• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.35 no.1
• /
• pp.63-101
• /
• 2020

'Flight safety zone' means a zone that the Minister of National Defense designates under Articles 4 and 6 of the Protection of Military Bases and Installations Act (hereinafter 'PMBIA') for the safety of flight during takeoff and landing of military aircrafts. The purpose of flight safety zone is to contribute to the national security by providing necessary measures for the protection of military bases and installations and smooth conduct of military operations. In this case, when the state set and used the flight safety zone, the landowner claimed restitution of unjust enrichment against the country. This article is an analysis based on the existing legal theory regarding the legitimacy of plaintiff's claim, and the summary of the discussion is as follows. A person who without any legal ground derives a benefit from the property or services of another and thereby causes loss to the latter shall be bound to return such benefit (Article 741 of the Civil Act). Since the subject matter is an infringing profit, the defendant must prove that he has a legitimate right to retain the profit. The State reserves the right to use over the land designated as a flight safety zone in accordance with legitimate procedures established by the PMBIA for the safe takeoff and landing of military aircrafts. Therefore, it cannot be said that the State gained an unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent over the land without legal cause. Expropriation, use or restriction of private property from public necessity and compensation therefor shall be governed by Act: provided, that in such a case, just compensation shall be paid (Article 23 (1) of the Constitution of The Republic of KOREA). Since there is not any provision in the PMBIA for loss compensation for the case where a flight safety zone is set over land as in this case, next question would be whether or not it is unconstitutional. Even if it is designated as a flight safety zone and the use and profits of the land are limited, the justification of the purpose of the flight safety zone system, the appropriateness of the means, the minimization of infringement, and the balance of legal interests are still recognized; thus just not having any loss compensation clause does not make the act unconstitutional. In conclusion, plaintiff's claim for loss compensation based on the 'Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for land, etc. for Public Works Projects', which has no provision for loss compensation due to public limits, is unjust.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.34 no.1
• /
• pp.3-38
• /
• 2019

In 1984, Congress enacted a new measure of administrative sanctions which is a civil money penalty program for violations of Aviation Act and its implementing regulations. This civil money penalty system has been in operations in lieu of suspending or revoking certificates issued by Korean government, Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, and Transport. According to the rules of Aviation Business Act or Aviation Safety Act, where the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport should order an air carrier to suspend operation because of her violation under certain rules, in which case the suspension of operation is likely to cause serious inconvenience to consumers of air transport services or to harm public interest, the Minister of the department may impose an administrative monetary penalty in lieu of the suspension of operation. In this regard, airline related civil money penalties are somewhat different from those of fair trade, which is the origin of the money penalties system in Korea. Civil money penalties in the field of fair trade are imposed on executive duty violations that undermine the value of the market economy order, and focus on reimbursement of profits due to violations and compensation for unfair spending by consumers. However, in the aviation sector, breach of duty by a business operator does not simply cause the property loss of the public, but it has a direct impact on life or property of the public. In this respect, aviation penalties are more likely to be administrative sanctions or punitive measures than refunds of unfair benefits, compared to penalties in the field of fair trade. In general, civil money penalties have been highly preferred as administrative sanctions because they are subject to investigations by administrative experts and thus, efficiency can be ensured and execution is quicker than judicial procedures. Moreover, in Korea, because punitive civil damages cannot awarded by the courts, the imposition of civil money penalties is recognized as a means of realizing social justice by recognizing the legal feelings of the people. However, civil money penalties are administrative sanctions, and in terms of effectiveness, they are similar to criminal fines, which are a form of punishment. Inadequate legislation and operation of penalties imposition may cause damage to the value of Constitution. Under the above recognition, this paper has been described for the purpose of identifying the present status of the civil money penalties imposition system and operating status in the area of air transport under the laws and regulations in Korea. Especially, this paper was focused on exploring the problem and improvement direction of Korean system through the comparative study with foreign laws and regulations.

• Korean Association of Arts Management
• /
• no.51
• /
• pp.191-219
• /
• 2019

Adoption of applicable law for the international trade of artworks is closely related to the results of lawsuits. Recently, starting with New York, the hub of the international artworks market, a modern, mixed-law is gradually being adopted more. It is difficult to designate an applicable law of an international trade of artworks through private laws regulations of relevant countries, and the public laws regulations must also be considered in relation to individual benefits and the public benefits to the relevant countries. With regards to the foreign relations issues, Korea's private international law embraces a so-called public order theory, and according to the Section 7 of the Act on the Private International Law and its enactment history, the compulsory provision, which seems appropriate for application to the corresponding matter, applies without regards to the selection of the applicable law. The Civil Act of Korea acknowledges bona fide acquisition of a cultural asset, in principle, if the Cultural Heritage Protection Act is not applicable. Moreover, a lost artwork is also a subject of bona fide acquisition; however, if the relevant artwork is either stolen or lost, the original owner has the right to demand the return of that artwork within 2 years of being stolen or lost according to the Section 250 of the Civil Act. Also, if the buyer purchased from a distributor specializing in the artworks, such as auction, open market or gallery, the buyer could request a compensation of the purchase price from the original owner, and if the buyer purchased through a private transaction, the buyer cannot demand a compensation of the purchase price and must return the artwork.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.21 no.2
• /
• pp.105-162
• /
• 2020

In the pandemic of infectious disease, restrictions of individual liberty have been justified in the name of public health and public interest. In March 2020, the National Assembly of the Republic of Korea passed the revised bill of the 「Infectious Disease Control and Prevention Act.」 The revised bill newly established the legal basis for forced testing and disclosure of the information of confirmed cases, and also raised the penalties for violation of self-isolation and treatment refusal. This paper examines whether and how these individual liberty limiting clauses be justified, and if so on what ethical and philosophical grounds. The authors propose the theories of the philosophy of law related to the justifiability of liberty-limiting measures by the state and conceptualized the dual-aspect of applying the liberty-limiting principle to the infected patient. In COVID-19 pandemic crisis, the infected person became the 'Patient as Victim and Vector (PVV)' that posits itself on the overlapping area of 'harm to self' and 'harm to others.' In order to apply the liberty-limiting principle proposed by Joel Feinberg to a pandemic with uncertainties, it is necessary to extend the harm principle from 'harm' to 'risk'. Under the crisis with many uncertainties like COVID-19 pandemic, this shift from 'harm' to 'risk' justifies the state's preemptive limitation on individual liberty based on the precautionary principle. This, at the same time, raises concerns of overcriminalization, i.e., too much limitation of individual liberty without sufficient grounds. In this article, we aim to propose principles regarding how to balance between the precautionary principle for preemptive restrictions of liberty and the concerns of overcriminalization. Public health crisis such as the COVID-19 pandemic requires a population approach where the 'population' rather than an 'individual' works as a unit of analysis. We propose the second expansion of the harm principle to be applied to 'population' in order to deal with the public interest and public health. The new concept 'risk to population,' derived from the two arguments stated above, should be introduced to explain the public health crisis like COVID-19 pandemic. We theorize 'the extended harm principle' to include the 'risk to population' as a third liberty-limiting principle following 'harm to others' and 'harm to self.' Lastly, we examine whether the restriction of liberty of the revised 「Infectious Disease Control and Prevention Act」 can be justified under the extended harm principle. First, we conclude that forced isolation of the infected patient could be justified in a pandemic situation by satisfying the 'risk to the population.' Secondly, the forced examination of COVID-19 does not violate the extended harm principle either, based on the high infectivity of asymptomatic infected people to others. Thirdly, however, the provision of forced treatment can not be justified, not only under the traditional harm principle but also under the extended harm principle. Therefore it is necessary to include additional clauses in the provision in order to justify the punishment of treatment refusal even in a pandemic.