69 권 1 호 ( 2020 ) | 수록 논문 수 : 19 
 69 권 1 호 ( 2020 년 ) 수록 논문 
 This paper seeks to show that an administrative litigation should be an effective and void - free remedy . The legal basis for this argument can be found at two points : First , the remedy through administrative trials is not the gift of the legislator , which the legislator can arbitrarily give , restrict or deprive , but is ordered by the constitution . The remedy through administrative litigation is a constitutional order , so the Administrative Litigation Act must be amended and interpreted in accordance with this constitutional order . Second , where there is a right , there is remedy . If the remedy here are limited to administrative litigation , this could eventually be rewritten to " where there is public right , there is administrative litigation . " 
 The fact that an administrative litigation should be an effective and void - free remedy has a constitutional basis in the rule of law and under article 27 paragraph 1 of the Korean Constitution . In order to understand this more clearly , it is necessary to establish the substantial right of citizens against public authority , which are divided into four types : the right to remove interference , the right to prevent interference , the right to fulfillment as a counterpart of public authority , and the right to administrative intervention . 
 The task of effective and void - free administrative remedy in Korea is to find the following three fields . First , the Administrative Litigation Act should be interpreted and amended , in order to be an effective and void free Appeal Litigation . In this regard , it is necessary to modify the theory of litigation requirements . Second , the party ' s lawsuit should be divided into verification and performance lawsuits and used concretely . Third , effective and void - free remedy should be achieved also in the provisional remedy . 
 Blockchain is being discussed as the next - generation core IT technology . Blockchain technology is still in the development stage and there are not many practical use cases , but its application is being attempted in various areas . Blockchain consists of peer - to - peer network , distributed ledger , public key encryption technology , and consensus algorithm . The biggest advantage of the blockchain is its decentralized structure , which eliminates the need for a trusted third party , resulting in lower transaction costs . Accordingly , blockchain is being applied in the industrial and public service fields , and the application of personal information protection law , information and communication network law , electronic document law , and digital signature law is problematic in terms of technical structure . At present , it is not clear whether a document written in electronic form using blockchain technology is an electronic document according to the electronic document law . Therefore , the legislature proposes a legislative proposal to resolve this legislatively . 
 Conflicts between the blockchain technology and the laws related to electronic transactions occur in the blockchain technology itself . Blockchain basically distributes and stores transaction information and has a structure that is freely distributed in a P 2 P manner , making it suitable as a platform for electronic transactions . However , blockchain technology is changing rapidly , and the structure and application areas of blockchain are so diverse that it is not easy to extract and analyze legal issues uniformly . Therefore , there is a discussion about how blockchain technology will affect e - commerce related norms and how e - commerce related norms will be accepted . 
 This study examines legal issues related to e - commerce in the open blockchain , the most prototype form of blockchain . Closed blockchains and consortium - type blockchains are not only more diverse in structure , but are not well known in detail , and only basic types of legal issues will be considered . Furthermore , the unique characteristics of the blockchain are causing conflicts in relation to the norms related to electronic transactions , norms related to personal information protection and norms related to crypto currency . However , this study intends to examine only legal issues related to e - commerce that have not been discussed in Korea at all . 
 Im Gegensatz zu allgemeinen Verträgen werden bei Verträgen , die mit AGB abgeschlossen werden , unter detaillierten Kontrollmaßstäben durch das ABG - Gesetz eine umfangreiche Inhaltskontrolle durchgeführt . Wenn der Gesetzgeber durch eienen gesonderten Gesetz die Kontrolle von AGBs ermöglicht , unter welcher Rechtsgrundlage und Kriterien sollen die Inhaltskontrolle stattfinden ? Welche Funktion sollte der Richter in diesem Bereich ausüben ? 
 Es ist klar , dass unser Gesetzgeber bei der Ausarbeitung des AGB - Gesetzes nicht die gleichen Standards und Rollen wie das zivilrechtliche Inhaltskontrollsystem für die inhaltliche Kontrolle erwartet hätte . Daher wurden spezielle Rechtsgrundlagen und Kriterien für die Inahltskontrolle von AGBs erstellt . 
 In Bezug auf die Rolle des Richters bietet das AGB - Gesetz rechtliche Kontrollmaßstäbe an , die dann der Richter formal nur anwenden muß ? Oder ist er in einer Rolle , die Kontrollmaßstäbe neu zu formulieren , um die unfairen Bedingungen aufgrund des Ungleichgewichts zwischen dem Unternehmer und dem Kunden gerecht zu regulierenen ? Wenn es seine Rolle ist , faire Inhalte zu finden , die mit Billigkeit übereinstimmen , kann der Richter eine aktivere und kreativere Rolle bei der Inhalskontrolle spielen . 
 This article examined pecuniary loss due to personality rights infringement . 
 The concept of loss is usually explained by the theory of difference . However , in case of infringement of non - property legal interests such as life or body , the infringement of such legal interests should be determined as loss and it should be sought to properly assess them financially . 
 If reputation or credit is infringed , pecuniary loss is more likely to be caused than other personal interests . This is because reputation , especially credit , can be seen as having property values . On the other hand , privacy is hardly seen as having property value . 
 Human identity signs such as portraits and names can be seen as having property value . Therefore , property damage occurs if a person ' s identity sign is used commercially without permission of the subject . In this case , it is reasonable to recognize pecuniary loss corresponding to the equivalent of the fee . In addition to this , mental damages should also be acknowledged because a person ' s right to decide on the use of his identity sign is violated . Compensation for damages of a considerable amount of the fees should be regarded as an abstract and normative grasp of the objective value of the identity sign . Therefore , even if it is unlikely that the victim would have allowed the use of the identity sign , the amount of damages equivalent to the fee should be recognized . 
 If the identity sign is used without permission , it is also possible to view the gains obtained by the infringer as loss of right holder . This is because the value of a person ' s identity sign is realized by the infringer in the market and turned out to be the gains of the infringer . Therefore , even if Korea does not introduce a separate remedy for return of profits , it is possible to recognize the right to claim damages to seek return of profits . 
 The system regarding the Agreement to Evidence , together with the Protocol in Question and Answer Form are the two major elements of the Trial based on Protocol . Recently , there have been amendments to the Criminal Procedure Act , which restrict the admissibility of evidence in terms of a protocol containing a statement of a suspect in which a prosecutor recorded to the equal level of the same in which a senior judicial police officer recorded . 
 Criminal defendant ' s Agreement to Evidence submitted by the prosecutor is a disadvantageous procedural act allowing it to be used against him as evidence of guilt . Agreement to Evidence should be made by way of actively declaring one ' s intention regarding specific evidence submitted by a prosecutor , rather than a way that is implicit or simply without objections . To this end , the presiding judge must sufficiently explain the effect of the Agreement to Evidence beforehand . However , the current practice of trial is far from it . It is not in line with the ideology of achieving equality of opportunity in procedures and constitutional fair trial right to allow a criminal defendant to undertake a disadvantageous procedural act against himself without sufficient prior explanation and full understanding of the evidence presented by the prosecutor . 
 In order to attach importance to the actual meaning of criminal defendant ' s Agreement to Evidence and rectifying the practice of trial based on protocol , it is necessary to consider institutionalizing sufficient prior explanation regarding the effect of Agreement to Evidence by a presiding judge . Criminal defendant ' s statement giving an opinion on whether or not to agree to evidence is subject to the right to remain silent , and statement on whether or not to approve the authenticity in the formation of the protocol regarding a documental evidence , according to the judicial precedent , is also subject to the right to remain silent . Therefore , the most effective way is considered to enact the system of notifying the right to refuse Agreement of Evidence , taking into account the section 244 - 3 of the Criminal Procedure Act stipulating the system of investigative agency giving notice of Right to Remain Silent . It is expected that substantially guaranteeing Agreement to Evidence through sufficient prior explanation will be an effective method to implement the ideology of achieving equality of opportunity in procedures and constitutional fair trial right , preventing the harmful effect of the trial based on protocol . 
 The success of an investigation depends on how quickly and completely the evidence is obtained . The suspects often conceal the relevant evidence , but recently , systematic destruction of evidence and replacement of mobile phones , such as ' the dailyization of destruction of evidence ' have been a problem . Not only is the act of destroying evidence very frequently , but there has been little discussion in the meantime , despite causing many criminal problems . 
 The first problem is the legal assessment of whether witnesses make false statements or instruct them to give false statements . However , because the object of the crime of destroying evidence does not include human evidence under criminal law , the crime of destroying evidence cannot be established in the above cases . However , investigative agencies often take issue with such acts as a reason for arrest without taking issue with the crime of destroying evidence separately , and should carefully judge the case based on whether it is feared to destroy evidence in the future . 
 The second question is , with regard to the meaning of ' criminal case against another ', whether the crime of destroying evidence is established if the defendant simultaneously destroys evidence of his or her case and other events . The Supreme Court has ruled that in such cases , the crime of destroying evidence is not established , but , the standards and grounds are unclear . In practice , courts often reject the claim on the grounds that it was unlikely that the accused would be punished for the crimes , which are also poorly founded . 
 Therefore , I have critically examined whether ( a ) events before the beginning of an investigation or ( b ) minor offenses should be excluded from ' self - incident ' that cannot be punished for destroying evidence . As a result , ( c ) the destruction of evidence in a " self - incident " is at the same time equivalent to the destruction of evidence in a " other event , " the assessment should be made based on whether the basic facts are the same between the two events . 
 Lone Star ' s ISD , which was first filed against Korea in 2012 , is likely to face a arbitral tribunal ' s award soon . The amount of the claim itself is very large , and there has been a lot of controversy over its illegality in the process of acquiring and reselling Korea Exchange Bank , so the Korean people ' s interest in the ISD results is quite significant . If some of the cases are lost , the impact on political and social circles can be great . Coupled with public concerns over the defeat , the Lone Star case has recently been brought back into the spotlight through the media , especially over whether Lone Star ' s takeover of KEB was legitimate . In other words , there are various differences over whether Lone Star ' s acquisition of KEB in 2003 was a legitimate investment in accordance with Korean law . 
 The controversial issue is that first , the government lowered the BIS ratio of KEB to 6 . 16 percent at the time , making it classified as an insolvent financial institution , thus avoiding the application of the same stock ownership limit rules set by the Korean Banking Act . Second , Lone Star ' s capital character is industrial capital , which is an illegal investment in violation of domestic law , so the Korean government should have actively made a jurisdictional appeal in the ISD process . However , considering estoppel and the timing of filing a plea of jurisdiction , it is deemed to be ineffective to claim the illegality of the Lone Star investment at a time when the arbitration procedure is due to be declared . Realistically , the best action our government can take will be to prepare for the upcoming arbitral award , and the specific method of which can be called a annulment procedure . 
 Therefore , at this point , it will have to be fully reviewed in advance on how to use the strategy when applying for annulment . However , the chances of a ICSID annulment committee being accepted have been very low in recent years , which is also difficult to expect . In the end , it would be realistic to take lessons from the Lone Star case and thoroughly prevent such problems from happening again , and to establish a system of responses . In other words , our government , academia and others will have to discuss in depth how to respond to the growing number of ISDs . 
 Recently , much attention and concern has been focused on the emergence and weighting in the market of large online platform providers , whose main businesses are search engines , social networks or e - commerce . Regarding how to view these big platforms from a competition law perspective , Lina M . Khan offers an interesting topic in her paper , Amazon ' s Antitrust Paradox . According to the paper , there is a risk that Amazon will gain unfair economic and political power across markets beyond its dominance in individual market , and in order to properly regulate this phenomenon , competition authorities and academia shall break away from consumer welfare - oriented analysis framework and focus on preserving competition process and market structure instead . 
 On June 22 , 2018 , the U . S . supreme court had decided WesternGeco decision to recognize foreign lost profit as a method of calculating damages caused by patent infringement as stipulated by Article 284 of the U . S . patent law . The Supreme Court had come up with the logic that recognition of foreign lost profit is not an extraterritorial application of Article 284 of the U . S . patent law , explaining that it does not go against the principle of the presumption against extraterritoriality traditionally adopted by U . S . courts . However , foreign lost profit recognized by the supreme court in the WesternGeco decision are based on actions arising from abroad and may be determined to be subject to extraterritorial application of Article 284 of the U . S . patent law . The supreme court ' s recognition of the extraterritorial application of Article 284 of the U . S . patent law could be a violation of international comity that ignores other countries ' sovereignty and patent laws . This runs squarely counter to the principle of territoriality that certain countries ' laws are only within the territorial boundaries of certain countries . Through the 2007 Microsoft decision and 2017 Life Technologies decision , the U . S . supreme court had adopted legal principles that conforms to the principle of territoriality and the principle of the presumption against extraterritoriality by issuing decisions that limit the scope of Section 271 ( f ) of the U . S . patent law . However , in the WesternGeco decision , the supreme court took a different attitude to the extraterritorial application of the U . S . patent law by acknowledging foreign lost profit . As Justice Gorsuch pointed out in his dissent , this calculate the amount of damages caused by patent infringement to " end to the earth ", so unfairly extends effect of registered patents in the U . S . beyond those recognized by the U . S . Congress . After all , the supreme court ' patent policy in the WesternGeco decision is a " bad policy " that defies the value of respect for international comity .