Taiwan and Korea in Comparison
E-Book, Englisch, Band Volume 003, Part, 302 Seiten
Reihe: Global East Asia
ISBN: 978-3-8470-0490-5
Verlag: V&R unipress
Format: PDF
Kopierschutz: Kein
Autoren/Hrsg.
Fachgebiete
Weitere Infos & Material
1;Title Page;3
2;Copyright;4
3;Table of Contents;5
4;Jiunn-rong Yeh: 1 Introduction;7
5;Body;7
5.1;Courts in Asian new democracies: Taiwan and South Korea;7
5.2;Structure of the book;10
5.3;Overview of book chapters;12
5.4;Conclusion: similarity, difference and challenge;16
5.5;References;17
6;Part I: Courts in Constitutional and Administrative Adjudications;19
7;Jiunn-rong Yeh: 2 Court-ordered Apology: The Function of Courts in the Construction of Society, Culture and the Law;21
7.1;1 Introduction;21
7.2;2 Court-ordered apology cases in Taiwan and South Korea;22
7.2.1;2.1 Taiwan's case;22
7.2.2;2.2 Korean case;23
7.2.3;2.3 Judgment and reasoning in comparison;24
7.2.3.1;2.3.1 Freedom of speech vs. freedom of conscience;24
7.2.3.2;2.3.2 Rights conflicts vs. state-imposed restriction;25
7.2.3.3;2.3.3 Necessary remedy vs. improper measure;25
7.3;3 Legal debates on court-ordered apology;27
7.3.1;3.1 The subject of review;27
7.3.2;3.2 Rights and restriction;27
7.3.2.1;3.3 Necessary and proper;28
7.4;4 Cultural perspective on court-ordered apology;29
7.4.1;4.1 Apology in the West;29
7.4.2;4.2 The culture of “face” in Asia;30
7.4.2.1;4.2.1 Apology as guilt/right and as relational reputation;31
7.4.2.2;4.2.2 The function of apology and its requirements;32
7.5;5 The role of courts and judicial strategy;33
7.5.1;5.1 A court of reconciliation: Taiwan model;34
7.5.2;5.2 A court of modernization: Korea model;35
7.6;6 Conclusion;36
7.7;References;37
8;Jong-ik Chon: 3 The Effect of Constitutional Adjudication on the Judicial Branch: The Relationship between the Constitutional Court and the Ordinary Court;39
8.1;1 Introduction;39
8.2;2 Background;40
8.2.1;2.1 History of constitutional adjudication;40
8.2.2;2.2 The Constitutional Court in the 1988 Constitution;44
8.3;3 Impact of constitutional adjudication on the ordinary courts;47
8.3.1;3.1 Constitutional issues in ordinary court decisions;47
8.3.2;3.2 Scope of appeals to the Supreme Court;50
8.4;4 Conflicts between the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court;51
8.4.1;4.1 Subject of conflicts;51
8.4.2;4.2 Rules Implementing the Certified Judicial Scriveners Act case;53
8.4.3;4.3 Constitutional Review of the Supreme Court Decision case;56
8.4.4;4.4 Supplementary Provision of a Repealed Act on the Regulation on Tax Reduction and Exemption Case;60
8.5;5 Conclusion;62
8.6;References;64
9;Wen-Chen Chang: 4 The Evolution of Administrative Adjudication in Taiwan: A Model of Judicial Cooperation;65
9.1;1 Introduction;65
9.2;2 Creation and evolution;67
9.2.1;2.1 The establishment of administrative adjudication;67
9.2.2;2.2 The comprehensive revision since the late 1990s;69
9.3;3 Judges and appointment;71
9.3.1;3.1 Qualifications of judges;71
9.3.2;3.2 Appointments of judges;73
9.3.3;3.3 The number of judges;73
9.4;4 Jurisdiction and performance;74
9.4.1;4.1 Jurisdictional conflict;75
9.4.2;4.2 Standing to sue;78
9.4.3;4.3 Performance;81
9.5;5 Expansion: the model of judicial cooperation;84
9.5.1;5.1 Expansion by administrative courts;85
9.5.2;5.2 Expansion by the Constitutional Court;87
9.6;6 Conclusion;90
9.7;References;91
10;Seong-Wook Heo: 5 The Judicial Review Criteria in Korean Administrative Litigation: The Proportionality Principle in Korean Administrative Law and Democratic Accountability;93
10.1;1 Introduction;93
10.2;2 The proportionality principle in Korean administrative adjudication;94
10.2.1; 2.1 Background;94
10.2.2;2.2 The contents of the proportionality principle;95
10.2.2.1;2.2.1 Principle of suitability (Grundsatz der Geeignetheit);95
10.2.2.2;2.2.2 Principle of necessity (Grundsatz der Erforderlichkeit);95
10.2.2.3;2.2.3 Principle of proportionality (Grundsatz der Angemessenheit);95
10.2.3;2.3 The effect of the violation of the principle of proportionality;95
10.3;3 The example of judicial review of administrative action through the proportionality principle in Korea;96
10.3.1;3.1 Supreme Court March 8, 1994 Decision [Case I];96
10.3.2;3.2 Supreme Court November 23, 2006 Decision [Case II];97
10.3.3;3.3 Supreme Court August 24, 2001 Decision [Case III];97
10.4;4 Is there any consistent and logical criterion for deciding whether a certain administrative measure is proportional?;98
10.5;5 The proportionality principle and the Chevron deference principle;98
10.6;6 The proportionality principle and democratic accountability;100
10.7;7 Conclusion;101
10.8;References;102
11;Part II: Courts in Civil and Commercial Adjudications;103
12;Chung-jau Wu: 6 The Law-making Function of the Court and the Necessity for a Second Amendment for Taiwanese Law of Contracts: An Observation from Leading Cases;105
12.1;1 Introduction: a unanimous orientation of the codification or amendment of civil law in East Asia;105
12.2;2 Rethinking the necessity for a second amendment of the Taiwanese Law of Obligations;107
12.2.1;2.1 An overall re-examination on the rules of limitations;108
12.2.2;2.2 Reviewing the law of irregularities of performance;111
12.2.2.1;2.2.1 A general outline;111
12.2.2.2;2.2.2 Performance impossible: subjective or objective?;112
12.2.2.3;2.2.3 Performance impossible or performance non-conforming?;114
12.2.2.4;2.2.4 How the provisions of non-conforming performance and warranty are applied collaboratively;116
12.3;3 Conclusion: analysis and development of the Taiwanese Law of Obligations;118
12.3.1;3.1 The achievement of judge-law-making function by the court;118
12.3.2;3.2 The constraints of judge-law-making and the necessity for an amendment;118
12.3.3;3.3 A chance for the unification of East-Asian contract law;119
12.4;References;120
13;Jinsu Yune: 7 Judicial Activism and the Constitutional Reasoning of the Korean Supreme Court in the Field of Civil Law;123
13.1;1 Introduction;123
13.2;2 Actual lawmaking by the court;123
13.2.1;2.1 The protection of transsexuals' human rights;124
13.2.2;2.2 Termination of life-sustaining treatment;126
13.3;3 Constitutional review of customary law;127
13.3.1;3.1 The customary prescription for the inheritance restitution right;127
13.3.2;3.2 The female membership of the Jongjung;128
13.3.3;3.3 The host or hostess of the ancestor worship ritual;130
13.4;4 Horizontal effect of human rights in the private sphere;131
13.4.1;4.1 The liability of an internet service provider for defamation;131
13.4.2;4.2 Mandatory religious education in private schools;133
13.4.3;4.3 The disclosure of private information about attorneys;134
13.5;5 Conclusion;137
13.6;References;138
14;Ching-Ping Shao: 8 Beyond Uncertainty: Lower Courts' Defiance in Insider Trading Cases;139
14.1;1 Introduction;139
14.2;2 Insider trading law and enforcement in Taiwan;141
14.3;3 Insider trading cases in Taiwanese courts;145
14.4;4 Beyond uncertainty: two examples of the lower courts' defiance;148
14.4.1;4.1 Comparison of the insider trading law before and after 2010;149
14.4.2;4.2 Controversy of “possession” versus “use”;151
14.5;5 Exploring the lower courts' defiance;154
14.6;6 Restoring the authority of the Supreme Court;157
14.7;7 Concluding remarks;160
14.8;References;160
15;Hyeok-Joon Rho: 9 Enforcement against Wrongdoing Directors: The Role of the Courts in Korea;163
15.1;1 Introduction;163
15.2;2 Statutory arrangement: civil and criminal sanction;164
15.2.1;2.1 Civil sanction: director's liability under the Korean Commercial Code and the Capital Market Act;164
15.2.1.1;2.1.1 Causes of action;164
15.2.1.2;2.1.2 Special procedures for civil enforcement: derivative action and class action;165
15.2.2;2.2 Criminal sanction: director's liability under the Korean Criminal Code and special criminal statute;166
15.3;3 Jurisprudence by the Korean civil courts;167
15.3.1;3.1 Director's misconduct and business judgment;167
15.3.2;3.2 The limitation on damages;169
15.3.3;3.3 Facilitative interpretation of procedural requirement;170
15.4;4 Jurisprudence by the Korean criminal courts;171
15.4.1;4.1 Criminal courts' broad interpretations on some vague terms;171
15.4.2;4.2 Business judgment rule in criminal cases?;172
15.4.3;4.3 Criminal charge on LBO transaction;173
15.5;5 More complex enforcement: directors in corporate groups;175
15.5.1;5.1 Civil enforcement;175
15.5.2;5.2 Criminal enforcement;176
15.6;6 Towards balanced enforcement in Korea;177
15.6.1;6.1 The criminalization of corporate law and its limits;177
15.6.2;6.2 The role of courts in corporate governance;179
15.7;References;183
16;Part III: Changing Courts with Civil and Criminal Procedural Reforms;185
17;Kuan-Ling Shen: 10 The Role of the Courts in Civil Disputes in Taiwan;187
17.1;1 Introduction;187
17.2;2 Courts and civil procedure;188
17.2.1;2.1 From direct adoption of foreign systems to localized reform;188
17.2.2;2.2 Important characteristics of Taiwan's civil procedural law;190
17.2.3;2.3 From party autonomy to court coordination;193
17.2.3.1;2.3.1 The purpose of the civil procedure;193
17.2.3.2;2.3.2 Increasing importance of the court's responsibility to elucidate to avoid surprise verdicts;196
17.2.4;2.4 From protection of individual interests to protection of group interests;202
17.3;3 Court-connected mediation;206
17.4;4 Conclusion;211
17.5;References;212
18;Kang-Jin Baik: 11 Civil Disputes in Korea and the New Role of the Court;215
18.1;1 Introduction;215
18.2;2 Features of the Korean civil procedure;217
18.2.1;2.1 Brief history of the Korean civil procedure;217
18.2.2;2.2 Guiding principles of civil procedure in Korea;218
18.3;3 Unique features of Korean society and new challenges for the court;221
18.4;4 Electronic litigation system as an access route for the court;223
18.5;5 Court Mediation Center as a hub for dispute resolution;225
18.6;6 A whole new model: active involvement of judges in the process;228
18.6.1;6.1 Emergence of a new model;228
18.6.2;6.2 Transition of oral proceeding;232
18.6.3;6.3 Problem of active elucidation;234
18.7;7 Observation;236
18.8;8 Conclusion;237
18.9;References;238
19;Rong-Geng Li: 12 From an Inquisitorial to Adversarial System: The Recent Development in Criminal Justice of Taiwan;239
19.1;1 Introduction;239
19.2;2 The adversarial system and the inquisitorial system;240
19.3;3 The court's duty to investigate before 2002;241
19.4;4 The court's duty of investigation of crimes after 2002;243
19.5;5 The examination of witness;246
19.6;6 The order of trial proceedings;249
19.7;7 Plea bargaining;251
19.7.1;7.1 The practice before 2004;251
19.7.2;7.2 Applicable offenses;251
19.7.3;7.3 The applications;252
19.7.4;7.4 Negotiable items;252
19.7.5;7.5 The negotiation period and the warning;252
19.7.6;7.6 Withdrawal and revoking;253
19.7.7;7.7 Circumstances not to render a bargaining judgment;253
19.7.8;7.8 The procedure;253
19.7.9;7.9 The admissibility of the defendant's statement in other cases;254
19.7.10;7.10 Bargaining judgment;254
19.7.11;7.11 Appeal;255
19.8;8 The right to counsel;255
19.8.1;8.1 The right to retain a counsel;256
19.8.2;8.2 Detainee's right to freely and fully interview with counsel;257
19.8.3;8.3 Arrested suspect's right to interview with counsel;258
19.8.4;8.4 Detainees' rights to interview with counsel;259
19.9;9 Sentencing;260
19.10;10 The prosecution review proceeding;262
19.11;11 Application for trial;263
19.12;12 Conclusion;264
19.13;References;266
20;Kuk Cho: 13 The Exclusion of Illegally Obtained Confessions, Electronic Communications and Physical Evidences in Korea;267
20.1;1 Introduction;267
20.2;2 Almost no exclusion under the authoritarian regime;268
20.2.1;2.1 Brief history: dark age of criminal procedural rights;268
20.2.2;2.2 Almost no judicial control under the meaningless Constitution;271
20.3;3 Vitalization and codification of exclusionary rules after democratization;273
20.3.1;3.1 “Constitutionalization of criminal procedure” after the 1987 Constitution;273
20.3.2;3.2 Adoption of Miranda and Massiah;274
20.3.2.1;3.2.1 Judicial activism to bolster rights to silence and counsel since the 1990s;274
20.3.2.2;3.2.2 Reallocation of the burden to prove the voluntariness of confessions;278
20.3.2.3;3.2.3 The 2007 revision of the Criminal Procedure Code and following issues;279
20.3.3;3.3 The exclusion in the Communication Privacy Protection Act of 1993 and its limitation;282
20.3.4;3.4 Adoption of Mapp;283
20.3.4.1;3.4.1 Judicial and legislative adoption of discretionary exclusionary rule in search-and-seizure in 2007;283
20.3.4.2;3.4.2 Relevant rulings;285
20.3.5;3.5 New structure of the exclusionary rules;287
20.4;4 New issues of the exclusionary rules;288
20.4.1;4.1 Changed and unchanged;288
20.4.2;4.2 Application of exceptions to the exclusion: rule with weak teeth?;291
20.4.3;4.3 Should interrogation stop when the right to silence or counsel is invoked by suspects? – “duty to submit to questioning”?;293
20.4.4;4.4 Institutional limit of the right to have a counsel participate in interrogation;295
20.4.5;4.5 Consent of one of the parties of electronic communication;296
20.4.6;4.6 Evidences illegally obtained by a private person;296
20.5;5 Conclusion;299
20.6;References;299
21;Contributors;301
