• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.4
• /
• pp.107-137
• /
• 1992

• Journal of Korea Fair Competition Federation
• /
• no.127
• /
• pp.43-57
• /
• 2006

• Journal of the Korea Convergence Society
• /
• v.8 no.10
• /
• pp.67-73
• /
• 2017

In this study, we mainly inquired into structural reforms of the current legal system that could minimize the side effects and protect financial customers as the use of AI robo-advisor were increasing. First, regarding a specific reform, it is necessary to introduce and establish a rapid detection system for unusual transactions by the Robo-advisor management company, the strict liability of the management company, the management company's mandatory obligation to obtain indemnity insurance, and limited criminal penalties. Furthermore, it is necessary to establish a comprehensive basic law regarding AI. In this basic law, the promotion of the development of AI technology and the minimization of side effects should be dealt with in harmony with each other. Like the approach of this study, we hope that similarly detailed and practical discussions will be made on the AI era from various perspectives in the future.

• Journal of Soil and Groundwater Environment
• /
• v.10 no.6
• /
• pp.1-9
• /
• 2005

Soil is polluted by an agricultural chemicals, the effluence of a crystal and sewage sludge, illegal discharging of waste water or waste matter and so on. Soil pollution that accompanies a groundwater and the crops contamination has a large effect on people's living. By polluters pay principle, when a soil was polluted, polluters take the responsibility of clean-up and compensation for damages. The character of the responsibility is a strict liability. When joint polluters exist in a soil pollution, they bear collective responsibility. But they are exempted from obligation in case of a natural calamity and war. The polluters who are poor contribution of pollution take a partition responsibility but it is not easy to prove that. The concerned parties of purification liability in a soil pollution are polluter, an owner or occupant of a contaminated site, and a grantee. But when we do not appoint the polluter or he cannot do a cleanup, municipal must put in effect the purification. In such a case, another parties who are related to the contamination should take upon themselves a liability. The province of responsible parties, therefore, is required to extend to an owner or operator of a facility, a carrier and lender.

• Journal of Environmental Policy
• /
• v.8 no.4
• /
• pp.125-147
• /
• 2009

The Basic Environmental Policy Act (BEPA) (Law No. 4257 effective 1. August 1990) sets forth the basic policies and administrative framework for environmental preservation, leaving more detailed regulations, and emission controls to separate laws targeting air, water, and solid waste, etc. The BEPA Article 31 adopts an unprecedented strict liability standard for damages as an absolute liability. The BEPA Article 31 provides for liability as follows. If a company is alleged to have caused damage through pollution of the environment, it will be liable for damages unless it can show that the pollution did not cause damages, or that it did not actually cause pollution. If the company did cause pollution, and if the pollution is the cause for the damages in question, the company will be liable irrespective of whether it was negligent or otherwise at fault. If there are two or more companies involved in the pollution, but it is unclear which company caused the damages, all of the companies will be jointly and severally liable for the damages. In this paper, the author attempts to uncover the problems of BEPA Article 31 and then seeks desirable amendments by comparing it to the German Environmental Liability Act. First, it will be necessary to provide definitions of 'companies etc.'. Second, it will be necessary to enumerate the kinds of company facilities. Third, it will be necessary to provide exclusionary clauses on material damages. Fourth, it will be necessary to show 'presumption of cause and effect'. Fifth, it will be necessary to provide a clause on 'right to information'. Sixth, it will be necessary to provide a clause for force majeure. Seventh, it will be necessary to take measures to secure abundant liability for damages which can be caused by the owner of the facility, the potential polluter. Finally, it is appropriate that Korea now legislate an Environmental Liability Act akin to the German Environmental Liability Act.

• Korean Journal of Social Welfare
• /
• v.59 no.3
• /
• pp.59-73
• /
• 2007

The compensation system in industrial accident insurance is systemized with "either receiving all or no benefits at all" according to "admited or denied as an industrial accident". Therefore, they are centered on the decision as "industrial accident" or "non-industrial accident", but judging between the two is very complicated, and has inherent conflicting factors. In the early stage of industrialization, industrial accident compensation was based on the indemnity liability for employer's faults. In order to be compensated any damage, the injured worker should prove that the accident was not due to his or her faults. However it was very difficult for injured worker or his or her family to prove the employer's faults, so it was almost impossible to get compensation. Thereafter industrialization progress and improvement of workers' political status lead to conversion from principle of liability with employer's faults to principle of liability without employer's faults. In addition to that, coverage of industrial accident compensation was also expanded. This improvement strengthened the benefit payment principle of "All or Nothing". Even though the "All or Nothing" principle provokes tremendous criticism, the reason why it's difficult for industrialized countries to adopt partial compensation system, is that partial compensation system worsens the administrative hardship, therefore industrialized countries overcome the restrictions of the "All or Nothing" principle with making balance in provisions for any risk to some extent. However, in Korea because the general compensation system for covering medical cost and income loss from accidents, is not equipped, it could be possible to cause acute conflicts with regard to coverage of industrial accidents. Therefore it is required to improve the industrial accident insurance with the acceptance of the significance and logic of discriminated compensation, and create the integrated compensation system in the long run.

• Convergence Security Journal
• /
• v.8 no.4
• /
• pp.9-19
• /
• 2008

By e-Financial Transactions Act enacted in January 2007, the financial institutions are responsible for indemnifying user's damage to ensuring security of the electronic financial transactions and to protecting financial users when suffering from electronic financial accidents. However, when occurring unauthorized financial transactions or electronic financial accidents by user's moral hazard, it is difficult to determine where the accidents happened at and whether caused by the intention or gross negligence of users. To protecting financial parties and ensuring the security and reliability of electronic financial transactions, this paper attempts to propose the means, what enhance the notification process about financial transactions and to strengthen IT regulatory compliance by using area information about electronic financial transactions, to protect risk of the financial accidents.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.29 no.2
• /
• pp.3-54
• /
• 2014

The Republic of Korea enacted the Air Transport Act in Commercial Law which was entered into force in November, 2011. The Air Transport Act in Korean Commercial Law was established to regulate domestic carriage by air and damages to the third party which occur within the territorial area caused by aircraft operations. There are some problems to be reformed in the Provisions of Korean Commercial Law for the aircraft operator's liability of compensation for damages to the third party caused by aircraft operation as follows. First, the aircraft operator's liability of compensation for damages needs to be improved because it is too low to compensate adequately to the third party damaged owing to the aircraft operation. Therefore, the standard of classifying per aircraft weight is required to be detailed from the current 4-tier into 10-tier and the total limited amount of liability is also in need of being increased to the maximum 7-hundred-million SDR. In addition, the limited amount of liability to the personal damage is necessary to be risen from the present 125,000 SDR to 625,000 SDR according to the recent rate of prices increase. This is the most desirable way to improve the current provisions given the ordinary insurance coverage per one aircraft accident and various specifications of recent aircraft in order to compensate the damaged appropriately. Second, the aircraft operator shall be liable without fault to damages caused by terrorism such as hijacking, attacking an aircraft and utilizing it as means of attack like the 9 11 disaster according to the present Air Transport Act in Korean Commercial Law. Some argue that it is too harsh to aircraft operators and irrational, but given they have also some legal duties of preventing terrorism and in respect of helping the third party damaged, it does not look too harsh or irrational. However, it should be amended into exempting aircraft operator's liability when the terrorism using of an aircraft by well-organized terrorists group happens like 9 11 disaster in view of balancing the interest between the aircraft operator and the third party damaged. Third, considering the large scale of the damage caused by the aircraft operation usually aircraft accident, it is likely that many people damaged can be faced with a financial crisis, and the provision of advance payment for air carrier's liability of compensation also needs to be applied to the case of aircraft operator's liability. Fourth, the aircraft operator now shall be liable to the damages which occur in land or water except air according to the current Air Transport Act of Korean Commercial Law. However, because the damages related to the aircraft operation in air caused by another aircraft operation are not different from those in land or water. Therefore, the term of 'on the surface' should be eliminated in the term of 'third parties on the surface' in order to make the damages by the aircraft operation in air caused by another aircraft operation compensable by Air Transport Act of Korean Commercial Law. It is desired that the Air Transport Act in Commercial Law including the clauses related to the aircraft operator's liability of compensation for damages to the third party be developed continually through the resolutions about its problems mentioned above for compensating the third party damaged appropriately and balancing the interest between the damaged and the aircraft operator.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.11 no.2
• /
• pp.149-179
• /
• 2010

In November 2007, the Korean Constiutional Court held that a joint penal provision in which the individual employer is punished when his or her employee is determined to have committed a crime was unconstitutional, because the joint penal provision had no contents for the culpability of an individual employer and thus violated the constitutionally protected principle of culpability. After the Korean Constitutional Court's judgment, since December 2008 the Ministry of Justice began to change the old joint penal provision into the new revised joint penal provision. On January 2010, the old joint penal provisions of 110 laws were revised. The new revised joint penal provision adds only an additional sentence: "If a juristic person, an entity or an individual perform due care and supervision over its employee for the prevention of such a crime, it will be exempted from the punishment". But an presumption of negligence clause that is added in the new revised joint penal provision is still vacuum in concerned with supervision responsibility. Probably the new form of penal provision, that is understood to be a kind of the presumption of negligence, could let the burden of proof be changed from the public prosecutor to the accused, in other words employer-side. Especially, when joint penal provision is applied to hospital as administrative punishment, according to the hospital is a (juridical) foundation or not, the application of the joint penal provision is different and unfaithful. In my opinion, therefore, a corporation liability could be considered according to various liability of employee's business and the crime its employee committed because of an organizational failure of the corporation.

• Proceedings of the Korea Contents Association Conference
• /
• 2013.05a
• /
• pp.183-184
• /
• 2013

미국은 1960년대 초부터 제조물의 결함으로 인하여 발생한 손해에 대하여 판례나 학설을 통해 종래의 불법행위법의 범위를 확대하여 과실 계약법제가 엄격책임의 법제로 대체되어 엄격책임을 지게 하였다. 1970년대에 접어들면서 선진국들은 학설 판례에 맡기었던 제조물책임문제를 입법을 통하여 해결하고자 하였다. 즉 유럽국가들은 1985년 제조물책임에 관한 EC지침을 채택하고 1987년부터 대부분의 EU회원국들이 제조물책임법을 제정하였다. 우리나라도 제조물의 결함으로 인한 피해가 급증하면서 피해자와 직접적인 계약관계가 없는 제조자에게 계약책임을 지울 수 없다는 한계를 인식하고 피해자를 보호하기 위해 2000년에 제조물책임법을 입법하여 2002년부터 시행하였다. 동법의 핵심은 제조물책임에 관하여 과실의 유무를 묻지 않고 결함만을 책임요건으로 하는 무과실책임주의를 채택했다는 점이다.