• Management & Information Systems Review
• /
• v.7
• /
• pp.451-462
• /
• 2001

국제물품매매계약은 당사자간의 합의에 의해서 이루어진다. 그러나 국제간의 물품매매에 관련하여 모든 상황을 특정계약에 반영하는데는 한계가 있다. 따라서 특정계약에 대한 해석과 판단의 기준이 되는 하나의 보편적이며 합리성에 기초를 둔 준거법이 필요하게 된다. 이러한 준거법은 어느 특정국가의 사범으로 충분할 수도 있지만 국제거래가 안전하고 원활하게 실행되기 위해서는 그것이 세계 어느 나라에 있어서도 같은 내용의 통일적인 법에 의하여 규율되는 것이 바람직하다. 특히 경제적 합리성에 기초를 둔 거래법의 분야에서는 이론적으로 법의통일은 가능하며 실제적으로는 로마의 사법통일협회(UNIDROIT)나 국제연합 국제상거래위원회(UNIDROIT)에 의하여 지금까지 어느 정도 통일사법 제정의 필요성이 꾸준히 제기 되어 왔다. 이러한 목적을 수행하기 위하여 UNICITRAL(국제연합 국제상거래위원회)이 1980년에 발표한 국제물품매매계약에 관한 UN 조약-비엔나협약(CISG)은 국제간의 물품매매에 관한 계약법으로서 중요한 역할을 수행하고 있다. 비엔나협약(CISG)의 법리적인 근거는 "자주적인 준거법의 제정 및 그 적용상의 통일성"에 있다는 것이다. 또한 그 내용을 보면 첫째, 지역적 의미를 가지는 법률용어의 사용을 피하고 대신 격지간의 계약시 실제로 발생하는 현실적 사례의 관점에서 법안을 작성하고자 하였고 둘째, 그 내용을 달리하고 있는 각국의 사법을 통일하는 것에 의해 모든 사법적 법률관계에 같은 내용의 사법을 적용하는 방법, 즉 세계통일사법의 제정이라 하겠다. 본 연구는 비엔나협약(CISG)의 입법취지와 배경을 고찰하였으며 또한 통일사법으로서 협약상의 "일반원칙의 통용"을 계약성립(Formation of Contract)의 과정별로 정리하였다.

• Korean Journal of Legislative Studies
• /
• v.17 no.3
• /
• pp.171-195
• /
• 2011

2007년 일본최고 재판소는 히로시마시 폭주족 추방조례사건에 대하여 헌법판단 회피의 이론에 입각한 합헌적 한정해석론에 따라 합헌결정 판결을 내렸다. 이는 기존의 판결내용을 답습한 것에 불과 하였지만 합헌적 한정해석이라는 헌법해석의 방법론에 관한 의미를 한번 되새기는 계기가 된 사건이다. 이 법리에 의한 것으로는 1980년대의 청소년보호조례사건이 유명하다. 이 두 사건은 하나는 공안사건이고 다른 하나는 풍속에 관한 사건이라는 점에서 차이가 있다. 폭주족 추방조례사건은 합헌적 한정해석의 법리가 적용될 여지가 있다고 보이지만 청소년보호조례사건과 같은 풍속에 관한 사건에서는 이 법리를 적용하는 것은 무리라고 생각된다. 왜냐하면 청소년보호조례사건에서는 음행, 난잡한 성행위라는 너무나 막연하고 애매한 개념을 사용하고 있어 형사절차에서의 대 원칙인 죄형법정주의에 위배될 소지가 있으며 성적 자기결정의 자유를 규제할 때에는 이에 따른 필연적인 이유가 존재해야 함에도 그렇지 못하다는 문제점과 일반국민에게 지나친 심리적 위축을 초래할 수 있다는 점에서 위헌논란이 제기되었다. 그럼에도 일본 최고재판소는 이를 합헌적 한정해석의 법리를 원용하여 위헌선언하기를 꺼려온 바 이는 헌법판단회피를 의도적으로 하는 것으로 지나친 사법소극주의적 태도라고 하지 않을 수 없다. 법원은 사건의 중대성이나 위헌상태의 정도 그 파급효과의 범위, 구체적 사건에서 문제가 되고 있는 권리의 성질등을 종합적으로 고려해서 충분히 이유가 있다고 판단되는 경우에는 헌법판단회피의 준칙에 따르지 않아야 하며 헌법판단을 적극적으로 할 수 있다고 해석하는 것이 타당하다고 생각된다.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.30 no.1
• /
• pp.3-29
• /
• 2015

In case of C-410/11, Pedro Espada $S\acute{a}nchez$ and Others v Iberia $L\acute{i}neas$ $A\acute{e}reas$ de $Espa\tilde{n}a$ SA., ECLI:EU:C:2012:747, the passengers of a flight between Barcelona and Paris, whose baggage had been lost, lodged a claim before a Spanish court, asking for compensation. More specifically, the claimants were a family of four (two adults and two children), and had stored all their personal items in two suitcases, which had been checked in and tagged but never returned to the passengers in question. The four claimants relied on the Montreal Convention, ratified by the EU, which provides that each passenger can claim up to 1,000 SDRs in compensation (i.e. ${\euro}1,100$) in case his or her baggage is lost; thus, they sought to recover ${\euro}4,400$ (4,000 SDRs, i.e. 1,000 SDRs x4). The preliminary reference issue raised by the Spanish court to the CJEU regarded the $Montr\acute{e}al$ Convention's correct interpretation; in particular, it asked whether compensation should be available only to passengers whose lost baggage had been checked in "in their own name" or whether it is also available to passengers whose personal items had been stored in the (lost) baggage of a different passenger. The CJEU held that compensation had to be granted to all passengers whose items had been lost, regardless of whether these had been stored in baggage checked in "in their own name." In fact, it maintained that the real aim of the $Montr\acute{e}al$ convention is to provide passenger-consumers with protection for the loss of their personal belongings, so the circumstance of where these were being carried is not relevant. Nevertheless, the CJEU clarified that it is for national courts to assess the evidence regarding the actual loss of an item stored in another passenger's baggage, and maintained that the fact that a group of people were travelling together as a family is a factor that may be taken into account.

• Journal of Korea Fair Competition Federation
• /
• no.135
• /
• pp.2-14
• /
• 2007

공정거래법은 공법으로 원칙적으로 주무부처인 공정위가 부당한 공동행위의 합의에 대한 추정을 실질적인 경쟁을 제한한다고 판단할 수 있는 정황사실을 통해서 입증해야 할 책임이 있다. 개정된 법조문 내용은 입증 책임을 법집행당국인 공정위가 맡는다는 측면에서는 긍정적으로 판단된다. 기존 독점규제법 제19조 제5항의 법률적 성격을 법률상의 추정규정으로 해석할 경우 부당한 공동행위의 경우 형사소추 대상이 되는 범죄행위로 간주되어 기존 법 제19조 제5항의 법률상의 추정규정이 형사사법체계와 부조화되거나 혹은 실질적 죄형법정주의에 반하는 문제도 금번 법 개정으로 상당히 해소될 것으로 예상된다.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.35 no.2
• /
• pp.3-40
• /
• 2020

The term "accident" in the Warsaw Convention of 1929 and the Montreal Convention of 1999, which govern carrier liability in international air transport, is an important criterion for determining carrier liability. However, because there is no explicit definition of the term in the treaty provisions, the term is largely subjected to the judgment and interpretation of the courts. Although there have been numerous changes in purpose and circumstance in the transition from the Warsaw regime to the conclusion of the Montreal Convention, there was no discussion on the concept of "accident" therefore, even after the adoption of the Montreal Convention, there is no doubt that the term is to be interpreted in the same manner as before. On this point, the United States Supreme Court's Air France v. Saks clarified the concept of "accident" and is still cited as an important precedent. Recently, the CJEU, in GN v. ZU, presented a new concept of "accident" introduced in the Montreal Convention: that "reference must be made to the ordinary meaning" in interpreting "accident" and that the term "covers all situations occurring on aboard an aircraft." Furthermore, the CJEU ruled that the term does not include the applicability of "hazards typically associated with aviation," which was controversial in previous cases. Such an interpretation can be reasonably seen as the court's expansion of the concept of "accident," with a focus on "protecting consumer interests," a core tenet of both the Montreal convention and the European Union Regulations(EC: No 889/2002). The CJEU's independent interpretation of "accident" is a departure from the Warsaw Convention and the Saks case, with their focus on "carrier protection," and instead focuses on the "passenger protection" standard of the Montreal Convention. Consequently, this expands both the court's discretion and the carrier's risk management liability. Such an interpretation by the CJEU can be said to be in line with the purpose of the Montreal Convention in terms of "passenger protection." However, there are problems to be considered in tandem with an expanded interpretation of "accident." First, there may be controversy concerning "balance" in that it focused on "passenger protection" in relation to the "equitable balance of interests" between air carriers and passengers, which is the basic purpose of the agreement. Second, huge losses are expected as many airlines fly to countries within the European Union. Third, there is now a gap in the interpretation of "accident" in Europe and the United States, which raises a question on the "unity of rules," another basic tenet of the Convention. Fourth, this interpretation of "accident" by the CJEU raises questions regarding its scope of application, as it only refers to the "hazards typically associated with aviation" and "situations occurring aboard an aircraft." In this case, the CJEU newly proposed a novel criterion for the interpretation of "accident" under the Montreal Convention. As this presents food for thought on the interpretation of "accident," it is necessary to pay close attention to any changes in court rulings in the future. In addition, it suggests that active measures be taken for passenger safety by recognizing air carriers' unlimited liability and conducting systematic reforms.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.29 no.2
• /
• pp.109-134
• /
• 2014

Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation of assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights (Regulation No 261/2004) provides extra protection to air passengers in circumstances of denied boarding, cancellation and long-delay. The Regulation intends to provide a high level of protection to air passengers by imposing obligations on air carriers and, at the same time, offering extensive rights to air passengers. If denied boarding, cancellation and long-delay are caused by reasons other than extraordinary circumstances, passengers are entitled for compensation under Article 7 of Regulation No 261/2004. In Wallentin-Hermann v Alitalia-Linee Aeree Italiane SpA(Case C-549/07, [2008] ECR I-11061), the Court did, however, emphasize that this does not mean that it is never possible for technical problems to constitute extraordinary circumstances. It cited specific examples of where: an aircraft manufacturer or competent authority revealed that there was a hidden manufacturing defect on an aircraft which impacts on safety; or damage was caused to an aircraft as a result of an act of sabotage or terrorism. Such events are not inherent in the normal exercise of the activity of the air carrier concerned and is beyond the actual control of that carrier on account of its nature or origin. One further point arising out of the court's decision is worth mentioning. It is not just necessary to satisfy the extraordinary circumstances test for the airline to be excused from paying compensation. It must also show that the circumstances could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken. It is clear from the language of the Court's decision that this is a tough test to meet: the airline will have to establish that, even if it had deployed all its resources in terms of staff or equipment and the financial means at its disposal, it would clearly not have been able - unless it had made intolerable sacrifices in the light of the capacities of its undertaking at the relevant time - to prevent the extraordinary circumstances with which it was confronted from leading to the cancellation of the flight.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.35 no.2
• /
• pp.197-224
• /
• 2020

This paper reviews and criticizes some issues as to the case of A and Others v. Finnair Oyj [2020] Case C-832/18 by examining EU Regulations and practical point of views. Under this case, the travellers brought an action against Finnair in light of the Air Passenger Regulation12, seeking compensation for both the first cancelled flight, and the delayed re-routed flight. Finnair had paid the first compensation, but refused to grant the second claim, arguing that the regulation did not set out that passengers were eligible for a second claim in those situations, and that the delay of the second flight was a consequence of 'extraordinary circumstances' under the regulation. The Court of Appeal in Helsinki has asked the CJEU whether an air passenger is entitled to a further compensation where a re-routed flight they have agreed to take is delayed, where both the original and rerouted flight are operated by the same air carrier. The CJEU held that the regulation does not in any way limit the rights of passengers where they find their flights being re-routed. As such, under earlier CJEU case law, the relevant travellers here were entitled to compensation for cancellation of the first flight and delay of the second flight. It also disagreed with Finnair's assessment that the technical failure in the re-routing flight was a matter of extraordinary circumstances.

• The Journal of Engineering Geology
• /
• v.19 no.2
• /
• pp.119-129
• /
• 2009

In relation to slope stability analysis, geologic characteristics and engineering properties of the discontinuities in three slopes selected are compared and analyzed by both square-inventory method and scanline survey. The aim of the study is in evaluating which method is applied better in slope stability analysis by comparing results of the two methods with those of direct observation on outcrop of slope failures generated. In each slope, results of comparative analysis among geologic and engineering properties are analyzed similarly one another. However, results of orientation analysis in slope 2 are different each other, which indicates orientation of joints in slope 2 depends on persistency and frequency of each joint and also indicates appearance of new joint set with different orientation. Probability density distribution and spacing in slope 3 are high in comparison to those in slope 2 and 3. The reasons are that distribution of psammitic rocks and development of minor folds in slope 3 unlike slope 2 and 3 are closely associated with development of joints. The research data indicate that the square-inventory method predicts more precise failure aspects and is more effective way than scanline survey in analyzing slope stability of the study area.

• Defense and Technology
• /
• no.9 s.259
• /
• pp.18-25
• /
• 2000

상당 부분의 방위 교역을 미국에 의지하고 있는 우리로서는 Extension of ITAR Exemption to Qualified Countries에 특별한 관심을 가져야 할 것으로 판단된다. 이러한 ITAR면제 대상국이 되기 위해서는 수출통제, 산업보안, 정보체계, 사법체계 및 상호호혜적인 방산시장접근 허용 등 선진국가와 같은 수준의 정책방향 및 제도를 요구하고 있는 바, 모든 것이 개방되고 있는 추세에 맞추어 우리의 방산능력을 전문화하여 특정 분야에서의 경쟁력을 갖추고 당당히 선진국가와 상호 교류 할 수 있는 제도를 구축하여야 될 것이다.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.31 no.2
• /
• pp.73-98
• /
• 2016

This is a case review of the Korean Supreme Court about international jurisdiction over a foreign-related case. This case is a guideline to other following cases how Korean court has international jurisdiction over the foreign elements cases. This case was an air crash accident in Busan, Korea. And the applicant was a chinese who was parents of flight attendant. The defendant was Air China. The applicant suid the defendant in Korea court, requesting for compensation for damages based on the contract of employment between died employee and the defendant and tort. The trial court rejected jurisdiction. But Supreme court granted jurisdiction on Korean court. The court determined the jurisdiction by the Korean Private International Law Act(KPILA). The KPILA has a concept of 'substantial connection', it is a main legal analysis to determine the jurisdiction. In the act, Article 2 Paragraph 1 says "In case a party or a case in dispute is substantively related to the Republic of Korea, a court shall have the international jurisdiction. In this case, the court shall obey reasonable principles, compatible to the ideology of the allocation of international jurisdiction, in judging the existence of the substantive relations." And Article 2 Paragraph 2 declares "A court shall judge whether or not it has the international jurisdiction in the light of jurisdictional provisions of domestic laws and shall take a full consideration of the unique nature of international jurisdiction in the light of the purport of the provision of paragraph (1)." In this case review find concepts, theories and cases out to clarify the meaning about Article 2 of the KPILA. Also it quoted from the concept of "the base rule" in Rome I (Regulation (EC) 593/2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations) to apply the contract of employment between flight attendant and Air carrier.