• 발명특허
• /
• v.37 no.7
• /
• pp.28-33
• /
• 2012

'법정손해배상제도'는 개정 상표법에 새롭게 도입된 제도인데, 한 미 FTA 협정에서 법정손해배상제도를 도입하도록 규정하고 있는 것에 근거하여 동 협정문의 제18.10조 제6항을 국내법에 반영하기 위해 상표법 제67조의2에 도입한 것이다. 법정손해배상제도는 미국의 제도를 반영한 것이지만, 그렇다고 해서 미국의 제도를 그대로 도입한 것도 아니고, 저작권법상의 법정손해배상제도에 관한 규정의 내용과도 다소간의 차이가 있다. 따라서 이하에서는 우리나라의 상표법상 법정손해배상제도를 미국 상표법상 법정손해배상제도 및 우리나라의 저작권법상의 법정손해배상제도와 비교해 보면서, 그 차이점과 보완할 점들에 대하여 구체적으로 검토하여 보도록 하겠다.

• Korea Trade Review
• /
• v.43 no.4
• /
• pp.51-68
• /
• 2018

This study examined the scope of damages resulting from types of loss under the CISG and the PICC(2016). The CISG and PICC stipulate the rights of aggrieved parties to recover losses under the full compensation principle, but the PICC features more specific provisions regarding damages compared to the CISG. Therefore the PICC might provide practical insight resolving problems concerning damages under the CISG. There are direct and incidental losses, consequential losses, lost profit, and loss of chance that can be claimed by aggrieved parties under the CISG or the PICC but the scope of claimable losses differs by cases. For example, even though there are no specific clauses in the CISG or the PICC, some losses might include based on the requisite of damage under CISG or PICC. Therefore, it is important to know standards in which losses are covered by these agreements. In conclusion, related parties who engage in international trade should understand the requisite and limitation of damages, and need to clearly define specific losses that might not be governed under the CISG or the PICC.

• 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 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.

• Journal of the Korea Academia-Industrial cooperation Society
• /
• v.19 no.3
• /
• pp.180-185
• /
• 2018

The literature of unfair labeling and advertising(ULA) was reviewed, along with the requirement for establishing an obligation to compensate for damage(OCD) by it based on the Act on Fair Labeling and Advertising(FLAA). ULA covers cases of possible deception or misleading consumers and thereby undermining fair trade order, or making other business entities do so. FLAA regulates OCD by ULA, but the Civil Act should also be considered for its effective results since the Act regards ULA as unlawful and duty bound to make compensation for damages arising therein. In this context, the study analyzed qualitatively 17 supreme court precedents related to OCD by ULA among a total of 119 by advertising to find the characteristics of the judgemental principles. It is found that most principles came from FLAA and the Act focusing on the meaning of false or exaggerated advertising, which is one of the following five ULA types according to its standards of judgment: its requirement for fraudulent acts, the meaning of damage by it, the perspective of calculation of damages, the requirement of OCD, and the characteristics of claim for damages. A more effective policy is suggested based on FLAA and related research should be continually carried on.

• Proceedings of the Korea Institute of Fire Science and Engineering Conference
• /
• 2013.11a
• /
• pp.187-188
• /
• 2013

실화책임법에 의하면, 화재 발생 시 실화자는 중대한 과실이 아닌 경우 경제적요건, 화재원인 등에 따라 손해배상액의 경감을 청구할 수 있다. 손해배상액의 경감의 여부는 실화피해자의 화재복구에 영향을 끼치게 된다. 화재발생 시 실화자가 손해배상경감청구에 책임을 입증하여야한다. 그리고 실화피해자의 원활한 화재복구를 위해 실화자의 화재보험가입의 의무와 계약자의 안전한 보호 및 보험사의 책임 일부를 분산하는 제도인 재보험의 선택적 가입을 규정하고자 한다.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.26 no.1
• /
• pp.177-213
• /
• 2011

The purpose of this paper is to research on the liability and cases for space damage with reference to the space activity under the international space treaty and national space law of major countries. The United Nations has adopted two treaties relating to the liability for space damage as follows: the Outer Space Treaty of 1967 and the Liability Convention of 1972. Korea has enacted the Outer Space Damage Compensation Act of 2008 relating to the liability for space damages. The Outer Space Treaty of 1967 regulates the international responsibility for national activities in outer space, and the national tort liability for damage by space launching object. The Liability Convention of 1972 regulates the absolute liability by a launching state, the faulty liability by a launching state, the joint and several liability by a launching state, the person claiming for compensation, the claim method for compensation, the claim period of compensation, the claim for compensation and local remedy, the compensation amount for damage by a launching state, and the establishment of the Claims Commission. The Outer Space Damage Compensation Act of 2008 in Korea regulates the definition of space damage, the relation of the Outer Space Damage Compensation Act and the international treaty, the non-faulty liability for damage by a launching person, the concentration of liability and recourse by a launching person, the exclusion of application of the Product Liability Act, the limit amount of the liability for damage by a launching person, the cover of the liability insurance by a launching person, the measures and assistance by the government in case of occurring the space damage, and the exercise period of the claim right of compensation for damage. There are several cases with reference to the liability for damage caused by space accidents as follows: the Collision between Iridium 33 and Cosmos 2251, the Disintegration of Cosmos 954 over Canadian Territory, the Failure of Satellite Launching by Martin Marietta, and the Malfunctioning of Westar VI Satellite. In the disputes and lawsuits due to such space accidents, the problems relating to the liability for space damage have been settled by the application of absolute(strict) liability principle or faulty liability principle. The Liability Convention of 1972 should be improved as follows: the clear definition in respect of the claimer of compensation for damage, the measure in respect of the enforcement of decision by the Claims Commission. The Outer Space Damage Compensation Act of 2008 in Korea should be improved as follows: the inclusion of indirect damage into the definition of space damage, the change of the currency unit of the limit amount of liability for damage, the establishment of joint and several liability and recourse right for damage by space joint launching person, and the establishment of the Space Damage Compensation Review Commission. Korea has built the space center at Oinarodo, Goheung Province in June 2009. Korea has launched the first small launch vehicle KSLV-1 at the Naro Space Center in August 2009 and June 2010. In Korea, it will be the possibility to be occurred the problems relating to the international responsibility and the liability for space damage in the course of space activity. Accordingly the Korean government and launching organization should make the legal and systematic policy to cope with such problems.

• 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.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.20 no.2
• /
• pp.9-58
• /
• 2005

The Warsaw Convention-officially denominated the "Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to International Transportation by Air"- is a major multilateral agreement governing the rights and responsibilities of passengers, consignor/consignee and air carriers in international transportation. Article 29(1) of the Warsaw Convention provides that the right to damages shall be extinguished if an action is not brought within 2 years, reckoned from the date of arrival at the destination, from the date on which the aircraft ought to have arrived, or from the date on which the transportation stopped. There has been disagreement as to the nature of this provision. It has been viewed on one hand as a statute of limitations, which may be tolled in appropriate circumstances. Some US Courts which have taken this approach read Article 29(2)-which states that the method of calculating the period of limitation shall be determined by the law of the court to which the case is submitted-as leaving to local law the determination of when the 2-year limitation period provided for in Article 29(1) runs. Therefore, they conclude, under Article 29(2), whenever state law would toll a state statute of limitations, the statute of limitations contained in Article 29(1) would be tolled as well. On the other hand, some other US courts have viewed the 2-year provision contained in Article 29(1) as a condition precedent to the right to bring suit, which will absolutely bar any action not brought within 2 years of the events giving rise to the action. These courts view Article 29(2) as providing only that the forum court should look to the law of the forum on the question whether the plaintiff has taken the necessary measures within the 2-year period to invoke that particular court's jurisdiction over the action. These courts have placed great weight on the "legislative" history of the Convention in reaching this position, noting in particular that the delegates to the Convention expressly considered and rejected a provision, which would have incorporated local tolling provisions.

• Korean small business review
• /
• v.42 no.1
• /
• pp.19-41
• /
• 2020

In Korea, punitive damages were introduced in the 2011 Fair Transactions in Subcontracting Act(FTSA), and in 2019 the Patent Act, Trade Secret Protection Act(TSPA), Industrial Technology Protection Act(ITPA), and Mutually Beneficial Cooperation Act(MBCA). In punitive damages, the judgment of 'intentional' is especially important, and it is necessary to refer to US precedents since there is no accumulated case. Major Company can avoid intentional counseling through the advice of lawyers, but SMEs may have to punish punitive damages due to a lack of awareness of the system. In the case of TSPA, ITPA, FTSA, and MBCA, except for Patent Act, the provisions related to proof of damage have not been well maintained yet. Therefore, the data submission order system of these laws needs to be revised to the level of patent Act need to be. TSPA needs to be amended in the future to estimate the amount of the royalties in estimating the amount of damages so that it can receive the 'reasonably' estimated amount rather than the usual amount. On the other hand, ITPA, FTSA, and MBCA do not have any provisions for the estimation of damages. Besides, it is difficult to evaluate the technology value in the case of leakage or deodorization of new technologies. Therefore, valuation needs to be carried out by a credible institution along with the development of a model for calculating damages.