• Proceedings of the Korean Institute of Navigation and Port Research Conference
• /
• 2010.10a
• /
• pp.167-169
• /
• 2010

해상교통관제제도는 공무원인 해상교통관제요원에 의해서 통제되는데 실효성을 확보하기 위해서 공권력이 투입되는 과정에서 선박소유자에게 손해를 입혔을 경우 구제수단으로서 국가배상법의 적용여부를 살펴볼 것이다. 해상교통관제의 경우 공무원이 과실이나 부주의로 인한 선박이 충돌 좌초 등의 사고가 발생하였을 때 국가배상법 제2조 공무원의 위법한 직무행위로 인한 손해배상에서 국가배상이 성립하기 위한 요건이 충족되는지 확인한다. 해상교통관제관련 손해배상을 국가배상보다는 전문적인 해사행정법 체계내에 특별법 규정을 둔다면 포괄적이고 추상적인 국가배상법의 요건에 의한 적용보다는 전문적이고 특수한 상황에 적합하여 진일보하는 계기가 될 것이다.

• Proceedings of the Korea Contents Association Conference
• /
• 2006.05a
• /
• pp.322-326
• /
• 2006

There are the road of the artificial government property and rivers of the natural government property in representative Public Facilities applied National Reimbursement Law. Art.5. Doctrine on Responsibility of Public Facilities. Recently damage of a people has frequently been occurring caused by the flood of rivers and the flood disaster, and a people tends to request national reimbursement regarded it not as a natural disaster but as a man-made disaster. Especially the flood repeatedly occurred by the flood of rivers and destructive of the embankment of rivers, and it is also occurring in repairing rivers. Therefore a nation have to take responsibility of compensation for damage because of defect of conservation of rivers, and pay attention to improving the facilities of conservation and at the same time expand the range of responsibility. Thus the range of this study limits the national reimbursement of conservation of rivers among National Reimbursement Law. Art.5. Compensation for Damages on Defect about an Establishment and Management of public Facilities. Within this range, the objection of this study is to seek controversial issues and solutions, which belong with national reimbursement responsibility about conservation of rivers, as every principle of law and precedent coming under natural government property about compensation for damages caused by defect of conservation of rivers is analyzed and examined.

• Journal of Digital Convergence
• /
• v.14 no.6
• /
• pp.51-60
• /
• 2016

The modern state has always followed a variety of risks in the industrialization and informatization trends in the development of science and technology. Under such an environment, A matter of State compensation should take into consideration a variety of values such as harmony relief victims' rights in accordance with the principles of the rule of law, suppression of illegal acts of public servants, ensuring stable performance of official duties, the national treasury stability. As the state takes responsibility for an act of a public servant in a modern constitutional state, there may be a doubt on that the state takes responsibility only when there is a deliberation or a mistake. According to the theory of the self-responsibility, which suits the Constitution, the principle of liability with mistake on the State Compensation Law shall be excluded. I agree to the opinion that a subjective responsibility prerequisite such as a deliberation or a mistake is not required in relation to the liability of reparation on the State Compensation Law. Therefore, it is needed to convert the principle of state liability of reparation from the principle of liability with mistake to the principle of liability without mistake through a fundamental revision of the State Compensation Law.

• Fire Science and Engineering
• /
• v.33 no.5
• /
• pp.109-117
• /
• 2019

When those who have caused a fire have no ability to compensate fire victims, the victims tend to charge fire agencies for state compensation to receive damage relief. This study analyzed two state compensation cases related to fires. The findings suggest that if there is a causal relationship between fire damage and mistakes committed by fire officials that are associated with fire prevention or special fire inspections, courts usually decide that fire agencies should compensate fire victims. Despite the introduction of a new article in the Framework Act on Fire-Fighting Services on December 26, 2017, titled "Exemption from Responsibility for Fire-Fighting Activities", exemptions are only available if inevitability of the activity has been proven. However, unlike rescue or first aid activity, inevitability is difficult to prove when it comes to fire inspection activity. Therefore, it is expected that state compensation suits related to fires will not decrease.

• Journal of the Society of Disaster Information
• /
• v.16 no.1
• /
• pp.44-59
• /
• 2020

This study analyzed a gas explosion accident. A gas smell from a underground coffee shop in the two-story building was reported to 119. A fire brigade was turned out, turned off the main valve of LPG gas cylinder on the roof, and checked the turning off of middle valve in the coffee shop. The fire brigade required a gas supplier and gas installer who arrived at the spot to take safety actions. Gas explosion occurred seven minutes after the fire brigade was withdrawn and two people died and 21 people were injured. A court decided that because the causes for gas explosion were not found, compensation responsibility could not be charged with the gas supplier, the gas installer, or Korea Gas Safety Corporation. In this reason, the court judged that only the fire brigade who was withdrawn without taking safety actions shall compensate victims or bereaved families. Therefore, fire brigades who turn out after a 119 report of a gas leak should take safety actions such as escaping people or preventing people's access and ventilating and be withdrawn when there is no possibility of fire or explosion.

• The Monthly Technology and Standards
• /
• s.5
• /
• pp.25-36
• /
• 2002

• 주택과사람들
• /
• s.220
• /
• pp.88-89
• /
• 2008

• Product Safety
• /
• s.100
• /
• pp.43-45
• /
• 2002

미국은 우리나라의 최대 수출시장으로 국내의 제조업체들이 미국내에서의 PL소송을 통해 막대한 배상송실을 초래하여 값비싼 경험을 한바 있다. 미국의 제조물책임법은 여타국가에서는 찾아볼 수없는 특수한 성격을 지니고 있다. 첫째 예상밖의 소송(Frivolous Suits)을 들 수 있다. 둘째, 연대책임과 이와 관련된 디피포켓이론(Deep Pocket Theory)이다. 셋째 징벌적 배상(Punitive Damages)인데, 앞날을 경계하는 뜻으로 벌을 준다는

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.35 no.3
• /
• pp.3-37
• /
• 2020

The aircraft crew operating on international routes performs almost identical tasks as police officials in terms of dealing with the unlawful interference in the aircraft. This means that the liability question which is related to the law enforcement by the police officer may arise regarding the crew's performance of his or her duties. With regard to the carrier's liability due to the crew's unlawful action, there are distinctive characteristics from the liability due to police officers' unlawful action. In case of the claim for damages by the crew's unlawful action, the first question should be whether such action complies with the requirements under the Tokyo Convention 1963. If such action does not conform with the Tokyo Convention 1963, we should examine that claim under the State Compensation Act, the Montreal Convention 1999, and the Civil Act of Korea. The examination under the Tokyo Convention 1963 is not so different from the Korean Court's precedents. However, the court should consider the characteristics of the environment surrounding the crew. The action which is not indemnified under the Tokyo Convention 1963 should be examined under the tort laws. Because the aircraft crew is private persons entrusted with public duties under Korean Law, the State Compensation Act may apply. However, further studies regarding the harmonious interpretation with the Montreal Convention 1999 is needed. With regard to the carrier's liability, the Montreal Convention of 1999 should be applied to the crew's unlawful actions onboard. This is because the Montreal Convention of 1999 preempts the national law for the events that occurred during transportation, and there is no provision which excludes such unlawful actions from the scope of its application. On the other hand, the national law, such as the Civil Act of Korea, applies to unlawful actions taken after transportation. This is because the interpretation that infinitely expands the scope of the Montreal Convention 1999 should not be allowed. Given the foregoing, the standard of the claim for damages due to the crew's unlawful action varies depending on the place where the specific action was taken. As a result, the type of damage recoverable and the burden of proof also varies accordingly. Carriers and crew members must perform their duties with this in mind, but in particular, they should observe the proportionality, and when interpreting the law, it is necessary for the court or lawyer to consider the special characteristics of the work environment.

• Journal of the Korean hospital association
• /
• v.13 no.10 s.118
• /
• pp.48-49
• /
• 1984