• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.32 no.2
• /
• pp.33-66
• /
• 2017

The Korean government enacted the Chapter 6 as of Air Transportation to the Korean Commercial Act, which was enforced in 2011, in order to treat some arguments occurred from air transportation Contracts since air transportations has rapidly increased in Korea. Air transportations has been used more in the field of international market than in the field of domestic market under it's own characteristic. Therefore, many international agreements and protocols related to the air transportations has been appeared from old times and the 1999 Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air ("Montreal Convention") is one of them. The Montreal Convention was adopted in May 28, 1999 at International Conference of Air Law hosted by the International Civil Aviation Organization ("ICAO") in Montreal, Canada where the Headquarter of ICAO is located. The Montreal Convention has been effected from September 5, 2003 and the Korean government ratified the convention in 2007. Therefore, the Montreal Convention came in to force in Korea since 2007. This year, 2017, is the 10th anniversary year since the Montreal Convention has taken effect in Korea. However, there are rare cases that argued the Montreal Convention's scope of application and this Article examines the Korean Supreme Court's case that argued the Convention's scope of application. Thus the Article basically analyzes the case from the perspective of the Montreal Convention's scope of application and examines the Montreal Convention's articles related to the air carrier's liability and extent of compensation for damage that occurred from the international carriage by air. Also this Article analyzes the Korean Commercial Act Chapter 6, which regulated the air carrier's liability and the Article tries to make a comparison between the Montreal Convention and the Korean Commercial Act in order to draw some scheme for the betterment of Korean Commercial Act. It is the hope that the Article contribute to the improvement of Korean Commercial Act through the comparison with the chance of the 10th Anniversary of the Montreal Convention in Korea.

• 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.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.78
• /
• pp.1-29
• /
• 2018

This article demonstrates that both the Warsaw Convention Systemand the Montreal Convention are not designed for multimodal transport, let alone for "Door to Door" transport. The polemic directed against the "Door to Door" application of the Warsaw Convention systemand the Montreal Convention is predominantly driven by the text and the drafting philosophy of the said Contentions that since 1929 support unimodalism-with the rule that "the period of the carriage by air does not expend to any carriage by land, by sea or by inland waterway performed outside an airport" playing a profound role in restricting their multimodal aspirations. The drafters of the Montreal Convention were more adventurous than their predecessors with respect to the boundaries of the Montreal Convention. They amended Art. 18(3) by removing the phrase "whether in an aerodrome or on board an aircraft, or, in the case of landing outside an aerodrome, in any place whatsoever", however, they retained the first sentence of Art. 18(4). The deletion of the airport limitation fromArt. 18(3) creates its own paradox. The carrier can be held liable under the Montreal Convention for the loss or damage to cargo while it is in its charge in a warehouse outside an airport. Yet, damage or loss of the same cargo that occurs during its surface transportation to the aforementioned warehouse and vice versa is not covered by the Montreal Convention fromthe moment the cargo crosses the airport's perimeter. Surely, this result could not have been the intention of its drafters: it certainly does not make any commercial sense. I think that a better solution to the paradox is to apply the "functional interpretation" of the term"airport". This would retain the integrity of the text of the Montreal Convention, make sense of the change in the wording of Art. 18(3), and nevertheless retain the Convention's unimodal philosophy. English courts so far remain loyal to the judgment of the Court of Appeal in Quantum, which constitutes bad news for the supporters of the multimodal scope of the Montreal Convention. According the US cases, any losses occurring during Door to Door transportation under an air waybill which involves a dominant air segment are subject to the international air law conventions. Any domestic rules that might be applicable to the road segment are blatantly overlooked. Undoubtedly, the approach of the US makes commercial. But this policy decision by arguing that the intention of the drafters of the Warsaw Convention was to cover Door to Door transportation is mistaken. Any expansion to multimodal transport would require an amendment to the Montreal Convention, Arts 18 and 38, one that is not in the plans for the foreseeable future. Yet there is no doubt that air carriers and freight forwarders will continue to push hard for such expansion, especially in the USA, where courts are more accommodating.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.49
• /
• pp.283-324
• /
• 2011

The purpose of this paper is to research the air waybill and the carrier's liability in respect of the carriage of cargo by air under the Montreal Convention of 1999. The Warsaw Convention for the unification of certain rules for international carriage by air was adopted in 1929 and modified successively in 1955, 1961, 1971, 1975 and 1999. The Montreal Convention of 1999 modernized and consolidated the Warsaw Convention and related instruments. Under the Montreal Convention, in respect of the carriage of cargo, the air waybill shall be made out by the consignor. If, at the request of the consignor, the carrier makes it out, the carrier shall be deemed to have done so on behalf of the consignor. The air waybill shall be made out in three orignal parts. Under the Montreal Convention, the consignor shall indemnify the carrier against all damages suffered by the carrier or any other person to whom the carrier is liable, by reason of the irregularity, incorrectness or incompleteness of the particulars and statement furnished by the consignor or on its behalf. The air waybill is not a document of title or negotiable instrument. Under the Montreal Convention, the air waybill is prima facie evidence of the conclusion of the contract, of the acceptance of the cargo and of the conditions of carriage. If the carrier carries out the instructions of the consignor for the disposition of the cargo without requiring the production of the part of the air waybill, the carrier will be liable, for any damage which may be accused thereby to any person who is lawfully in possession of the part of the air waybill. Under the Montreal Convention, the carrier is liable by application of principle of strict liability for the damage sustained during the carriage of cargo by air. The carrier is liable for the destruction or loss of, or damage to cargo and delay during the carriage by air. The period of the carriage by air does not extend to any carriage by land, by sea or by inland waterway performed outside an airport. Under the Montreal Convention, the carrier's liability is limited to a sum of 17 Special Drawing Rights per kilogramme. Any provision tending to relieve the carrier of liability or to fix a lower limit than that which is laid down in this Convention shall be and void. Under the Montreal Convention, if the carrier proves that the damage was caused by the negligence or other wrongful act or omission of the person claiming compensation, or the person from whom he derives his rights, the carrier shall be wholly or partly exonerated from ist liability to the claimant to the extent that such negligence or wrongful act or omission caused the damage. Under the Montreal Convention, any action for damages, however founded, whether under this Convention or in contract or in tort or otherwise, can only be brought subject to the conditions and such limits of liability as are set out in this Convention. Under the Montreal Convention, in the case of damage the person entitled to delivery must complain to the carrier forthwith after the discovery of the damage, and at the latest, within fourteen days from the date of receipt of cargo. In the case of delay, the complaint must be made at the latest within twenty-one days from the date on which the cargo has been placed at his disposal. if no complaint is made within the times aforesaid, no action shall lie against the carrier, save in the case of fraud on its part. Under the Montreal Convention, the right to damage shall be extinguished if an action is not brought within a period of two years, reckoned from the date of arrival at the destination, or from the date on which the aircraft ought to have arrived, or from the date on which the carriage stopped. In conclusion, the Montreal Convention has main outstanding issues with respect to the carrier's liability in respect of the carriage of cargo by air as follows : The amounts of limits of the carrier's liability, the duration of the carrier's liability, and the aviation liability insurance. Therefore, the conditions and limits of the carrier's liability under the Montreal Convention should be readjusted and regulated in detail.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.5
• /
• pp.265-301
• /
• 1993

지난 6월 3일 동경에서 있었던, 아시아 항공/우주법 학술대회 제 3분과에서 영국 Bin Cheng교수의 "The Warsaw System: Mess up, Tear up, or Shore up?"이라는 주제의 논문발표가 있었다. Bin Cheng교수는 특히 유럽의 EC Consultant Paper 와 일본항공사들의 1992년의 무한책임보상주의 채택에 대하여, 마치 무한 책임보상주의의 이론이 승리하였으며, 위의 상황들이 그 시작이라고 단정하였는데 이러한 견해는 아직까지 시기상조라고 생각한다. 본 글에서는 동경회의에서의 Bin Cheng교수의 논문중 특히 10항의 결론 부분을 중점으로 반대되는 의견을 제시하고자 한다. 국제항공사법인 와르소체제가 과연 발전하고 있는 것인가? 퇴보하고 있는 것인가? 와르소체제의 반대론자들은 미국의 소송변호사들, 일본항공사들과 일부 순수이론을 고수하는 학자들로써 이들은 와르소체제로부터의 탈퇴와 무한책임보상주의를 고수하고 있다. EC Consultation Paper (각주 122 참조)에서 보듯이, 비록 항공운송시의 손해배상액이 타 운송시의 손해배상액보다 적기는 하지만 이것이 곧 '무한책임보상주의'를 의미하는 것은 아니다. 미국의 판례중 불법행위로 인한 소송 (Nichole Fortman v. Hemeo Inc.)에서 보면, 작은 창자의 대부분을 병원의 과실때문에 잃은 Brooklin의 한 여인에게 500억 정도의 손해배상이 주어진 것을 보면, 과연 완전 보상에 맞는 무한책임이 과연 항공소송에 적용될 수 있는 것인가를 알아야 한다. 무한책임보상주의는 특히 개발도상국의 항공사들에게 보험료가 너무 과중하고, 와르소협약의 근본목적인 국제항공법의 통일성에 반하고 있기 때문에 국제사회 전반에 적용하기에는 비현실적이다. 와르소체제의 통일 성에 대한 거부는 만약 와르소체제에 버금가는 다른 보상체제가 있는 경우에는 다르지만, 현실적으로는 결국 국제적 혼란만을 야기사킬 것이다. 또한 와르소체제 반대자들은 항공운송인과 승객들의 관계를 갈등관계로 보고 있지만, 근본적으로 와프소협약에서의 항공운송인파 승객들의 관제는 공동이악관계로 보아야 한다. 항공운송사업의 목적도 또한 이윤추구인 바, 승객들이 항공운송인에게 과다한 손해배상을 요구하면, 결국 항공운송인은 승객들의 주머니에서 그 댓가를 찾으려고 할 것이다. 절국 양자의 이익을 보는 것은 소송변호사들 뿐이라고 볼 수 있다. 또한 'Unlimited Liability' 에서 'Unlimited' 란 'Full-Compensation' 을 의미하는 것으로, 'Wilful-Misconduct' 의 경우에는, 'Full-Compensation' 의 개념과 다르게, 그 보상액이 Warsaw협약 제 22조 1항에 적용되지 않는 'No-limited' 의 개념으로 해석하여야 한다. 항공소송의 경우에 통상 'Wilful-Misconduct' 의 경우에 손해배상액이 약 $700,000 인 것을 보더라도 'Full-Compensation'의 의미로 해석할 수 없다. 몬트리올 제 3추가의정서에서 'WilfulMisconduct' 의 개념을 삭제하고자 하는 것은, 이에 대비하여 추가보상제도, 임액수의 종액, 영격책임추의 등의 요소들을 전제로 하고 있기 때문이다. 몬트리올 제 3추가의정서가 최근의 발전적인 손해배상제도인가에 대하여, Bin Cheng 교수는 반대를 하고 있지만, 최선의 제도를 찾는 입장에서 몬트리올 추가 의정서는 여러가지로 부족하다. 그러나, 유한책임제도의 개선, 엄격책임주의의 도입, 빠른 소송타결의 제도, 재판관할권의 확대 그리고, SDR 화폐단위의 채택 등은 헤이그 의정서 이후의 보다 나은 제도적 장치를 하고 있다고 해석하여야 할 것이다. 시대의 변화에 따라 점진적으로 발전된 보상제도를 채택하였다면, 오늘날과 같이 시대에 뒤떨어진 보상체제로 혼란을 겪고 있지 않았을 것이다.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.19 no.2
• /
• pp.199-220
• /
• 2004

The Montreal Convention which came into force on November 4, 2003 over the world, has brought a fundamental change to the scope of carrier liability and expanded the sue scope of the carrier. Not only confirms the carrier liability, it also reflects the effects of code-share. In addition to integrate the existing principles that adopted by many conventions, the Montreal Convention has systematized the unity of international air transport into a single convention. It even successfully increased the extremely low compensation amount which was pointed out as a problem in the Warsaw Convention before. The Warsaw Convention, originally stood for the carriers, began to reflect the standpoint of the passengers. The Chinese Civil Aviation Law came into force on March 1, 1996. One of the significant characteristics of the law is that, the regulation on public and private law is mixed combined. Therein, the content of carrier liability system is prescribed in Chapter 9, which is explained in detail in this study. Besides, the relationship between the Montreal Convention and China will be expounded too. So far, China ranks the 5th in RPK and the 6thin FrK. However, in spite of the high ranks, China has not yet joined this convention. This can be regarded as a serious problem. China should join it as soon as possible for a further development and deeper cooperation with the air-industry-developed countries. Once the government ratifies the Montreal Convention, it will benefit both the Chinese passengers and the airlines.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.30 no.1
• /
• pp.95-116
• /
• 2015

Air transport agreement can be divided into air passenger contract of carriage and aviation also of the contract of carriage. And air carriers for damages greater (1) cause reason, of (2) limit reason, (3) exemption reason. Exemption reason for the extinction of the liability for damages in our Commercial Code, the Convention and domestic law are mixed. Convention on the Commercial Code and air transport, air transport people, if it is proved and that it has taken all the measures that are needed for the prevention of damage to overdue damage of passengers, liability is waived. So what was to achieve the requirements of all the actions that are reasonably necessary in any case is a problem. Amendment has the feature that the treaty for the International Air Transport reflect in accordance with the domestic situation, while being struck by international standards encompassing land, sea and air transport, even on the system. However, Commercial Code while mainly reflect the Montreal Convention governing air carrier's liability issues on the contract of carriage, a problem which the Convention had also began to occur together. So the problem due to accept the treaty to fit the domestic situation occurs. There is a need for analysis of all of the actions that are "reasonably necessary, which is defined in the Commercial Code. If there is no claim within Value Date rotor two years to air carriers on the court for the damage caused by air transport, the responsibility of air carriers disappear, sued the period of such two years, what kind of meaning on domestic law extension and stop to be whether it is interpreted, it should be determined to do their aggressive measures for the reasonable care and accident prevention.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.32 no.1
• /
• pp.3-51
• /
• 2017

From a historical point of view, while the Warsaw Convention was passed in 1924 to regulate the unified judicial responsibility in the global air transportation industry, protection of airline consumers was somewhat lacking in protecting air carriers. In principle, the air carrier does not bear any obligation or liability when the aircraft is not operated normally due to natural disasters such as typhoon or heavy snowfall. However, in recent years, in developed countries such as the US and Europe, there has been a movement in which regulates the air carriers' obligation to protect their passengers even if there is no misconduct or negligence. Furthermore, the legislation of such advanced countries imposes an obligation on the airlines to compensate the loss separately from damages in case the abnormal operation of the aircraft is not caused by force majeure but caused by their negligence. Under this historical and international context, Korea is also modifying the system of aviation consumer protection by referring to other foreign legislation. However, when compared with foreign countries, our norm has a few drawbacks. First, the airline's protection or care obligations are mixed with the legal liability for damages in the provision, which seems to be due to the lack of understanding of the airline's passenger protection obligation. The liability for damages, which is governed by the International Convention or the Commercial Act, shall be determined by judging the cause of the airline's liability in respect of the damage of the individual passenger in the course of the air transportation. However, the duty to care and the burden for compensation shall be granted to all passengers who feel uncomfortable with the abnormal operation regardless of the cause of the accident. Also, our compensation system for denied boarding due to oversale is too low compared to the case of foreign countries, and setting the compensation amount range differently based on the time for the re-routing is somewhat unclear. Regarding checked-baggage claim, it will be necessary to refund the fee only from the fact that the baggage is delayed without asking whether there is any damage occurred from the delayed baggage. This is the content of the duty to care, which is different from the current Commercial Act or the international convention, in which responsibility is different depending on whether the airline takes all the necessary measures in order to prevent delaying of the baggage. The content of force majeure, which is a requirement for exemption from the obligation to care passengers on the airplane, shall be reconsidered. Maintenance for safe navigation is not considered to be included in force majeure, and connection to airplanes, airport conditions are disputable. According to the EC Regulation, if the cause of the abnormal operation of the airline is force majeure, the airline's compensation obligation is exempted but the duty to care of airline company is still meaningful. Furthermore, even if the main role of aviation consumer protection is on an airline, it is the responsibility of government agencies to supervise the fulfillment of such protection obligations. Therefore, it is necessary for the Korean government to actively take measures such as enforcing incentives for airlines that faithfully fulfill their obligation to care and imposed penalties on the contrary.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.27 no.2
• /
• pp.107-142
• /
• 2012

An aircraft has been one of the most important transportation means and disputes due to damage caused by delay of the aircraft happen many times out of ones related to the air transport. In 2011, the Air Transport Act in Commercial Law was established to regulate national air transport and the legislative system of air carrier's liability to handle delay of passengers or baggage was legislated here. Although there are some clauses related to the legislative system of air carrier's liability, they are very important because they deal with disputes due to damage caused by delay of the aircraft. The Air Transport Act in Commercial Law has a good point of adopting the global standard of 1999 Montreal Convention, but it has also a bad point of having the problems of 1999 Montreal Convention. There are some contents to be modified in the Air Transport Act in Commercial Law. First, the definition of 'Delay of Aircraft' needs to be enacted because it is important to materialize air carrier's liability due to damage caused by delay. Second, it is necessary to modify the clause in which air carrier's liability due to damage caused by delay of passengers is divided into two things, one is in case of national air transport and the other is in case of international air transport, and the limited amount of air carrier's liability in national air transport is eight times less than the latter because they are not so helpful to air carriers but too disadvantageous to aircraft passengers. Third, it is also necessary to amend the clause in which the limited amount of air carrier's liability due to damage caused by loss damage or delay of baggage has been legislated same without classifying the case into loss damage and delay, because they are generally different from each other in terms of extent of damage, therefore the limited amount of air carrier's liability by delay of baggage should be classified into in case of loss damage and in case of delay. It is desired that the Air Transport Act in Commercial Law including the clauses related to air carrier's liability by aircraft damage be developed continually by sufficient study and discussion about the necessity of amending it such as the one mentioned above.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.22 no.2
• /
• pp.109-133
• /
• 2007

The legal labyrinth through which we have just walked is one in which even a highly proficient lawyer could easily become lost. Warsaw Convention's original objective of uniformity of private international aviation liability law has been eroded as the world community ha attempted again to address perceived problems. Efforts to create simplicity and certainty of recovery actually may have created less of both. In any particular case, the issue of which international convention, intercarrier agreement or national law to apply will likely be inconsistent with other decisions. The law has evolved faster for some nations, and slower for others. Under the Warsaw Convention of 1929, strict liability is imposed on the air carrier for damage, loss, or destruction of cargo, luggage, or goods sustained either: (1) during carriage in air, which is comprised of the period during which cargo is 'in charge of the carrier (a) within an aerodrome, (b) on board the aircraft, or (c) in any place if the aircraft lands outside an aerodrome; or (2) as a result of delay. By 2007, 151 nations had ratified the original Warsaw Convention, 136 nations had ratified the Hague Protocol, 84 had ratified the Guadalajara Protocol, and 53 nations had ratified Montreal Protocol No.4, all of which have entered into force. In November 2003, the Montreal Convention of 1999 entered into force. Several airlines have embraced the Montreal Agreement or the IATA Intercarrier Agreements. Only seven nations had ratified the moribund Guatemala City Protocol. Meanwhile, the highly influential U.S. Second Circuit has rendered an opinion that no treaty on the subject was in force at all unless both affected nations had ratified the identical convention, leaving some cases to fall between the cracks into the arena of common law. Moreover, in the United States, a surface transportation movement prior or subsequent to the air movement may, depending upon the facts, be subject to Warsaw, or to common law. At present, International private air law regime can be described as a "situation of utter chaos" in which "even legal advisers and judges are confused." The net result of this barnacle-like layering of international and domestic rules, standards, agreements, and criteria in the elimination of legal simplicity and the substitution in its stead of complexity and commercial uncertainty, which manifestly can not inure to the efficient and economical flow of world trade. All this makes a strong case for universal ratification of the Montreal Convention, which will supersede the Warsaw Convention and its various reformulations. Now that the Montreal Convention has entered into force, the insurance community may press the airlines to embrace it, which in turn may encourage the world's governments to ratify it. Under the Montreal Convention, the common law defence is available to the carrier even when it was not the sole cause of the loss or damage, again making way for the application of comparative fault principle. Hopefully, the recent entry into force of the Montreal Convention of 1999 will re-establish the international legal uniformity the Warsaw Convention of 1929 sought to achieve, though far a transitional period at least, the courts of different nations will be applying different legal regimes.