경제적 지위의 남용에 따른 반사회질서 행위

There are five major Supreme Court precedents related to inheritance and gift taxes for 2022. In this article, the above five precedents were divided into facts, issues, the position of the Supreme Court, and the significance and evaluation of the judgment in chronological order.
 First of all, the Supreme Court's ruling on March 11, 2022, on whether to invalidate the enforcement ordinance related to Article 41 (1) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, reaffirmed the position of the Supreme Court's ruling of 2015Du45700 on April 20, 2017 and the Supreme Court's decision of 2019Du35695 on September 9, 2021. The above judgment is valid in that the scope of gifts through corporations is limited through interpretation. However, it is necessary to review whether it is right to follow the materiality and clarity test of the illegality of administrative disposition.
 Second, the Supreme Court's ruling on the taxation and additional tax on the deeming property registered in name of another person to have been donated related to the acquisition of new stocks on September 15, 2022 is about the legal interpretation of the old tax and gift tax law in which the gift tax payer was in principle a trustee at the time of title trust. The target judgment judged that the case in which the title truster acquired new shares as collateral and transferred them under the same person's name, but before the transfer was made, the case in which the loan was repaid with the sale price of the existing title trust shares was not different. From the perspective of sanctions on the total amount of property that is difficult to grasp by title trust, it must be judged as the subject judgment. In addition, it was confirmed for the first time that the subject judgment should be based on the name trustee to determine whether the additional tax is imposed based on the taxpayer. If the above logic is applied to the current tax increase law, it should be judged based on the title truster who is liable for tax payment.
 Third, the Supreme Court's 2022Du33712 ruling on the scope of cancellation of disposition on May 26, 2022 reaffirms the previous precedent (Supreme Court March 28, 1997) that only the portion exceeding the legitimate tax amount should be canceled if the lawsuit for cancellation of the tax disposition exists. It is reasonable in that there is no need to appeal again for parts that exceed the legitimate tax amount.
 Fourth, the Supreme Court's ruling on November 10, 2022, 2020Du52214 is a precedent on whether to recognize self-gifts related to Article 45-3 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (before amended by Act No. 13557 on December 15, 2015). The above ruling is the first case in which the donor and the recipient cannot be said to be the same, even though the controlling shareholders of the beneficiary corporation are shareholders of a related corporation at the same time. Given that agenda regulations that are disadvantageous to taxpayers need to be interpreted in a limited way, it is necessary to review whether the above judgment is correct.
 Finally, the Supreme Court's decision on December 29, 2022 on the method of calculating gift profits according to the comprehensive exchange of stocks followed the previous precedent (the Supreme Court's decision on March 29, 2018) that gift taxes should be levied by applying Article 42 (1) 3 of the former Inheritance Tax Act. In addition, the target judgment clarified the application of Article 31-9(2)5(b) of the Enforcement Decree of the former Inheritance Tax Act (before amended by Presidential Decree No. 20621 on February 22, 2008), which is the basis for calculating the gift property value of a company that becomes a full subsidiary due to stock exchange.

Roe v Wade, Dobbs, and the Future of Graduate Medical Education.

Clinical Practice Guidelines and Recommendations: Room for Dissent?

Do Supreme Court decisions matter? In 1896 the United States Supreme Court ruled in Plessy v. Ferguson that railroad segregation laws were permissible under the Fourteenth Amendment. In 1954 the Court's decision in Brown v. the Board of Education held that the same constitutional provision invalidated statutes segregating public schools How great an impact did judicial rulings such as Plessy and Brown have? How much did such Court decisions influence the larger world of race relations? In From Jim Crow to Civil Rights, Michael J. Klarman examines the social and political impact of the Supreme Court's decisions involving race relations from Plessy, the Progressive Era, and the Interwar Period to World Wars I and II, Brown and the Civil Rights Movement. He explores the wide variety of consequences that Brown may have had--raising the salience of race issues, educating opinion, mobilizing supporters, energizing opponents of racial change. He concludes that Brown was ultimately more important for mobilizing southern white opposition to racial change than for encouraging direct-action protest. The decision created concrete occasions for violent confrontation--court ordered school desegregation and radicalized southern politics, leading to the election of politicians who calculated that violent suppression of civil rights demonstrations would win votes. It was such violence--vividly captured on television--that ultimately transformed northern opinion on race, leading to the enactment of landmark civil rights legislation in the mid 1960s. A fascinating investigation of the Supreme Court's rulings on race, From Jim Crow to Civil Rights, spells out in exhaustive detail the political and social context against which the Supreme Court Justices operate and the consequences of those decisions on the civil rights movement and beyond.

Issuance of a State Administrative Decree by the Regional Secretariat of Central Java Province to people with disabilities on behalf of M. Baihaqi who was considered discriminatory during the 2019 Central Java National Civil Service Candidate selection who was declared not to have passed due to the requirements for the type of disability and educational qualifications being inappropriate. Administrative efforts have been taken to regain his rights but have been unsuccessful. Until finally resorting to litigation by filing a lawsuit with PTUN Semarang and an appeal to PT TUN Surabaya but it was declared not accepted. Then in the cassation the Supreme Court granted all the claims and asked the defendant to revoke the issued State Administrative Decree and process M. Baihaqi's in the Central Java National Civil Service Candidate selection 2019. The research method used is normative juridical with statutory, conceptual and case approaches. The research results show that the fulfillment of the constitutional rights of persons with disabilities in the 2019 Central Java Civil Servant Candidate Selection is considered not optimal because the solution provided by the defendant as an implementation of the Supreme Court's decision is not in accordance with the Supreme Court's decision.

This paper was originally delivered in July of 1975, within a few weeks of the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Albemarle Paper Company v. Moody. The law, of course, does not stand still. Less than a year after the Albemarle decision, the Supreme Court's decision in Washington v. Davis appeared to turn sharply away from the proposition that the EEOC guidelines are to be applied mechanically as the only legal touchstone of the job relatedness of a test. The Washington decision contains many obscurities and ambiguities, and at the time of writing (October 1976) it appears that at least one more Supreme Court case will be necessary in order to clarify this question. Though the present paper is outdated in some respects because of the Washington decision, it is hoped that it will continue to be of interest for the light it may shed on the interrelationship between the practice of industrial psychology and the judicial process in operation.

The California Recall Punch Card Litigation: Why Bush v. Gore Does Not Suck

Background. In accordance with the norms of national legislation, the conclusions of the Supreme Court regarding the application of certain norms of law must be taken into account by courts of general jurisdiction when applying such norms of law. Thus, the article addresses the theoretical and legal analysis of the institution of legal opinion of the Supreme Court as a unique act of law enforcement in the national judicial system. Methods. The empirical scientific method (observation) was used in the part of the study of the practice of taking into account conclusions from the Supreme Court decisions by the courts; theoretical and scientific methods (proposing hypotheses and theories, analysis, synthesis, abstraction) in the part of identifying categories of improper (defective) consideration of conclusions from the Supreme Court decisions. The method of scientific modeling is used in the part of determining ways to solve the problematic issues raised in the article. Results. Emphasis is placed on the problem of the insufficiency of the definitions in relation to legal regulation of the legal opinion of the Supreme Court. The article highlights problematic issues related to taking into account the conclusions from the decisions of the Supreme Court: 1) the problem of dividing such conclusions into those that directly affect the outcome of the proceedings, and those that do not have such an impact on the outcome; 2) the problem of taking into account the conclusions expressed without due consideration of the actual circumstances and/or legislation; 3) the problem of the defectiveness of conclusions relating to legal prescriptions that have lost their validity or have been changed, and conclusions from which the Supreme Court deviated; 4) the problem of taking into account conclusions from Supreme Court decisions retrospectively (backward in time). The analysis of the indicated problems was carried out on the basis of theoretical provisions, court practice and partially foreign experience of law enforcement. Conclusions. Based on the practice of courts of general jurisdiction, the practice of the Supreme Court on the above-mentioned problems, attention is focused on cases of formal consideration of conclusions from Supreme Court decisions, own conclusions are put forward and models for solving problematic issues are proposed.

Recently, the Supreme Court of Korea ruled in a decision dated September 14, 2023, 2021Du40027 (hereinafter referred to as the “Subject Judgment”) that the effect of the provisions on deeming authorizations, or permissions under the Integrated Energy Supply Act does not extend to the provisions on Classification of Land and Houses Subject to Taxation under Local Tax Act. Article 48 of the Integrated Energy Supply Act stipulates that if a business is licensed under this act, it is deemed to be obtained a license under Article 7 (1) of the Electric Utility Act, and the Enforcement Decree of the former Local Tax Act stipulates that land used for infrastructure by an electricity business under the Electric Utility Act is subject to separate taxation. In interpreting the above former Local Tax Act separate taxation provisions, the Supreme Court held that a person licensed under the Integrated Energy Supply Act cannot be treated as the same as who licensed under the Electric Utility Act. It is necessary that the provisions on separate taxation under Local Tax Act should be strictly construed because those provisions provide taxpayers with permanent benefit of tax reduction or exemption. Supreme Court, in its 2006Du2626 decision, had been inclined to recognize a broad scope of effect of the separate taxation in property tax. However, Supreme Court, in its 2011Du5551 en banc decision, has shifted its position on the scope of effect of the separate taxation in property tax. In that decision, Supreme Court held that the effect of deeded authorization or permission under the other Acts cannot be applied to the Acts related taxation. After Supreme Court’s 2011Du5551 decision, inferior courts have followed Supreme Court’s rulling. Recently Supreme Court, in the subject judgment, was even more strict and rigid in its interpretation of the provisions of separate taxation in property tax than the 2011Du5551 en banc decision. It is believed that the recent Supreme Court's position of not extending the scope of deeming authorizations, or permissions to separate taxation in property tax is reasonable and should be maintained. In particular, it is worth noting that the subject judgment compared the Integrated Energy Supply Act and the Electric Utility Act before determining whether the procedural and substantive requirements of the relevant laws were met. In other words, Supreme Court focuses on the legislative intent of each law and examines closely whether it is reasonable to give equal legal effect in terms of procedural and substantive requirements. Supreme Court is showing a willingness to try to interpret the provisions on separate taxation in property tax that are specified to each usage and owner in a way that conforms to the scheme. This Supreme Court's position is interpreted as willing to give preference to the plain language and legislative intent of the Local Tax Act.

The Indonesian Supreme Court rejected the cassation and imposed a fine of IDR 199 billion on PT. Rambang Agro Jaya (RAJ), a subsidiary of Malaysia’s Kulim Berhad, for a 500-hectare forest and land fire case in Ogan Komering Ilir Regency, South Sumatra. This study aims to conduct a normative juridical analysis of the courts’ decision, holding PT. Rambang Agro Jaya was strictly liable for the environmental damage caused by the fire. The research reveals: (1) Central Jakarta District Court Decision No. 445/Pdt.G/2019/PN Jkt.Pst establishes strict liability and orders the Defendant to pay material losses totaling IDR 137.57 billion. (2) Jakarta High Court Decision No. 398/PDT/2021/PT DKI upholds the Central Jakarta District Court’s decision, reinforcing strict liability and increasing the total compensation to IDR 199.57 billion. (3) Supreme Court Decision No. 2196 K/PDT/2022 rejects PT. Rambang Agro Jaya’s cassation confirmed the Defendant’s unlawful actions and strict liability and imposed a material loss compensation of IDR 199.57 billion. The rulings signify a progressive step in enforcing environmental responsibility, with the substantial fine signaling a strict stance against ecological violations. The Supreme Court’s consistent rejection of cassation strengthens legal certainty and establishes a robust legal precedent for similar future cases, and underscores the significance of corporate accountability in promoting environmental sustainability.

Long-Term Care Reforms Live On With Court Ruling

INTRODUCTION In November 2015, the Supreme Court granted certiorari to Whole Woman 's Health v. Cole (1) the first reproductive rights case to reach the court since Gonzales v. Carhart (2) eight years before. In the intervening time, states have passed an astonishing number of laws and regulations that encroach on women's access to abortion. Many such laws ostensibly aim to protect the woman and her fetus. Yet these same laws do so by imposing medically unnecessary and onerous procedural requirements on women, (3) which can erect massive barriers to abortion access for individuals. Other state laws aim to regulate not the activities of women, but those of abortion providers, who are not a protected class. The reproductive rights movement terms these laws Targeted Regulations of Abortion Providers, or TRAP laws. (4) State legislatures' passage of TRAP laws accelerated after the Supreme Court's decision in Carhart, which was taken to signal judicial willingness to uphold state laws that aim to protect an unborn fetus at the expense of reducing a woman's ability to choose. (5) This Note focuses on admitting-privileges laws, a type of TRAP law that requires physicians who provide abortions to obtain staff privileges at a hospital within a certain distance from their clinics. Without these required privileges, physicians performing abortions risk civil and criminal penalties. These laws are especially concerning because they give area hospitals an effective veto over a clinic's operations, effectively outsourcing the power to deny licenses to private entities. Admitting-privileges decisions are often discretionary for hospital administrators; a hospital's denial of admitting privileges also lacks state oversight or external appeals. Admitting-privileges laws are being ratified throughout many states, but have proven resistant to traditional substantive due process challenges. In addition to traditional undue burden analysis, a multipronged approach to reproductive rights litigation and advocacy is necessary. Part I of this Note sets forth a brief history of the right to choose an abortion and the current federal legal framework. Then, it details recent state legislative and ballot initiatives aimed at regulating abortion providers. Part II explains the complications of using the undue burden doctrine in constitutional challenges to state action, as illuminated by recent cases litigating admitting-privileges laws. It further introduces private-delegation challenges as an alternative method to examine the constitutionality of these laws. Part III looks at the history of private-delegation challenges with respect to admitting- privileges laws and touches on other possible avenues to challenge admitting-privileges regulations. I. Abortion in the Post-Roe Era In 1973, the Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade, which recognized that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects a right to privacy that extends to a woman's decision to have an abortion. (6) Roe's effect was remarkable. Before Roe, each individual state regulated abortions and the accessibility thereof with their traditional police powers. At the time of the decision, four states had repealed anti-abortion laws, while thirteen had begun reforms of their abortion laws. (7) Almost all the rest banned abortion in most cases. (8) After the Supreme Court identified a right to choose an abortion grounded in the federal Constitution, the annual number of legal abortions rose through the 1970s, leveling off in the 1980s. (9) After Roe, the Supreme Court also decided Doe v. Bolton, (10) which assessed the elaborate procedural barriers to abortion erected by the state of Georgia and invalidated some of them for being not reasonably related to the state interest (11) or redundant. (12) Doe has been interpreted to signal that just as states may not prevent abortion by making the performance a crime, states may not make abortions unreasonably difficult to obtain by prescribing elaborate procedural barriers. …

There are over 570 federally-recognized Tribal Nations in the United States and more than 330 tribal courts serving as the judicial branch of those nations. Yet, there is little mention of the existence of tribal courts in most mainstream civil procedure courses taught in the over 200 law schools in the United States. To gain any knowledge as to the existence of these courts, law students must take a course on federal Indian law, which is not available in the majority of law schools. In fact, less than twenty law schools offer a series of courses forming an Indian law program. Thus, the invisibility of tribal courts is perpetuated through curriculum omission in mainstream civil procedure courses and rarely remedied through offering a stand-alone course on federal Indian law. Tribal Nations have existed from time immemorial with their own laws, dispute resolution systems, and governing structures. This lack of attention and suppression of information serves only to reinforce colonizing ideas of subsuming tribal governance into the forums set up by the United States. This article will discuss the history of formal tribal courts as first established to control American Indian populations in the late 1800s. As tools of oppression, the first judicial forums established on American Indian reservations were the Code of Indian Offenses Courts, also known as the C.F.R. Courts (Code of Federal Regulations Courts). The Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 signaled a shift in policy which provided for the adoption of tribal constitutions. Under the Department of Interior, the Bureau of Indian Affairs personnel developed boilerplate constitutions for adoption by Tribal Nations. These constitutions often included provisions for the establishment of tribal courts. Through U.S. Supreme Court decisions and federal laws, the criminal and civil jurisdiction of tribal courts has been limited. The U.S. Supreme Court has also opined that the U.S. Congress holds plenary authority over American Indian Tribes. Utilizing this authority, the U.S. Congress has legislated federal criminal jurisdiction as concurrent on all tribal lands with tribal court jurisdiction and has provided a mechanism to delegate federal criminal jurisdiction to state legal systems. In the civil jurisdiction sphere, the U.S. Supreme Court has established processes for federal courts to review tribal civil jurisdiction determinations and for the refiling of cases from tribal courts to federal courts based on the status of civil defendants as non-Indians or non-members. Following a discussion on the history and function of tribal courts, this article will examine the limitations on tribal court civil jurisdiction set forth in U.S. Supreme Court decisions. Through a critical examination of the U.S. authority and legal basis for review of tribal court determinations or decisions, this article will provide commentary on the ungrounded nature of the assertion of U.S. federal court review over tribal court decision-making. Finally, the article will recommend a government-to-government treaty agreement to set the framework for civil jurisdictional issues arising between Tribal Nations and the United States.

Trying to Make Peace With Bush v. Gore

「Act on Ownership and Management of Condominium Buildings」(hereinafter referred to as “The Condominium Buildings Act”) and the related decisions are on the way to completing the unified rules for condominium buildings through several revisions, however, the current status of use of the actual transaction system has led to cases that require flexible operation of legal principles related to the Condominium Buildings Act.
 As one of such cases, significant issues are the recent decisions of Korean Supreme Court regarding the claim for delivery of sectional buildings without independence in structure and use, which are: Supreme Court Decision 2015Da3471 Delivered on March 27, 2018 and Supreme Court Decision 2021Da220666 Delivered on June 24, 2021.
 In Decision 2015Da3471, the Supreme Court developed a discussion based on the existing rules of the Condominium Buildings Act and the related Supreme Court decisions, which were easing independence in structure and use, while combining these judgments with the rules of limiting the exercise of the rights of obligees against holders of rights. Such a conclusion was a realistic solution reflecting the characteristics of the specific case, and although the rationale was not sufficiently mentioned, it can be evaluated as persuasive in light of the existing legal principles.
 In Decision 2021Da220666, the Supreme Court deepened the existing legal principle of Supreme Court Decision 2012Da105 Delivered on May 24, 2012 specifically, regarding the specification of the object of sale when the actual use status and the registration of the condominium buildings ledger etc. were different in the contract for sale of the sectioned store of the commercial building. That decision can be evaluated as a meaningful one in that it was a decision of the Supreme Court that was judging specific cases in which special circumstances in which the object of sale should be specified according to the actual status of use, rather than the registration of the buildings ledger, etc..