• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.33 no.1
• /
• pp.45-79
• /
• 2018

An increase of airplanes and military aircraft operation lead to significant demanding of residential claims by people who live in nearby airports and military bases due to noise, vibration and residential damages caused by aircraft operations. In recent years, a plaintiff has filed a lawsuit against the defendant, claiming the prohibition of using claimant's possessed land as a helicopter landing route, and the Daejeon High Court was in favour of the plaintiff. Although the Supreme Court later dismissed the Appeal Court decision, it is necessary to discuss the case of setting flight prohibited zone. In Japan, the airport noise lawsuits have been filed for a long time, mainly by environmental groups. Unlike the case that admitted residential damages caused by noise, the Yokohama District Court for the first time sentenced a judgment of the prohibition of the flight. This ruling was partially changed in the appellate court and some of the plaintiffs' claims were adopted. However, the Supreme Court of Japan finally rejected such decision from appeal and district courts. Atsugi Base is an army camp jointly used by the United States and Japan, and residents, live nearby, claim that they are suffering from mental damage such as physical abnormal, insomnia, and life disturbance because of the noise from airplane taking off and landing in the base. An administrative lawsuit was therefore preceded in the Yokohama District Court. The plaintiff requested the Japan Self-Defense Forces(hereinafter 'JSDF') and US military aircraft to be prohibited operating. The court firstly held the limitation of the flight operation from 10pm to 6am, except unavoidable circumstance. The case was appealed. The Supreme Court of Japan dismissed the original judgment on the flight claim of the JSDF aircraft, canceled the first judgment, and rejected the claims of the plaintiffs. The Supreme Court ruled that the exercise of the authority of the Minister of Defense is reasonable since the JSDF aircraft is operating public flight high zone. The court agreed that noise pollution is such an issue for the residents but there are countermeasures which can be taken by concerned parties. In Korea, the residents can sue against the United States or the Republic of Korea or the Ministry of National Defense for the prohibition of the aircraft operation. However, if they claim against US government regarding to the US military flight operation, the Korean court must issue a dismissal order as its jurisdiction exemption. According to the current case law, the Korean courts do not allow a claimant to appeal for the performance of obligation or an anonymous appeal against the Minister of National Defense for prohibiting flight of military aircraft. However, if the Administrative Appeals Act is amended and obligatory performance litigation is introduced, the claim to the Minister of National Defense can be permitted. In order to judge administrative case of the military aircraft operation, trade-off between interests of the residents and difficulties of the third parties should be measured in the court, if the Act is changed and such claims are granted. In this connection, the Minister of National Defense ought to prove and illuminate the profit from the military aircraft operation and it should be significantly greater than the benefits which neighboring residents will get from the prohibiting flight of military aircraft.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.35 no.2
• /
• pp.75-111
• /
• 2020

The civilian drone world has evolved in recent years from one dominated by hobbyists to growing involvement by companies seeking to profit from unmanned flight in everything from infrastructure inspections to drone deliveries that are already subject to regulations. Drone flight under the property right relation with the land owner would be deemed legal on the condition that expeditious and innocent passage of drone flight over the land be assured. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) enshrines the concept of innocent passage through a coastal state's territorial sea. Passage is innocent so long as it is not prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal state. A vessel in innocent passage may traverse the coastal state's territorial sea continuously and expeditiously, not stopping or anchoring except in force majeure situations. However, the disturbances caused by drone flight may be removed, which is defined as infringement against the constitutional interest of personal rights. For example, aggressive infringement against privacy and personal freedom may be committed by drone more easily than ever before, and than other means. The cost-benefit analysis, however, has been recognjzed as effective criteria regarding the removal of disturbances or injunction decision. Applying that analysis, the civil action against such infringement may not find suitable basis for making a good case. Because the removal of such infringement through civil actions may result in only the deletion of journal article. The injunction of drone flight before taking the information would not be obtainable through civil action, Therefore, more detailed and meticulous regulation and criteria in public law domain may be preferable than civil action, at present time. It may be suitable for legal stability and drone industry to set up the detailed public regulations restricting the free flight of drone capable of acquiring visual information amounting to the infrigement against the right of personal information security.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.35 no.1
• /
• pp.63-101
• /
• 2020

'Flight safety zone' means a zone that the Minister of National Defense designates under Articles 4 and 6 of the Protection of Military Bases and Installations Act (hereinafter 'PMBIA') for the safety of flight during takeoff and landing of military aircrafts. The purpose of flight safety zone is to contribute to the national security by providing necessary measures for the protection of military bases and installations and smooth conduct of military operations. In this case, when the state set and used the flight safety zone, the landowner claimed restitution of unjust enrichment against the country. This article is an analysis based on the existing legal theory regarding the legitimacy of plaintiff's claim, and the summary of the discussion is as follows. A person who without any legal ground derives a benefit from the property or services of another and thereby causes loss to the latter shall be bound to return such benefit (Article 741 of the Civil Act). Since the subject matter is an infringing profit, the defendant must prove that he has a legitimate right to retain the profit. The State reserves the right to use over the land designated as a flight safety zone in accordance with legitimate procedures established by the PMBIA for the safe takeoff and landing of military aircrafts. Therefore, it cannot be said that the State gained an unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent over the land without legal cause. Expropriation, use or restriction of private property from public necessity and compensation therefor shall be governed by Act: provided, that in such a case, just compensation shall be paid (Article 23 (1) of the Constitution of The Republic of KOREA). Since there is not any provision in the PMBIA for loss compensation for the case where a flight safety zone is set over land as in this case, next question would be whether or not it is unconstitutional. Even if it is designated as a flight safety zone and the use and profits of the land are limited, the justification of the purpose of the flight safety zone system, the appropriateness of the means, the minimization of infringement, and the balance of legal interests are still recognized; thus just not having any loss compensation clause does not make the act unconstitutional. In conclusion, plaintiff's claim for loss compensation based on the 'Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for land, etc. for Public Works Projects', which has no provision for loss compensation due to public limits, is unjust.