justice;11
2.1.1; The Gap between the Theories of Justice and Judicial Practice;12
2.1.2; Dilemma intrinsic in the Concept of Justice;13
2.1.3; Division of Justice;16
2.1.4; Justice as a Communicative Procedure;20
2.1.5; The Justice as a ‘Vanishing Point’;22
2.2; The Constitution Conformant Interpretation – Norm Compatibilisation Through Harmonisation by Way of Interpretation;25
2.2.1; I. An Instrument of Constitutionalisation;25
2.2.2; II. The Concept of Constitution Conformant Interpretation;26
2.2.2.1; 1. Derivation, Premises and Mode of Action;26
2.2.2.2; 2. Limits;26
2.2.3; III. A Legal Key Concept;27
2.2.4; IV. Four Questions regarding the Constitution Conformant Interpretation;28
2.2.4.1; 1. Is it Interpretation?;28
2.2.4.1.1; a) Competing Contents of a Norm;29
2.2.4.1.2; b) The Character of the Exclusion of Interpretation;30
2.2.4.2; 2. Do the Constraints Work?;31
2.2.4.3; 3. Does the Derivation Work?;33
2.2.4.3.1; a) Hierarchically Structured Unity and Consistency of the Legal Order;33
2.2.4.3.2; b) Legal Capacity and Legal Ability;34
2.2.4.4; 4. Do the Intended Effects Correspond to the Results?;36
2.2.4.4.1; a) Reducing a Norm’s Content Without Reducing a Norm’s Shape;36
2.2.4.4.2; b) The Constitution Conformant Interpretation by Ordinary Courts;36
2.2.4.4.3; c) The Constitution Conformant Interpretation by the FCC;38
2.2.5; V. A Preliminary Conclusion;39
3; Section II Legal Theory;41
3.1; Legal Construction between Legislation and Interpretation;41
3.1.1; I. Interpretation;43
3.1.1.1; 1. Interpretation as Intentional Explanation;43
3.1.1.2; 2. Meaning and Intentions;44
3.1.1.3; 3. Legislative Intent;47
3.1.2; II. Legal Construction;48
3.1.2.1; 1. Legal Construction as the Interpretation of a Text;50
3.1.2.2; 2. Construction Versus Association;51
3.1.2.3; 3. The Fiction of an Author;52
3.1.2.4; 4. Legal Construction Versus Legal Interpretation;55
3.1.2.4.1; a) Generality;56
3.1.2.4.2; b) Consistency;57
3.1.2.4.3; c) Instrumental Rationality;58
3.1.2.4.4; d) Evaluative Rationality;59
3.1.2.4.5; e) “The Fusion of Horizons”;59
3.1.2.5; 5. Legal Construction Versus Legislation;59
3.1.2.6; 6. Legal Construction and the Rule of Law;61
3.1.2.7; 7. Legal Construction and Truth;62
3.1.3; III. Résumé;64
3.1.4; Notes;65
3.1.4.1; Bibliography;65
4; Section III Private Law;69
4.1; Tension and Conflict between Laws Made by a Judge and Legislations by the National Assembly in Private Law;69
4.1.1; I. Misunderstanding and Truth of the Civil Law Country;69
4.1.2; II. Civil Cases showing tension and conflict between judge-made laws and legislations;70
4.1.2.1; 1. Decisions against the text of the legislations.;70
4.1.2.1.1; 1) Ordinary Wage Case(Supreme Court en banc Decision Case No. 2012Da72582 Decided May 16, 2014);70
4.1.2.1.2; 2) BMW Case (Supreme Court Decision Case No. 2012Da72582 Decided May 16, 2014);71
4.1.2.1.3; 3) The Beauty of The Golden Field Case(Daejeon High Court Case No. 2006Na1846 Decided Nov. 1, 2006);74
4.1.2.2; 2. Legislations Changing the Precedents;76
4.1.2.2.1; 1) The statute regarding the status of the transferee of the security deposit of the lessee;76
4.1.2.2.2; 2) The statute regarding Obligee's Duty to Provide Information and to Give Written Notice;77
4.1.2.3; 3. Influences on the judge-made law by the related legislations;78
4.1.2.3.1; 1) Interest Limitation Case(Supreme Court en banc Decision Case No. 2004Da50426 Decided Feb 15, 2007);79
4.1.2.3.2; 2) Divorce Claim Case(Supreme Court en banc Decision 2013Meu568 Decided September 15, 2015);80
4.1.3; III. Causes bringing about tension and conflict between judge-made law and legislations;80
4.1.3.1; 1. Intrinsic Constraints of Clarity of Language;80
4.1.3.2; 2. Judges Seeking the Substantive Justice in Each Specific Case;82
4.1.3.3; 3. Role of the Legislative and Court Ruling Overturned by the Legislative;83
4.1.3.4; 4. Distrust in Legislature;84
4.1.4; IV. Solutions for easing tension and conflict between judge-made laws and legislations;85
4.1.4.1; 1. Possible Solutions;85
4.1.4.2; 2. How to Control Logic of the Judge;86
4.2; Judge-made Law beyond the German Civil Code;89
4.2.1; I. Introduction: A Decisive Distinction;89
4.2.2; II. Types of Judicial Development of Law;90
4.2.3; III. Justification for Judicial Development of Law beyond Statutes;92
4.2.4; IV. Boundaries of Judicial Development of Law beyond Statutes;95
4.2.4.1; 1. Constitutional Boundaries;95
4.2.4.2; 2. The Case of European Law;99
4.2.5; V. Judge-Made Law as a Legal Source;102
4.2.5.1; 1. Case Law;102
4.2.5.2; 2. Customary Law;104
4.2.6; VI. Distinguishing Judge-made Law from Other Types of Law;105
4.2.6.1; 1. Substantiation of Statutes;106
4.2.6.2; 2. Filling Gaps in Statutes;106
4.2.6.3; 3. Supplementing Statutes;106
4.2.6.4; 4. Correcting Statutes;107
4.2.7; VII. Conclusions;107
4.3; The Decision of the Korean Supreme Court on the Contingent Fee Agreement in Criminal Cases – General Clause, Judicial Activism, and Prospective Overruling;109
4.3.1; I. Introduction;109
4.3.2; II. The Decision;110
4.3.2.1; 1. The Situation Before the Decision;110
4.3.2.2; 2. Underlying Facts of the Decision;111
4.3.2.3; 3. The Decision;112
4.3.2.4; 4. The Influence of Foreign Laws;114
4.3.2.5; 5. The Response to the Decision;116
4.3.3; III. Judicial Activism in the Interpretation;117
4.3.3.1; 1. The Concept of Judicial Activism;117
4.3.3.2; 2. Judicial Activism in the Interpretation;119
4.3.3.3; 3. General Clauses as a Means of Judicial Activism;122
4.3.4; IV. Factors Relevant to Judicial Activism;123
4.3.4.1; 1. The Text of Statute;124
4.3.4.2; 2. The Compatibility with the Existing Law System;125
4.3.4.3; 3. The Comparative Advantage Between the Legislature and the Court;127
4.3.4.4; 4. The Magnitude of the Impact Upon Legal Relations;128
4.3.4.5; 5. Application to This Case;129
4.3.5; V. The Problem of Prospective Overruling;130
4.3.5.1; 1. Prospective Overruling;130
4.3.5.2; 2. Criticism;134
4.3.6; VI. Conclusion;135
4.4; The Relationship between the Legislature and the Judiciary in DevelopingGeneral Principles of Private International Law;137
4.4.1; I. Introduction;137
4.4.2; II. Characterisation;142
4.4.2.1; 1. In the domestic context;142
4.4.2.2; 2. In the European context;144
4.4.2.2.1; a) Autonomous characterisation;144
4.4.2.2.2; b) Assessment of damages;145
4.4.2.2.3; c) Culpa in contrahendo;146
4.4.2.2.4; d) The relationship between European and domestic judges;148
4.4.3; III. Escape Clauses;149
4.4.3.1; 1. In the domestic context;149
4.4.3.2; 2. In the European context;150
4.4.3.2.1; a) The tension between flexibility and certainty;150
4.4.3.2.2; b) The relationship between European and domestic judges;155
4.4.4; IV. Habitual Residence;156
4.4.4.1; 1. In the domestic context;156
4.4.4.2; 2. In the European context;158
4.4.5; V. Dual and Multiple Nationalities;159
4.4.5.1; 1. In the domestic context;159
4.4.5.2; 2. In the European context;160
4.4.6; VI. Public Policy;162
4.4.6.1; 1. In the domestic context;162
4.4.6.2; 2. In the European context;163
4.4.7; VII. Conclusion;166
5; Section IV Criminal Law;169
5.1; The Influence of the Judiciary on the Criminal Legislation and Its Impact on the Transformation of Models: An Analysis of the Korean Experience;169
5.1.1; I. Introduction;169
5.1.2; II. Models of Criminal Procedure;169
5.1.2.1; A. Models and Structures;169
5.1.2.2; B. Two Models of Criminal Process;170
5.1.2.2.1; 1. Crime Control Model;170
5.1.2.2.2; 2. Due Process Model;172
5.1.2.3; C. Arrest and Detention in the Models;174
5.1.2.3.1; 1. Arrest for Investigation;174
5.1.2.3.1.1; (1) Crime Control Model;175
5.1.2.3.1.2; (2) Due Process Model;175
5.1.2.3.2; 2. Detention and Interrogation after a Lawful Arrest;176
5.1.2.3.2.1; (1) Crime Control Model;177
5.1.2.3.2.2; (2) Due Process Model;178
5.1.2.4; D. Linear and Triangle Structures;178
5.1.2.5; E. Use of Models and Structures;179
5.1.3; III. Korean Experience;180
5.1.3.1; A. Tool of Reign (1910-1945);180
5.1.3.1.1; 1. Structure of the Colonial System;180
5.1.3.1.2; 2. Power Makes Rule;181
5.1.3.2; B. Introduction of Warrant System (1945-1948);182
5.1.3.2.1; 1. Design of the Interim Government;182
5.1.3.2.2; 2. Transplant of US System;183
5.1.3.3; C. Intention of the Founders of Korean Criminal Procedure Act (1954);184
5.1.3.4; D. Formal Judicial Review based on Documents (1948-1995);185
5.1.3.4.1; 1. Ideals and Reality;185
5.1.3.4.2; 2. Voluntary Restraint (Accompanying the Police Voluntarily);186
5.1.3.4.3; 3. The Ostrich Court;187
5.1.3.4.4; 4. Wriggling through the Frozen Land;188
5.1.3.5; E. Substantial Judicial Review with Hearings (1995- 2015);188
5.1.3.5.1; 1. Amendment of 1995;188
5.1.3.5.2; 2. Amendment of 1997;189
5.1.3.5.3; 3. Amendment of 2007;190
5.1.3.5.4; F. Doctrine of Trial-Centered Procedure;191
5.1.4; IV. Models and Experience;192
5.1.5; V. Conclusion;193
5.2; Criminal Law, Security and Criminal Policies: German and Korean Perspectives;195
5.2.1; 1. Introduction;195
5.2.2; 2. Pursuit of Security through Criminal Law and Criminal Sanctions;196
5.2.3; 3. Crime Trends and Security Policies;199
5.2.4; 4. Security an d Criminal Law Reform: Developments in Germany;202
5.2.5; 5. Developments in Korea;210
5.2.6; 6. Korean and German Perspectives Compared;214
6; Section V Commercial Law;217
6.1; Unintended Effect of Legislation: Valuation of listed shares when private benefits of control are expected;217
6.1.1; Introduction;217
6.1.1.1; I. Legislation & Court Decision;218
6.1.1.1.1; 1. Unique Legislation on Valuation of Shares;218
6.1.1.1.2; 2. Court Decisions;220
6.1.1.2; II. Samsung Group Merger;221
6.1.1.2.1; 1. Merger;222
6.1.1.2.2; 2. Disputes on Valuation of Listed Shares;223
6.1.2; III. Implications;225
6.1.2.1; 1. Measuring Value of Control;226
6.1.2.2; 2. Fairness of Merger Ratio;228
6.1.2.3; 3. Effect of Legislation on Valuation of Shares;230
6.1.3; Concluding Remarks;231
6.2; Regulation of Internet Information Intermediaries: Personality Rights and Data Protection Law;233
6.2.1; I. Introduction;233
6.2.2; II. Jurisdiction;233
6.2.2.1; 1. European Level;234
6.2.2.1.1; a. ECJ – Shevill (1995);234
6.2.2.1.2; b. ECJ – eDate Advertising (2012);235
6.2.2.1.3; c. Evaluation;236
6.2.2.2; 2. National Level;237
6.2.2.2.1; a. Objective Domestic Relations;237
6.2.2.2.2; b. Legal Evaluation;238
6.2.2.2.3; c. Reaction of the FCJ;238
6.2.2.3; 3. Interim Conclusion;239
6.2.3; III. Applicable Law;239
6.2.3.1; 1. Right to Data Protection – Google Spain (2014);240
6.2.3.1.1; a. Activity of a Permanent Establishment;240
6.2.3.1.1.1; Decision-Making Rationale;241
6.2.3.1.1.2; Legal Evaluation;241
6.2.3.2; 2. Freedom of Speech;242
6.2.3.2.1; a. European Level;242
6.2.3.2.2; b. National Level;243
6.2.4; IV. Current Material Issues;243
6.2.4.1; 1. ECJ – Google Spain – Right to be forgotten (2014);243
6.2.4.1.1; a. Data-Protection Impairments of Personality Rights;244
6.2.4.1.2; b. Rights of the Person Concerned and Weighing of Interests;245
6.2.4.1.3; c. Legal Evaluation;246
6.2.4.1.3.1; Outlook;247
6.2.4.2; 2. Assessment;248
6.2.5; V. Overall Summary;249
6.3; The Legislator‘s Fear of the CJEU in the Unified Patent System;251
6.3.1; I. Introduction;251
6.3.2; II. The status quo of the patent system in Europe;252
6.3.3; III. First unsuccessful attempt: The Draft Agreement on a European and European Union Patents Court (EUPC);252
6.3.3.1; 1. Basic features of the EUPC Court;252
6.3.3.2; 2. Dismissal of the EUPC by the CJEU by Opinion 1/09;253
6.3.4; IV. Second (successful) attempt: The unified patent package;254
6.3.4.1; 1. Basic features of the Unitary Patent and the Unified Patent Court;254
6.3.4.2; 2. Removal of substantive European patent provisions from the EU-Regulation (“Cameron Rule”);255
6.3.4.2.1; a. Primacy of EU Law for the entire UPC system;255
6.3.4.2.2; b. Removal of substantive patent law from the EU Regulation;255
6.3.4.2.3; c. Removal of the scope of patent protection from the EU Regulation;255
6.3.5; V. Interconnected EU- and Non-EU-Sources of Law under primacy of EU Law;256
6.3.5.1; 1. Close links between different sources of law lead to an interconnected body of law;256
6.3.5.2; 2. Primacy of EU law for the entire UPC body of law;256
6.3.5.3; 3. Primacy of EU law for references to other EU sources law in the UPCA;257
6.3.5.4; 4. Primacy of EU law in cases of “autonomous implementation” of EU law into the UPCA;257
6.3.6; VI. Consequences for the CJEU’s Jurisdiction;257
6.3.6.1; 1. The CJEU might find itself competent to hear cases in which the primacy of EU law in the UPCA is at issue;257
6.3.6.2; 2. CJEU Jurisdiction in cases of “overreaching implementation”;258
6.3.6.3; 3. The CJEU might find itself competent to hear cases in which the scope of a patent is at issue;259
6.3.7; VII. Conclusion;259
7; Section VI Administrative Law;263
7.1; Recent Issues and Trends of Environmental Law and Policy in Korea – Legislature vs. Judiciary;263
7.1.1; I. Green growth and new climate regime in Korea;263
7.1.2; II. An Overview of CO2 Emission Trading Act in Korea and its insights on judiciary;264
7.1.2.1; 1. Introduction;264
7.1.2.2; 2. Allocation of Permits;264
7.1.2.3; 3. Trading of Permits;265
7.1.2.4; 4. Flexible mechanism;265
7.1.2.5; 5. Market stabilization measures by competent authority;265
7.1.2.6; 6. Penalties;266
7.1.2.7; 7. ETA litigations;266
7.1.2.8; 8. “Green Growth” in the judiciary;267
7.1.2.9; 9. Climate change in the judiciary;267
7.1.3; III. Humidifier sterilizer case;268
7.1.3.1; 1. Introduction;268
7.1.3.2; 2. Regulation failure;268
7.1.3.3; 3. Risk society and challenges of environmental law;269
7.1.3.4; 4. Government reactions;269
7.1.4; IV. Criminal penalty on environmental crime;270
7.1.4.1; 1. Aggravated punishment of environmental offenses;270
7.1.4.2; 2. Disparity between the norm and the reality;270
7.1.4.3; 3. Lessons for the humidifier sterilizer case;270
7.1.5; V. Legislature and judiciary in environmental law;271
7.1.6; VI. Conclusion;271
7.2; A Dynamic between the Legislature and the Judiciary in Korean Health Law: examplified by End-of-Life Decision-making and Health Care Financing Issues;273
7.2.1; I. Introduction;273
7.2.2; II. Discontinuance of Futile Life-Extending Treatments;274
7.2.2.1; 1. The Boramae Medical Center Case;274
7.2.2.2; 2. The Kim Case;275
7.2.2.2.1; (1) Requirements of Discontinuance of Life-Extending Treatment;276
7.2.2.2.2; (2) How to Confirm the Patient’s Intent?;277
7.2.2.2.3; (3) Procedural Aspect;279
7.2.2.3; 3. Discussion;281
7.2.2.3.1; (1) The Kim Case’s Flaws and Limitations;281
7.2.2.3.2; (2) Legislative Reaction: The Enactment of Act on Hospice, Palliative Care and Decision on Life-Extending Treatment for the Patient in Dying Process;282
7.2.3; III. Treatment Uncovered and Unauthorized by National Health Insurance;284
7.2.3.1; 1. Backgrounds: Health Care Financing System in Korea;284
7.2.3.1.1; (1) Compulsory Public Insurance;284
7.2.3.1.2; (2) Nomination Ipso Jure as a Health Care Service Provider for NHIS;285
7.2.3.1.3; (3) Standards and Costs of Health Care Service Covered by NHI;286
7.2.3.2; 2. Treatment Uncovered and Unauthorized by NHI;287
7.2.3.3; 3. Discussion;290
7.2.4; IV. Conclusion;292
8; List of Contributors;295
