• Proceedings of the Korea Multimedia Society Conference
• /
• 2000.11a
• /
• pp.584-596
• /
• 2000

본 연구의 목적은 국내 · 외 인터넷 도메인네임 분쟁의 유형을 사례별로 분석하여 도메인 사용권을 둘러싼 분규를 해소 및 예방하고, 국제적인 도메인네임 분쟁 발생시 국내 기업 등이 불리한 처우를 받지 않도록 하는 적정한 분쟁 해결 방법을 모색하는데 있다. 아직까지는 대부분의 국가에서 도메인네임 분쟁과 관련된 법이 제정되어 있지 않기 때문에 특정 회사명 또는 상표명을 사용하는 경우 분쟁이 발생하면 해당회사 또는 상표권 소유자에게 우선권이 있는 것으로 판결을 하는 추세이지만, 국내 ·외적으로 판결에 일관성이 있는 것은 아니다. 본 논문에서는 도메인네임 분쟁에 관한 법원의 소송 판례를 분석하고, 외국의 도메인네임 분쟁 해결 사례와 국내 사례를 분석하여 향후 분쟁 발생시 대처방안을 모색하도록 한다

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.31 no.2
• /
• pp.3-35
• /
• 2016

The United States Constitution gives power to the federal district courts to hear admiralty cases. 28 U.S.C. §.133, which states that "The district courts shall have original jurisdiction, exclusive of the Courts of the States, of any civil case of admiralty or maritime jurisdiction." However, the determination of whether a case is about admiralty or maritime so that triggers admiralty jurisdiction was not a simple question. Through numerous legal precedents, the courts have drawn a line to clarify the boundary of admiralty cases. This unique jurisdiction is not determined by the mere involvement of a vessel in the case or even by the occurrence of an event on a waterway. As a general rule, a case is within admiralty jurisdiction if it arises from an accident on the navigable waters of the United States (locus test) and involves some aspect of maritime commerce (nexus test). With regarding to the maritime nexus requirement, the US Supreme Court case, Executive Jet Aviation, Inc. v. City of Cleveland, held that federal courts lacked admiralty jurisdiction over an aviation tort claim where a plane during a flight wholly within the US crashed in Lake Erie. Although maritime locus was present, the Court excluded admiralty jurisdiction because the incident was "only fortuitously and incidentally connected to navigable waters" and bore "no relationship to traditional maritime activity." However, this historical case left a milestone question: whether an aircraft disaster occurred on navigable water triggers the admiralty jurisdiction, only for the reason that it was for international transportation? This article is to explore the meaning of admiralty jurisdiction over aviation accidents at US courts. Given that the aircraft engaged in transportation of passenger and goods as the vessels did in the past, the aviation has been linked closely with the traditional maritime activities. From this view, this article reviews a decision delivered by the Seventh Circuit regarding the aviation accident occurred on July 6, 2013 at San Francisco International Airport.

• Korea Trade Review
• /
• v.42 no.2
• /
• pp.205-225
• /
• 2017

The study attempts to verify the case related to the notice of payment refusal by issuing bank regarding discrepancy in transport document under L/C(Letter of Credit) transaction. Considering the high portion of trade between Korea and China, Korean companies and banks in L/C transaction should be careful about many unpredictable situations. The case of this study is that Chinese seller(beneficiary) initiated a civil suit against Industrial Bank of Korea to Chinese court and Chinese courts in the first and second trials judged that the notice of payment refusal by Industrial bank of Korea doesn't satisfy Article 16, (c) (ii) (iii) in UCP 600. However, Industrial Bank of Korea implements the judgement even though the judgement is highly biased to Chinese seller. Considering the judgement by Chinese courts, the study suggests some countermeasures to Korean companies and banks which opened L/C. First, the issuing bank should describe the contents of discrepancy specifically based on Article 16, (c) in UCP 600. Second, it is necessary to insert a clause regarding governing law in the L/C contract like sales contract. Third, considering the biased judgement by Chinese court and difficulty in execution of foreign judgement in China, it is recommended to using arbitration as a method of dispute resolution such as ICLOCA and DOCDEX Rules which are international system operated by international instruments because it has legal effects to parties in L/C contracts if the issuing bank inserts arbitration clause in L/C.

• Development and Reproduction
• /
• v.14 no.2
• /
• pp.143-154
• /
• 2010

This article analyzes two leading Korean cases which led to opposite conclusions: the Boramae Hospital Case (Korean Supreme Court 2002 Do 995) and the Shinchon Severance Hospital Case (Korean Supreme Court 2009 Da 17471). In doing so, it pays particular attention to the acceptance, modification, and rejection of paternalism, specifically 'physician paternalism' and 'familial paternalism', both of which have long and strongly influenced the Korean medical environment. In Boramae Hospital, the Court emphasized the obligation of the physician in terms of the life of the patient (eg: protecting and preserving the life and welfare of the patient). Its position seemed to be based on the traditional physician paternalism which presupposes the ability of physicians to identify right and wrong choices according to natural laws. However, the Court saw itself as the final arbiter of who identifies and determines the real world content and consequences of that natural law. In short, the Court elevated itself to the supreme guardian of the patient, and held that its decision cannot be overruled by that of the patient's family. So without specifically referring to the importance of the family and the role of familial decisions, both long-observed traditions in medical decision-making in Korea, the Court shifted away from familial paternalism. In Shinchon Severance Hospital, the Court explained the meaning of the patient's powers of self-rulemore concretely, explaining its scope and substance in greater detail. The Court held that one can exercise the right of self-rule, even over issues such as death, in the form of 'previous medical directions'. However, this case does not represent a wholesale acceptance of medical autonomy (ie: it does not accept self-rule unconditionally). Rather, the Court accepted the importance of the opinions and decision of physicians and of the Hospital Ethics Commission, and the Court still retained to itself the authority to review and make alterations to 'material' decision. The Court did not overlook the importance of the decision of the patient's family, but it also did not relinquish its status as supreme guardian, emphasizing the 'objective' nature of a decision from the court.

• Journal of Science and Technology Studies
• /
• v.18 no.1
• /
• pp.5-62
• /
• 2018

Over the last 10 years, the fight against occupational diseases of semiconductor workers led by SHARPS(the Supporters for the Health And Rights of People in the Semiconductor industry, NGO) has accomplished considerable achievements, especially in the legal and institutional aspects. First, the court and the government accepted the claims that 24 injured workers respectively filed, recognizing their 10 types of diseases as occupational illness. The court not only expanded the list of work places and diseases that it recognized, but also presented more progressive logic of recognition. The most remarkable achievement among them is the case ruled by the Supreme court in July, 2017. In terms of 'worker's right to know', which is the most important factor in preventing occupational diseases, there have been significant legislative bills, court rulings and government guidelines. The revised bill of the Industrial Safety and Health Act to strengthen workers' rights to know and to introduce the pre-review system on trade secret is currently under review by the National Assembly. The court recently ruled that the government should disclose its inspection results on safety and health management at semiconductor factories. The ministry of labor has drawn up internal guidelines to more actively open its safety and health data to public. This study looks over recent developments in such rulings, bills and guidelines and then, analyzes their implications, laying the groundwork for future actions for worker health in the electronic industry.

• Journal of the Korean Institute of Navigation
• /
• v.22 no.3
• /
• pp.93-102
• /
• 1998

This article aims at suggesting a practicla auide to navigation under restricted visibility by a study of an English court. This case os a good example of setting out safe speed. close-quarters situation, safe passing distance as the above factors are not enumerated in Collision Regulations.

• The Journal of the Institute of Internet, Broadcasting and Communication
• /
• v.22 no.3
• /
• pp.151-161
• /
• 2022

As Internet traffic surges due to global CPs, a request to share network investment costs has emerged in the industry. This has significantly changed the issue of the principle of network neutrality from accessibility to network fee. Some of the academic researchers had a negative view to network fees in the Internet space. However, in the industry, a number of disputes have occurred and some have escalated into court battles, and attention has been focused on the court's decision. The courts began to accept fee-for-service under network neutrality, and the government responded quickly by revising regulations. However, it still focuses on service stability, and there is no regulation that directly stipulates payment of network fee. In the study, changes in network neutrality were verified by analyzing cases of disputes between operators, court judgments, and improvement of regulations. And referring to the tragedy of the commons, the restoration of the correct price signal based on the principle of beneficiary pays was suggested as the most important solution. The payment of network fee by CP is one of the solutions.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.20 no.2
• /
• pp.231-260
• /
• 2019

Following the last issue, we summarized the major medical judgments in 2018. Especially, efforts have been made to introduce as many judgments as they relate to the obligation to explain. This is because the limits of the court's judgments were so diverse that it was unknown. Regarding the extent of damages, attention should also be paid to cases where the cost of care is recognized as a large amount, and cases where the memorandum is effective for the increased cost of treatment. The rulings related to the payment and deduction of medical expenses were the most discussed, although the description was small. The case of multi-institutional operation of medical institutions is an interim decision, but it is a case of interest in the medical community, and regarding uninsured medical expenses, cases of discretionary abuse have been reduced compared to the past, but are still significant.

• Journal of Korea Port Economic Association
• /
• v.30 no.4
• /
• pp.111-130
• /
• 2014

The article 742(2) of the Korean Commercial Code allowed the third party to invoke a direct action against the insurer under a liability insurance. Meanwhile, the owners of the vessel enter into the P&I Insurance Contract with the P&I Club to indemnify all kinds of liability or expenses involved in the operation of its vessel. However, the Rule Book under the P&I Insurance mostly included the Pay to be Paid Clause which precludes the third party's direct action. Recently, the Seoul Central District Court passed a judgement on the validity of the Pay to be Paid Clause under the Korean law against the third party i.e. the cargo insurer having the right of subrogation. The court held that (1) the third party's right of direct action is not the right to claim insurance money but the right to claim damages against the P&I Club, (2) the insurer under a liability insurance is deemed to assume liability jointly and severally with the insured against the third party, (3) the Article 742(2) of the Korean Commercial Code is considered as a compulsory provision because it was invented to protect the innocent third party, the Paid to be Paid Clause is thus null and void. The purpose of this article is to evaluate the appropriateness of this court's judgments by comparative analysis of Korean and English law, and to suggest the relevant amendments of the Korean Commercial Code in order to prevent further legal disputes. The article criticizes the decision of the Seoul Central District Court, taking the attitude that, since the third party's right is the right to claim insurance money, the Paid to be Paid Clause is valid against the third party.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.20 no.1
• /
• pp.211-253
• /
• 2005

Recently, the Korean Supreme Court released two important decisions concerning damages for the pain and suffering from Aircraft noise. The local people who are living near the Air Force practice site at Maehyang-ri and the Kimpo International Airport brought lawsuits against the Korean government requesting damages for their financial loss from the severe noise and the damages for their pain and suffering. Plaintiffs alleged that they suffered physical malfunctions, extreme disturbances and the reduction of property values from the extreme noises which were daily repeated. District Court of Seoul Province did not allow plaintiffs all but the damages for pain and suffering. Plaintiffs could not prove the causation between their financial loss and the noise. The Supreme Court confirmed the lower court's decision. Article V of the National Compensation Act (analogous to the Federal Tort Claims Act of the USA) reads, "the government shall be liable for any loss caused by the defect on establishment or maintenance of public facilities." In the two cases, the major issue was whether the government's establishment or maintenance of Air Force practice site and the airport was defective because they caused serious noise to surrounding neighbors. Previously, the Supreme Court interpreted the clause "defect on establishment or maintenance of public facilities" as failure of duty to provide safety measures to the degree generally required to ordinary manager. However the Court at this time interpreted differently that the defect could be found if the facility caused to any person loss to the degree intolerable. In the two cases the Court confirmed the lower court's finding that noise level at the site was severe enough to be intolerable. This standard is based on the severity of the loss rather than the failure of duty. It became easier for plaintiffs to prove the cause of action under this interpretation. The consequence of the ruling of these two cases is 'rush to the courtroom' by the local people at similar situations. The ruling of these two cases was not appropriate both in theory and in consequence. The Korean tort system is basically based on the theory of negligence. Strict liability is exceptional only when there is special legislation. The Court created strict liability rule by interpreting the Art. V of the National Compensation Act. This is against the proper role of the court. The result of the cases is also dismal. The government was already sued by a number of local people for damages. Especially the Department of Defense which is operating many airports nationwide has financial hardship, which will cause downsizing military practice by the Air Force in the long run, This is no good to anyone. Tens of millions of dollars which might be used for compensation might be better used to prevent further noise problem surrounding airports.