Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.31691/KASL35.1.1.

Third Party's Legal Interest Protection from Commercialization of Drones -A focus on Decision of the German District Court-  

Kim, Sung-Mi (Korea Aviation University)
Publication Information
The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy / v.35, no.1, 2020 , pp. 3-32 More about this Journal
Abstract
With controlling Drones, although it was discussed in the previous study which showed a possibility. Which is personality and property rights of third parties could be violated while operating the drone with a video camera. But It's hard to find out precedents related to drones in Korea. In case of that someone try to control the drone which is equipped with a camera in a yard of neighborhood, the German District Court (Potsdam) considered an operator of drone has little bit of careless to do his duty and admit nonfeasance claim in the owner of the one's property for prevention to repetition of similar situation according to a nonfeasance claim for prevention to Section 1004 (1) sentence 2 of the German Civil Code(BGB). The drone which is equipped with a camera have possibilities to disrupt property and personal rights of the owner. Because a danger in repetition is getting larger regarding the violation of law. Moreover, there is a case that someone shot down the drone which is equipped with a camer. Because it has a risk to interrupt private life and cause some dangerous in our life. The German district court(Riesa) recently have considered that controlling the drone with a camera in private spaces is illegal as a violation of personal life. In addtion to, the action of property owner shot down drone is a legal according to § 228 of the German Civil Code(BGB) which is caleed "Necessity". Although it is difficult to apply to foreign cases directly to Korea, similar cases are likely to be occurred in Korea. The decision of the German District Court showed implications to Korea. As demand for the camera-equipped drone increases in Korea, it is time to discuss specific measures for drone violations.
Keywords
Third Party; Legal Interest; Drones with camera; nonfeasance claim; Necessity;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 2  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 김명수, "드론의 안전한 운영과 프라이버시 보장을 위한 법제 정비 방안", 법제논단 10월호, 국회입법조사처, 2018.
2 김선이, "무인항공기의 사생활 침해에 대한 법적 대응-미국정책입법안분석을 중심으로", 한국항공우주정책법학회지, 제29권제2호, 한국항공우주정책법학회, 2014.
3 김선이, "무인항공기 관련 법제의 규제 현황과 개선방안", 한국항공우주정책법학회지 제34권제2호, 한국항공우주정책법학회, 2019.
4 김성미, "드론의 현행 법적 정의와 상업적 운용에 따른 문제점", 한국항공우주정책법학회지, 제33권제1호, 한국항공우주정책법학회, 2018.
5 김성미, "소형드론 운항자에 대한 동물점유자책임 유추해석의 가능성", 한국항공우주정책법학회지, 제34권제2호, 한국항공우주정책법학회, 2019.
6 류창호, "드론의 운행과 토지소유권의 침해" 경희법학 제50권제4호, 경희대 법학연구소, 2015.
7 한삼인, "운동경기 중 발생한 상해와 민사책임의 성립여부 -대법원 2011. 12. 8. 선고 2011다66849, 66856 판결-", 인권과 정의 제438호, 대한변호사협회, 2013.
8 대법원 1968. 10. 22. 선고, 68다1643, 판결.
9 대법원 1981. 3. 24. 선고 80다1592 판결.
10 대법원 2006. 5. 26. 선고 2004다62597 판결.
11 대법원 2016. 11. 10. 선고 2013다71098 판결.
12 Brehm, Wolfgang/Berger, Christian, Sachenrecht 2.Aufl., 2006.
13 Boemke, Burkhard / Ulrici, Bernhard, BGB Allgemeienr Teil 2.Aufl., 2014.
14 Bernd von Heintschel-Heinegg(Hrsg.) in: BeckOK-Stgb 41. Edition 2019.
15 Erbs/Kohlhaas, Strafrechtliche Nebengesetze, Werkstand: 227. EL November 2019.
16 Erb, Volker, Der rechtfertigende Notstand, JuS 2010, 17
17 곽윤직(편)/김황식(집필), 민법 주해 [제XIX권 채권(12)], 박영사, 2005.
18 Michael Pawlik, der rechtgertigende Notstand -zugleich ein Beitrag zum Problem strafrechtlicher Solisaritatspflichten-, de Gruyter, 2002
19 Juris Praxis Kommentar BGB 8. Auflage 2017.
20 Mayr, Sebastian, Nutzung in (engen) Grenzen - Der neue Rechtsrahmen fur dem Betreib zivil Drohnen, rescriptum(Munchener studentische Rechtszeitschrift) Ausgabe 11 2017/11.
21 Regenfus, Tomas, Zivilrechtliche Abwehransprüche gegen Uberflüge und Bildauf -nahmen von Drohnen, NZM 2011, 799.
22 Fisher, Tomas, Strafgesetzbuch 65. Auflage 2018.
23 Palandt/Bassenge, BGB, 73. Aufl., 2014 § 1004.
24 Schonke/Schroder, 30. Auflage 2019, $\S$ 32 StGB Rn. 32, 33, Fischer 65. Auflage 2018, $\S$ 32 StGB.
25 Schreiber, Die Rechtfertigungsgrunde des BGB, JURA 1997, 29.
26 Solmecke, Christian/ Nowak, Fabian, Zivile Drohnen Probleme ihrer Nutzung, MMR 2014, 431.
27 Staudingers Kommentar zum Burgerlichen Gesetzbuch (2002) $\S$ 904.
28 AG Potsdam, Urteil vom 16.04.2015 - 37 C 454/13.
29 AG Riesa, Urteil vom 24.04.2019 - 9 Cs 926 Js 3044/19.
30 BGH, Urteil vom 24.06.2004, Az.: I ZR 26/02.
31 BGH, Urteil vom 17.07.2008, Az. I ZR 219/05 Rz. 13.
32 BGH, Urteil vom 26.02.2007, Az.: II ZR 13/06.
33 BGH, Urteil vom 10.04.1956, Az.: I ZR 165/54.