Depuis la decision du 23 juin 1789 de l'Assemblee en France et depuis la Constitution provisoire de 1919 en Coree, l'irresponsabilite parlementaire a pendant longtemps contribue à assurer l'independance des parlementaires des interventions de la part de l'Administration. Les parlementaires ne pouvant pas etre mis devant la procedure civile et penale à raison des actes accomplis dans le cadre de son mandat, Il s'agit d'une irresponsabilite absolue et perpetuelle, reconnue directment par la Constitution. En Coree, l'exercise abusive de cette immunite dirige, recemment, de modifier le regime concerne, limitant l'irresponsabilite parlementaire. En tout cas, un regime d'irresponsabilite distinct de celui defini par la Constitution ne peut etre etabli, d'une façon soit elargissante, soit limitative, par le legislateur.
De toute façon, les actes excessifs des parlementaires peuvent etre sanctionnes par les assembles, mais l'action disciplinaire ne relève pas des Cours. C'est ce qui est precisement mentionne par la Constitution coreenne.
Meme si le mandat parlementaire peut etre compatible avec les autres missions, les missions detachables de la fonction parlementaire doivent etre mises en dehors de l' irresponsabilite civile et penale des parlementaires.

헌법은 한 국가의 최고규범이자 생활규범이다. 하지만 이슬람신도에게 최고규범이자 생활규범은 샤리아다. 이슬람사회에서 샤리아, 즉 이슬람법은 종교생활 뿐 아니라 가족생활, 사회생활, 경제생활 등 무슬림의 모든 생활을 지도한다. 헌법과 샤리아의 조화는 현대 이슬람국가가 당면하고 있는 최대 과제다. 가장 쉽게 조화를 이룰 수 있어 보이는 방법은 헌법이 샤리아를 수용하는 것이다.
1950년 시리아를 시작으로 많은 이슬람국가들이 헌법에 샤리아를 수용하고 있다. 수용 방식은 나라마다 다르다. 헌법에 샤리아를 수용한 나라도 있고, 샤리아 원리를 수용한 나라도 있고, 피크를 수용한 나라도 있다. 터키처럼 거의 모든 국민이 무슬림이지만 세속국가가 된 나라의 헌법에는 샤리아 조항이 없다. 헌법에 샤리아 조항을 두더라도 샤리아를 '최고 법원(法源)의 하나'로 규정한 나라도 있고, 샤리아를 '유일한 최고 법원'으로 규정한 나라도 있다. 헌법에서 샤리아를 최고 법원 중 하나로 규정한 경우 실정법이 샤리아 규범과 일치하여야 하는 것은 아니지만, 최고 법원으로 규정한 경우 실정법은 샤리아 규범과 일치해야 한다. 그렇기 때문에 샤리아를 법원으로 인정할 경우 샤리아에 위반되는 실정법을 누가 어떻게 위헌심사 할 것인지 등 새로운 문제가 등장한다.
샤리아의 법적 지위를 놓고 전통을 중시하는 보수파와 자유를 중시하는 진보파 간에 격론이 벌어진다. 대표적인 국가로 이집트를 들 수 있다. 이집트는 샤리아 원리를 최고규범의 하나로 헌법에 수용했다가 유일한 최고규범으로 강화한 경험이 있는 나라다. 이집트에서는 헌법재판소가 판례를 통해 샤리아 원리의 의미를 확정하고, 사법심사의 가능성과 한계를 정립하였다. 하지만 샤리아의 법적 지위를 제한적으로 인정한 헌법재판소의 태도에 불만을 품은 이슬람 근본주의자는 헌법개정을 통해 한계를 극복하려고 하였다.
샤리아 조항은 이슬람국가에서 앞으로도 큰 논쟁거리가 될 것이다. 이슬람 근본주의자들은 샤리아를 최고규범으로 이해하는 데 반하여 자유주의자들은 최고규범 중 하나로 이해하고 있기 때문이다. 이러한 이해 차이는 개헌 논의에서나 사법심사에서 견해 충돌로 나타난다. 하지만 샤리아의 법적 지위를 헌법보다 상위에 놓고, 샤리아의 범위를 폭넓게 해석한 후 이에 어긋나는 입법이 금지된다고 해석하는 근본주의적 해석은 인권을 침해하는 결과가 될 수 있다. 샤리아 중 시대와 환경의 변화에도 불구하고 변할 수 없는 규범은 훼손되지 않도록 보존하면서 시대정신과 공공의 이익을 수용하는 입법부의 재량 판단을 존중하는 자세가 필요하다고 본다.

In the U.S., employers' vicarious liability refers to cases in which an employer is held responsible for the wrongful acts of the employee within the scope of employment. This article describes main characteristics of employers' vicarious liability under the U.S. law from a comparative law perspective.
First, employers' vicarious liability is strict liability. Accordingly, the employer is held liable for the torts of the employee even if the employer is not negligent in selecting or supervising the employee.
Second, under employers' vicarious liability, it is required that the man at work is an employee. In determining whether he is an employee or not, the control test is performed: physical conduct in the performance of the service is controlled, or is subject to a right of control by the employer. Therefore, an independent contractor is not considered as an employee.
Third, it is also required that the tortious conduct of an employee is within the scope of the employment. In this regard, it is the general rule that employers' vicarious liability covers the employee's small deviations from the work set by his employer but not large ones. However, no hard and fast rule exists with respect to the intentional tort of an employee. Such behaviors may be within the course of employment if intended to serve the employer's interest. However, many cases reject that motive test. Additionally, the modern trend rejects vicarious liability for employee sexual misconduct, reasoning that these type of torts are purely personal in nature and unrelated to the employee's duties.
Lastly, employers' vicarious liability tends to extend to the cases where the employee performs a wrongful act at cyberspace workplace or via telecommunication device.

2014년 6월의 제6회 전국동시지방선거를 앞두고 정치권에서는 지방선거에서 정당의 참여를 배제하자는 논의가 무성하고, 실제 이를 반영한 법률개정안이 국회에 수 건 제출되어 있다.
일부 견해는 지방의 중앙정치에의 예속을 타파하고, 풀뿌리민주주의라는 지방자치의 본질 구현이라는 면에서 지방선거에서의 정당배제에 찬성하고, 이는 법률문제에 불과하다고 주장하는 견해도 있다.
그러나 지방선거에서 정당을 배제하는 것은 위헌이다.
첫째, 지방선거에서 정당의 참여를 배제하는 것은 정당 및 후보자의 평등권, 정치적 표현의 자유 등을 침해하는 것이 되고, 유권자들에 대하여는 선거권 및 알 권리를 침해하게 되는 것이므로, 지방선거에서의 정당참여의 문제가 법률상의 문제에 불과한 것이 아니고, 헌법상의 문제이다.
둘째, 정당의 지방선거 참여로 파생되는 부작용들은 따지고 보면 정당 내부의 분권화 및 민주화가 덜 이루어진 데에서 기인하는 바가 더 크다. 지방선거에서 정당참여를 배제하려는 입법은 지방자치 본래의 취지 구현이라는 입법목적의 달성에 기여하는 효과가 매우 불확실하거나 미미하고, 정당의 영향을 배제하는 것이 곧 지방자치의 발전에 보탬이 될 것이라고 단정할 수 없다. 정당배제론자들이 주장하는 입법사실(공천잡음, 지방의 중앙정치에의 예속화 등)은 정당의 지방선거 참여 자체로 인한 것이 아니라 당내조직 및 공천의 민주화가 이루어지지 않은 것에 기인하고, 따라서 위 입법사실(부작용)을 시정하기 위한 효과적인 규제수단은 지방선거에서의 정당참여의 배제가 아니라 공천의 민주화를 이루어야 한다.
셋째, 헌법재판소는 2003년 지방선거에서 후보자가 정당의 지지·추천을 받고 있음을 표방할 수 없도록 한 규정에 대하여 위헌결정을 선고하였는 바, 동일한 내용의 입법을 추진하는 것은 헌법재판소의 위헌결정의 기속력에 반한다. 가사 위헌결정의 기속력에 저촉되지 않는 내용의 입법을 한다고 하더라도, 개정입법은 위 위헌결정의 취지에 따라 후보자 및 정당의 정치적 표현의 자유는 제한할 수 없으므로 개정입법안이 추구하고자 하는 입법목적을 달성할 수 없는 무용한 수단이 될 수 밖에 없다.
넷째, 오히려 정당의 참여가 더 배제되어야 할 것으로 생각되는 법관선거에 있어서도 미국 판례는 필자가 언급한 위 세 가지 논점을 근거로 하여 정당의 참여를 배제할 수 없다고 하였다. 즉, 비교법적으로 살펴볼 때도 개정입법안은 위헌으로 판단된다.

As a result of globalization, there has been a sudden increase of foreign people and multi-culture family has come for Korea to change its unique characteristics as a single-race nation. Thus, the number of multi-cultural families is increasing in Korea.
In the korean society, the number of immigrants and the multi-cultural family have increased through overseas employments and international marriage since late 1980. The member of multi-cultural family have had bad conditions to adapt themselves to new circumstances because of different language, culture, customs, identity and law etc. Because korean have discrimination against strangers they have experienced discrimination on the street and at school because of different skin color, therefore it is very important to help multi-cultural family to orient themselves to korean life. Even, many Korean people do not think of multi-ethnic families in Korea as Koreans.
Therefore consideration and systemic support for the foreign people and the multi-culture family in terms of legal policy are in demand. So that “Multi-cultural family Support Act”, etc has been enacted to support multi-cultural family in legal system. According to the act to help multi-cultural households and foreigners to adapt to Korean society, korean government must provide the adequate political, social, economic condition, support center for multi-cultural families for multi-cultural family in Korean Society.
But, According to the Ministry for Health, Welfare and Family Affairs, more than 50 percent of the families with multi-cultural backgrounds belonged to the lowest income bracket. So that There are still a number of details to be worked out.
The Purpose of this study is to examine and evaluate the “Multi-cultural family Support Act”, that legislated for support the multi-cultural family for social unification in the era of globalization and also other laws about multi-cultural family. According to the act korean government must provide the adequate social and political conditions for multi-cultural family and foreigners living in korea.

Presidential records are kept in the Presidential Archives. It is also important to protection, preservation of Presidential records but it will have to be utilized.
In principle, Presidential records shall be disclosed to the public, but such Presidential records need not to be disclosed to the public, including information pertaining to the national security, national defense, unification, diplomatic relations, etc., which is deemed likely to seriously undermine national interests, if it is disclosed, Information which is likely to seriously obstruct the protection of people's lives, physical safety and properties, if it is disclosed, etc.
The head of the Presidential Archives shall reclassify Presidential records classified as not to be disclosed to the public, within one year after an elapse of five years from transfer, whether to disclosed to the public, and reclassify whether to disclosed to the public every two years after such first reclassification, following deliberation by the Special Committee. but in principle, Presidential records undisclosed to the public shall be disclosed to the public when 30 years pass after the end of the year of creation.
The President shall be designated to Presidentially designated records, including information, Confidential records concerning military affairs, diplomacy and unification prescribed by Acts and subordinate statutes, which may seriously threaten national security if disclosed to the public, Records concerning domestic and foreign economic policies, trade and finance, which may obstruct the stability of the national economy if disclosed to the public, etc.. Presidentially designated records shall be allowed not to permit within the protection period, to be perused, duplicated, etc.
The protection period may be determined within the extent of 15 years: Provided, That in cases of records concerning the privacy of individuals, the protection period may be determined within the extent of 30 years. During a protection period, records shall be made available to be perused, duplicated and submitted for data within the minimum extent in any of the following cases, Where 2/3 or more of the members of the National Assembly have resolved approval, etc..
Where a former President intends to peruse Presidential records created during his/her term of office, the head of the Presidential Archives shall proactively cooperate in offering convenience necessary for perusal, etc.

More than 10 years after the enforcement of the Product Liability Law since 2002, it has been brought up for the necessity of recheck and revision by some legal experts. This research inquires into the desirable direction of the product liability focusing on Article 6 of the Product Liability Law. The problems are presumed to the result of legislative compromise reflecting policy consideration for a business operator, although it has not been identified the reason why the special agreement concerning exemption between concerned parties had inserted into the product liability law which does not consist of contractual responsibility.
Special provision on Product Liability Law which limits or excludes from responsibility to the covering of damages becomes invalid under the main body of Article 6 of the Product Liability Law. As a result of invalidation of the special agreement concerning exemption, a manufacturer cannot protest about his/her indemnification. Also he/she takes responsibility for compensation for the damage from a product defect. The law takes on the character of a compulsory provision based on the invalidation provision of the special agreement concerning exemption. The condition of Article 6, however, recognizes effect restrictively, so the character of a compulsory provision of the Product Liability Law is relaxed within the purview of the condition. Consequently, regulations of the product liability law become a character of imperfect compulsory provision. This character of imperfect compulsory provision makes the Product Liability Law imperfect.
It would be more appropriate to delete that section which stipulates permission of special agreement concerning exemption from Article 6 of the Product Liability Law. The manufacturer who has dominant market power, holds a prominent position in comparison with a sales businessman in a market. In this case, a sales businessman would force to take what a manufacturer offers. A sales businessman could not claim for damages occurring from defective product against a manufacturer when special agreement concerning exemption has been accepted.
A consumer could hold a sales businessman accountable for a defective product, since the former purchases through the latter. Therefore current situation of legislation should be improved through law revision.

Beim Integritätsinteresse geht es um das Interesse an dem Erhalt der beim Gläubiger vorhandenen Guter, die nichts mit der eigentlichen Vertragsleistung zu tun haben.
Anders als das Leistungsinteresse bezieht sich das Integritätsinteresse nicht auf eine verletzte Leistungspflicht, sondern auf sonstige Vermögenswerte und Rechtsguter des Gläubigers. Nach der bisherige allgemeine Meinungen, das Integritätsinteresse ist Gegenstand der Anspruche aus der Schutzpflichtverletzungen. Im Rahmen von Verträgen handelt es sich nicht um Schäden am Leistungsobjekt, sondern um Begleitschäden bei der Vertragsabwicklung. Schutzpflichten betreffen regelmäßig das Integritätsinteresse des Gläubigers. Die Verletzung von Schutzpflichten löst vertragliche oder vertragsähnliche Schadensersatzanspruche aus. Neben der Erfullung der Leistungspflichten mussen beide Teile eines Schuldverhältnisses (insbesondere also eines Vertrages, aber auch bei gesetzlichen Schuldverhältnissen) zahlreiche sogenannte Rucksichtnahmepflichten erfullen.
In der Arbeit wird die bestehenden Theorien vollständig und zusammengefasstend gepruft(Teil Ⅱ - Ⅵ). Während wir uns bislang mit der Schuld, das ist die ursprungliche Verpflichtung, befasst und ihre Begrundung und Beendigung analysiert haben, befassen wir uns jetzt mit der Haftung fur die Schuld, einem Problemkreis, der immer dann relevant wird, wenn die Abwicklung der Schuld im weitesten Sinne gestört wird.
Im Teil Ⅶ der Arbeit wird eine neue Perspektive vorgeschlagen, und der Hauptpunkt ist wie folgt: Im Allgemeinen ist der Schuldner streng haftet fur die Erfullung des Vertrages. Wo jedoch Schäden betroffen sind, kann der Schuldner haftet streng oder wegen der Verschulden haftbar, je nachdem, ob sich die Parteien auf die Pflicht des Schuldners vereinbart, die Schuld ohne Schäden zu erreichen.
Die Obligation kann auf eine Handlung oder Einen Erfolg gerichtet sein. Das gilt nicht nur angesichts des priären Leistungsgegenstandes, sondern auch hinsichtlich der Frage, inwieweit die Parteien den Schutz eines Integritätsinteresses zu prästieren haben. In aller Regel wird der Integritätsschutz durch Schutzpflichten abgesichert, durch welche die Parteien einander dazu verpflichtet sind, sich so zu verhalten, dass die bei Abwicklung beruhrten Guter und Interessen des anderen Teils nicht verletzt werden. Es kommt aber auch in Betracht, dass die Parteien die fortbestehende Integrität eines Gutes als Erfolg vereinbaren mit der Folge, dass im Falle der Schädigung grundsätzlich eine Haftung gegeben ist, ohne dass in Betracht gezogen wird, worauf die Schädigung beruht.

The courts of Commonwealth countries, traditionally, have held that damages are to be assessed as of the date of the breach of contract and have refused to consider events that have transpired between the date of breach and that of trial.
In the 1960s and 1970s, our courts had held that damages are to be assessed as of the date of trial. The modern trend of our courts, however, appears to measure damages by reference to the position of the plaintiff at the date when the loss was suffered, normally the date of the breach of contract.
This is because what damages are to be assessed as of the date of the breach of contract is related to the duty of the victim to mitigate loss or damages inflicted. Another ground of this trend can be seen as convenience, namely, this can be a detour to avoid the discussion when damages should be assessed.
However, over the years this rule has proved to be unjust and a number of exceptions to it have been formulated in the case law.
Where there is a delay between the breach of contract and the date at which the injured party acquires knowledge of the breach, it is often appropriate to use the date of knowledge of the breach for the purpose of determining the quantum of damages. Since it was the earliest date at which they could have mitigated their damages.
One determining factor governing the proper date for assessment of damages relates to the date on which the object of the contract could have been replaced. If a substitute product can be readily found in a stable market, the date of assessment should be the date of the breach since plaintiff has a duty to mitigate his damages. In other instances, it is appropriate to assess damages as at the expiry of the period reasonably necessary to replace the goods. The Korean cases have similar position at this point.
As was stated above, the date for assessment of damages vary according to facts of cases. Therefore, it can be found in various cases that there can't be an absolute fixed rule like a mathematical formula in assessing damages flowing from a breach of contract or a tort.
It is submitted that one of the most important consideration in compensation of damages that the object of damages is to put the party complaining in the position he should have occupied “if the wrong had not been done”, or the position he would have occupied 'if his rights had been observed'. It is, therefore, important to find an appropriate date for assessment according the specific material facts of each particular case.

Im Zeitalter des juristischen Humanismus gewannen die Juristen die Einsicht in den historischen Charakter in Corpus Juris Civilis, so dass sie mit der Text-Kritik von den römischen Quellen lösen konnten. Dieser mos gallicus eröffnet ihnen die Chance, die Fesseln des Typenzwangen abzustreifen und zu einer allgemeinen Veertragsordnung. Causa-Begriff spielte in diesem Prozess sehr wichtige Rolle, Mit dem Begriff konnte man ersetzen die Funktion, die von dem römischen Typenzwang geleistet wurde, nämlich Schutz vor stultitia. Zur Zeit des usus modernus war es ganz uberwiegende Meinung, dass auch aus einem pactum nudum geklagt werden könne. Und deren Begrundung war auch Causa-Begriff, der in der kanonischen Vertragslehre und den Partikularechten und römischen Rechten gemeinsam anerkannt wurde. Zur Zeit des Naturrechts ist der Causa-Begriff inhaltlich konkretisiert.
Im Koreanischen Burgerlichen Gesetzbuch gibt es keine Vorschrift, in der es zur Wirksamkeit des Vertrags causa erfordere. Jedoch mussen wir dahingehend interpretieren, dass es auch unter unserem Vertragsrecht zur Wirksamkeit eines Vertrags grundsätzlich eine causa erfordere. Ohne causa können wir keine Forderung geben. Causa ist im Grundsatz “essentialia negotii” bei Verpflichtungsgeschäften.