• 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.

• 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.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.20 no.1
• /
• pp.47-82
• /
• 2019

Inter-Korean exchanges and cooperation, in the process, will inevitably lead to various legal disputes, one of which is the issue of compensation for personal injury. The purpose of this study is to present the standards of settlement of disputes between the residents of North and South Korea by examining the North Korean compensation law on the calculation of damages due to personal injury and comparing it with the South Korean compensation law. Understanding the North Korean compensation law is a critical and urgent task, as exchanges and cooperation between the two Koreas are expected to increase in the future. For the South Korean compensation law does not have specific provisions on the estimation of damages, the specific methods and standards for estimating damages are determined by court precedents. The South Korean courts categorize the damages caused by personal injury into active property damages, passive property damages and emotional distress damages and calculate the amount of each damages. On the other hand, the North Korean Compensation for Damage Act stipulates the categories of damage by dividing the cases of personal injury into 1) infringement of health(§41), 2) disability due to infringement of health(§42), and 3) death resulting from human infringement(§44). In addition, the North Korea Compensation for Damage Act specifies the calculation of compensation for damages(§43, §51). Furthermore, South Korea widely acknowledges emotional distress damages for personal injury, whereas North Korea does not recognize emotional distress damages in principle.

• Electric Engineers Magazine
• /
• v.242 no.10
• /
• pp.39-44
• /
• 2002

손해배상액의 결정은 시민들 중에서 선발된 배심원이 판단하게 되며 이들은 비전문가로서 법률을 심리함으로써 이론적인 판단보다는 감정적인 판단에 치우치게될 가능성이 매우 크다. 특히 징벌적 손해배상금의 결정도 배심원이 판단하기 때문에 손해배상금을 상승시키는 원인이 되고 있다.

• Journal of Korea Fair Competition Federation
• /
• no.98
• /
• pp.10-16
• /
• 2003

손해배상제도가 활성화되면 공정거래법 위반행위로 피해를 입었다고 주장하는 당사자들은 공정위에 시정조치의 발동을 촉구하는 것과 별도로 법원에 손해배상청구를 하여 신속한 권리 구제를 받을 수 있고, 동일한 사안에 대하여 공정위와 법원이 관여하게 되는 기회가 확대됨에 따라 현재와 같은 양 기관 사이의 판단 과정의 괴리도 좁혀질 수 있을 것으로 기대된다. 다만 개정안에도 불구하고 손해배상소송에서 입증이 어려운 영역인 인과관계와 손해액에 관한 피해자의 실질적인 입증부담은 여전히 남아 있으므로 개정안에 따른 제도개선이 소 제기 활성화라는 효과를 얼마나 가져 올 것인지는 더 지켜볼 문제이다.

• 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.

• 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.

• 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.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.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.5 no.1
• /
• pp.23-51
• /
• 1995