• Journal of Legislation Research
• /
• no.53
• /
• pp.525-551
• /
• 2017

This Article discusses the current trend of European competition damage actions focused on the recent Damage Directive and its transposition by the United Kingdom and Germany. The relevant Directive was signed into law in November 2014, and it requires the EU Member States to adopt certain measures to support competition damage actions. The required measures and principles by the Directive include right to full compensation, rebuttable presumption of harm, extensive disclosure of evidence, use of pass-on for defense and indirect purchaser suits. Although many Member States did not meet the deadline to transpose the Directive, the end of 2016, it is reported that 23 Member States have now, as of September 2017, made enactments according to the Directive. When we look at the transposition done by the United Kingdom and Germany, the revisions on their competition laws closely follow the contents of the Directive. However, it will take quite a long time before the amended provisions apply to actual cases since most of the new provisions apply to the infringement that take place after the date of the amendment. A similar situation regarding application time may happen in some other Member States. Furthermore, even if the terms of the competition laws of the Member States become similar following the Directive, the interpretations of the laws may differ by the courts of different countries. EU also does not have a tool to coordinate the litigations that are brought in different Member States under the same facts. It is true that the EU made a big step to enhance competition damage actions by enacting Damage Directive. However, it needs to take more time and resources to have settled system of competition private litigation throughout the Member States. Korea has also experienced increase in competition damage actions during the last fifteen years, and there have been some revisions of the relevant fair trade law as well as development of relevant legal principles by court decisions. Although there are some suggestions that Korea should have more enactments similar to the EU Directive, its seems wiser for Korea to take time to observe how EU countries actually operate competition damage actions after they transposed the Directive. Then, it will be able to gain some wisdom to adopt competition action measures that are suitable for Korean legal system and culture.

• Journal of Korea Fair Competition Federation
• /
• no.162
• /
• pp.86-103
• /
• 2012

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.17 no.2
• /
• pp.29-56
• /
• 2016

$F{\ddot{u}}r$ den Schadensersatzhaftung des Arztes, sog. die Arzthaftung, ist es vornehmlich vorauszusetzen: die $Sch{\ddot{a}}digungsbehandlung$ des Arztes, die Rechtswidrigkeit und das Verschulden. Zur Problematik der $Fahrl{\ddot{a}}ssigkeit$ in der Stufe des Verschuldens handelt sich es in dieser Beitrag um die Kritisierung der Rechtsprechung. $F{\ddot{u}}r$ die Entscheidung des Verschulden im medizinischen Fehler kommt es darauf an, ob die Sorgfaltspflicht des Arztes verletzt wird. $Daf{\ddot{u}}r$ wird der medizinische Standard rekurriert, den die Rechtsprechung nicht aus materieller, sondern aus normativer Sicht begreift. Erstaunlich $un{\ddot{u}}bereinstimmend$ mit deren Leitsatz wird der medizinische Standard als $Ma{\ss}stab$ der Sorgfaltspflicht materiell - zutreffend nur im Ergebnis - behandelt. Die Sorgfaltspflicht in der Medizin bedeutet nicht die natur-wissenschaftliche Erkenntnisse, sondern eine "Best-$M{\ddot{u}}ssen$" Pflicht. Demnach ist der Standpunkt der Rechtsprechung, wonach den med. Standard normativ bewertet und die Sorgfaltspflicht darduch wieder normativ entscheidet, nicht anders als eine $w{\ddot{o}}rtliche$ Wiederholung. Die Arzthaftung in der Rechtsprechung ist aufgrund mit der Verneinung von der Sorgfaltspflichtverletzung nicht angenommen, welche in der Tat jedoch aus verschiedenen $Gr{\ddot{u}}nden$, wie die Rechtswidrigkeit, die $Fahrl{\ddot{a}}ssigkeit$ oder $Kausalit{\ddot{a}}t$, nicht angenommen. Der $Fahrl{\ddot{a}}ssigkeitsbeweis$ in der Rechtsprechung entwickelt sich mit dem Beweis nach objektivem $Ma{\ss}stab$, der Vermutung nach Anschein-Beweis und der $Beschr{\ddot{a}}nkung$ mit der Wahrscheinlichkeit. Bei Letzterem $geh{\ddot{o}}rt$ es $schlie{\ss}lich$ zum medizinischen Bereich. Ein Eintritt in den fachliche Bereich im Rahmen der Beweislast stellt der Beweiserleichterung $gegen{\ddot{u}}ber$. Aus diesem Hintergrund ist ${\S}630$ h Abs. 5 BGB bemerkenswert, wonach das Vorliegen eines groben Behandlungsfehler $regelm{\ddot{a}}{\ss}ig$ zur Vermutung von der $Kausalit{\ddot{a}}tszusammenhang$ $f{\ddot{u}}hrt$. Dieser Paragraph ist inhaltlich als Beweislastumkehr angesehen. Damit ist es von Nutzen im Fall des groben Fehler, der beim - elementaren - kunstgerechten Verhalten nicht entstanden $h{\ddot{a}}tte$, wie $Hygienem{\ddot{a}}ngel$, ${\ddot{U}}berdosierung$ des Narkotikum.

• Proceedings of the Korean Institute of Navigation and Port Research Conference
• /
• 2012.06a
• /
• pp.180-182
• /
• 2012

선박충돌사고 원인의 제공 정도를 밝혀 해양사고를 재발방지를 목적으로 1999년 2월 "선박충돌사고 원인제공비율 산정제도"를 마련하였으며, 2007년 1월 원인제공비율 산정지침을 제정하여 시행해 오고 있다. 이 제도의 또 다른 도입목적은 해양안전심판원의 원인제공비율을 민사재판에서 사법부가 적극 인용함으로써 해양사고관련자들 간의 신속한 분쟁해결과 경제적 부담 감송 등에 기여함에 있다. 그러나 민사소송에 있어 제공된 원인제공비율이 과실비율로 인정되는 등의 이유로 원인제공비율 산정제도가 사법권의 침해하고 있다는 문제점도 지적되고 있다. 따라서 본 연구에서는 원인제공비율 산정제도의 시행 이후 이 제도의 시행자 및 사용자 등 전문가 집단을 대상으로 설문조사를 실시하여 제도의 효과 및 문제점 등을 분석하였다. 전문가 집단 응답자의 대부분이 제도의 필요성 (94.3%), 유용성 (88.6%) 및 신뢰성 (73%)을 피력하고 있는 것으로 나타났다. 그리고 이 제도가 필요한 이유로는 "손해배상분쟁의 신속한 해결", "충돌사고 재발방지", 그리고 "이해당사자의 편의제공" 때문임을 알 수 있었다. 그러나 제도의 개선을 위해서는 원인제공 비율의 표시에 있어 보다 객관적인 기준과 정량성 및 전문성의 확보가 필요하다는 지적도 확인하였다. 따라서 원인제공비율 산정제도의 개선방안으로 원인제공비율산정에 대한 신뢰성 및 공정성의 확보, 심판관에 대한 법률적 지식과 법적 소양강화 및 전문법조인의 심판관으로의 영입 등이 필요하다고 판단된다.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.19 no.1
• /
• pp.183-212
• /
• 2004

Die Haftung des Luftfrachtf${\"{u}}$hrers nach dem ge${\"{a}}$nderten Luftverkehrsgesetz 2004 In dieser Arbeit handelt es sich um das ge${\"{a}}$nderte Luftverkehrsgesetz in Deutschland. Neuerdings werden die bisherige Vielzahl von v${\"{o}}$lkerrechtlichen Abkommen und Protokollen, europarechtlichen Bestimmungen und privatrechtlichen Vereinbanmgen durch das Montrealer ${\"{U}}$bereinkommen 1999 zu einem einzigen Instrument zusammengefuhrt. Am 4. 11. 2003 ist das ${\"{U}}$bereinkommen von Montreal f${\"{u}}$r die Ratifikationsstaaten in Kraft getreten. Der Anwendungsbereich des Montrealer ${\"{U}}$bereinkommen beschr${\"{a}}$nkt sich jedoch nach dessen Art. 1 auf die internationale Bef${\"{o}}$rderung. Urn bei reinen Inlandf${\"{a}}$llen einen Gleichlauf zu gew${\"{a}}$hrleisten, will der deutsche Gesetzgeber im Zuge der Ratifikation in ${\S}$ 46 LuftVG eine entsprechende nationale Haftungsbestimmung schaffen.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.25 no.1
• /
• pp.27-54
• /
• 2010

Soon after September 11 attacks in 2001, there were strong demands in Korea on making relevant laws and regulations on aviation security, and Korean parliament legislated "Aviation Safety and Security Act"to fulfill the demands on safety and security of aircrafts during aviation. However, the current Aviation Safety and Security Act seems to have many problems which do not meet the practical needs in Korea, because there were not enough considerations on the practical needs and extinguishable national circumstances on civil aviation system in Korea, but only regarded the relevant international conventions and foreign practices on it. In this context, it is necessary to amend several provisions in Aviation Safety and Security Act to enhance more practical efficiencies in its implementation through systematization of the provisions on crimes which may happen during aviation. In this context, this article argues two main issues. First, Article 39 of Aviation Safety and Security Act does not express whether it is possible to punish the attempt of crime of causing damage to aircraft. Therefore, regarding a principle of legality, it is impossible to punish the perpetrator even when coincidently failed to destruct or damage aircraft. In this context, this article argues that the necessity to introduce the possibility to punish the attempt of crime of causing damage to aircraft. Second, regarding Article 160 of Civil Aviation Act of Korea, current Aviation Safety and Security Act should be amended by guaranteeing the culpability of negligence of crime of causing damage to aircraft.

• Journal of Legislation Research
• /
• no.53
• /
• pp.593-631
• /
• 2017

Like the technological competition of each country around commercialization of Autonomous Vehicles(the rest is 'AV'), legalizations are also in a competition. However, in the midst of this competition, the Ethik-Kommission Automatisiertes und vernetztes Fahren of Germany has recently introduced 20 guidelines. This guideline is expected to serve as a milestone for future AV legislations. In this paper, I have formulated a new legislative proposal that will incorporate the main content presented by the Ethik-Kommission. The structure is largely divided into general rules of purpose and definition, chapter on types of AV and safety standards, registration and inspection, maintenance, licenses for AV, driver's obligations, insurance and accident responsibilities, roads and facilities, traffic system, and chapter on penalties. The commercialization of AV in Korea seems to be in a distant future, and it is possible to pretend that it is not necessary to prepare legal systems. But considering our reality, leading legislation may be necessary. In this paper, I have prepared individual legislative proposals based on the essential matters based on the criminal responsibility in case of AV car accidents. To assure the safety of AV, AV and mode of operation were defined for more clear interpretation and application of law, and basic safety standards for AV were presented. In addition, the obligation of insurance and the liability for damages were defined, and the possibility of immunity from the criminal responsibility was examined. Furthermore, I have examined the penalties for penalties such as hacking in order to secure the effectiveness of the Act. Based on these discussions, I have attempted the 'Autonomous Vehicles Act', which aims to provide a basis for new discussions to be held on the basis of various academic fields related to the operation of AV and related industries in the future. Although there may be a sense of unurgency in time, the automobile industry needs time to prepare for the regulation of the AV ahead of time. And a process of public debate is also needed for the ecosystem of healthy AV industry.

• 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.