• 복합운송
• /
• s.141
• /
• pp.16-17
• /
• 2003

• 해운
• /
• s.92
• /
• pp.16-26
• /
• 2012

유럽연합(EU)의 집행위원회(European Commission)가 국제 화물운송료를 담합한 글로벌 물류기업에 대규모 과징금을 부과했다. EU 경쟁당국은 쿠네&네이젤(Khune+Nagel), 판알피나(Panalpina), 유피에스(UPS) 등에 총 1억 6,900만 유로의 과징금을 부과했다. EC는 총 14개의 회사가 화물운송 가격 담합에 가담하여, 미국 유럽 아시아 등으로 운송되는 화물의 운송비를 불법적으로 책정한 것으로 판단하였다. 한편 DHL은 자진신고를 통해 리니언시(liniency) 적용으로 과징금을 부과 받지 않았다. 유럽연합은 이러한 국제카르텔에 대한 법집행 차원에서 과징금 부과 및 당해행위에 대한 금지명령 등 행정적 제재를 강화하며, 세계 경쟁정책 및 법집행을 주도하고 있다. 또한 유럽연합은 해운동맹 폐지를 비롯한 해운업계의 반경쟁적 행위에 대한 제한도 강화하고 있다. EU는 2008년 10월부터 해운동맹의 공동가격설정 및 선복량 조절 행위를 금지하고 있다. 유럽집행위원회는 지난해 5월 초 13개 컨테이너 선사의 유럽 사무소를 기습 감사, 조사하였다. 현재 EU는 자료조사 중이며 결과는 아직까지 확인되지 않고 있다. EU의 조사는 상당히 지체되는 경향이 있는데, 향후 추가 질의서 요구가 예상되며 불법행위가 밝혀질 경우 개별 기업 글로벌 수익의 10%에 해당하는 벌금 부과가 가능하며, 영국에서는 형사고발도 가능하다. 다음은 한국해양수산개발원 최영석 전문연구원이 발표한 "국제해운의 해운동맹 폐지 및 담합행위 제한 강화"의 주요 내용을 요약정리한 것이다.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.13
• /
• pp.151-166
• /
• 2001

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.35 no.3
• /
• pp.3-37
• /
• 2020

The aircraft crew operating on international routes performs almost identical tasks as police officials in terms of dealing with the unlawful interference in the aircraft. This means that the liability question which is related to the law enforcement by the police officer may arise regarding the crew's performance of his or her duties. With regard to the carrier's liability due to the crew's unlawful action, there are distinctive characteristics from the liability due to police officers' unlawful action. In case of the claim for damages by the crew's unlawful action, the first question should be whether such action complies with the requirements under the Tokyo Convention 1963. If such action does not conform with the Tokyo Convention 1963, we should examine that claim under the State Compensation Act, the Montreal Convention 1999, and the Civil Act of Korea. The examination under the Tokyo Convention 1963 is not so different from the Korean Court's precedents. However, the court should consider the characteristics of the environment surrounding the crew. The action which is not indemnified under the Tokyo Convention 1963 should be examined under the tort laws. Because the aircraft crew is private persons entrusted with public duties under Korean Law, the State Compensation Act may apply. However, further studies regarding the harmonious interpretation with the Montreal Convention 1999 is needed. With regard to the carrier's liability, the Montreal Convention of 1999 should be applied to the crew's unlawful actions onboard. This is because the Montreal Convention of 1999 preempts the national law for the events that occurred during transportation, and there is no provision which excludes such unlawful actions from the scope of its application. On the other hand, the national law, such as the Civil Act of Korea, applies to unlawful actions taken after transportation. This is because the interpretation that infinitely expands the scope of the Montreal Convention 1999 should not be allowed. Given the foregoing, the standard of the claim for damages due to the crew's unlawful action varies depending on the place where the specific action was taken. As a result, the type of damage recoverable and the burden of proof also varies accordingly. Carriers and crew members must perform their duties with this in mind, but in particular, they should observe the proportionality, and when interpreting the law, it is necessary for the court or lawyer to consider the special characteristics of the work environment.

• Proceedings of KOSOMES biannual meeting
• /
• 2006.05a
• /
• pp.141-152
• /
• 2006

Along with unification world market, marine transportation has become important for international community. At the same tome, piracy, armed robbery and maritime terrorism which threaten marine transport have been issued in international society. International organization like a IMO has continued to regulate maritime crimes by international law and regulation. Bearing in mind the in importance of the issue, this article analyze maritime crimes covering piracy, armed robbery and maritime terrorism about definition and legal character and pointed out problems. Finally it suggest methods to enhance international regulation on them.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.20 no.1
• /
• pp.45-85
• /
• 2005

The purpose of this paper is to examine the concept of "accident" under the Warsaw system including the Warsaw Convention for the Unification of certain Rules for International Carriage by Air of 1929 and the Montreal Convention of 1999. Most leading case on this subject is Air France v. Saks(470 U.S. 392 (1985)). In the Saks case, it was held that the definition of an accident must be applied flexibly, and most courts have adhered to the definition of accident in Saks case, the application of accident has been less than consistent. However, most cases have held that if the event is usual and expected operation of the aircraft, then no accident has occurred. Courts have also held that where the injury results from passenger's own internal reaction to the usual, normal, and expected operations of the aircraft, it is not caused by an accident. As the Warsaw drafters intended to create a system of liability rules that would cover all hazards of air travel, the carrier should liable for the inherent risks of air travel. It is right in that the carrier is in a better position than the passenger to control the risks during air travel. Most US courts have held that carriers are not liable for one passenger's assault on the other passenger. The interactions between passengers are not part of the normal operations of the aircraft and are therefore not covered by the word "accident" under Art 17 of the Warsaw Convention. It is regretful that the Montreal Convention did not attempt to clarify the concepts of accident in itself. In the light of an emerging tendency to hold the air carrier liable for occurrences that do not exactly go to the operation of the aircraft, it is desirable to regulate that the carrier is liable for an "event" instead of an "accident" in accordance with the Guatemala City protocol.

• Journal of Korean Society of Transportation
• /
• v.27 no.2
• /
• pp.157-168
• /
• 2009

The random utility theory and the multinomial logit model (including a more recent variant--the mixed multinomial logit) derived from it have constituted a back bone for theoretical and empirical analyses of various travel demand features including mode choice. In their empirical applications, however, it is customary to specify random utilities which are linear in modal attributes such as time and cost, and in socio-economic variables. The linearity helps easy derivation of important information such as value of travel time savings by calculating marginal rate of substitution between time and cost. In this paper the author focuses on the very linearity of the random utilities. Taking into account the fact that the mode chooser is also labour supplier, commodity consumer as well as leisure-seeker, the author sets up a maximization model of the traveller, which encompasses various economic activities of the traveller. The author derive from the model the indifference curve defined on the space of modal attributes, time and cost and investigate under what conditions the random utility of the traveller becomes linear. It turns out that there exist the conditions under which the random utility is really linear in modal attributes, but the property does not hold when the traveller has a corner solution on the space of modal attributes, or when the primary utility function of the traveller is directly affected by labour provided and/or the travel time itself. As a corollary of the analysis, a random utility is suggested, approximated up to the second order of the variables involved for empirical studies of the field.

• Journal of Korea Fair Competition Federation
• /
• no.128
• /
• pp.107-119
• /
• 2006

• International Commerce and Information Review
• /
• v.16 no.3
• /
• pp.159-182
• /
• 2014

CISG Article 71 (1) states that a party may suspend the performance of his obligations if, after the conclusion of the contract, it becomes apparent that the other party will net perform a substantial part of his obligations as a result of a serious deficiency in his ability to perform or in his creditworthiness or his conduct in preparing to perform or in perfoming the contract. CISG Article 71 (2) states a 'right of stoppage in transit' that if the seller has already dispatched the goods before the grounds described in the preceding paragraph become evident, he may prevent the handing over of the goods to the buyer even though the buyer holds a document which entitles him to obtain them. The present paragraph relates only to the rights in the goods as between the buyer and the seller. Under the right of stoppage in transit, the carrier copes with risks that the seller may claim damages arose from the handing over the goods, if he hand over the goods to the buyer and that the buyer may claim damages, if he deny handing over the goods to the buyer who has the document which entitles him to obtain the goods. Therefore the legal position of the carrier may become weak. This paper purpose to point out the legal weakness of the carrier under the right of stoppage in transit and to provide the proper legal act of the carrier and possible practice related to various characters of the contract of sale of the goods. Although there is the opinion it prevent from handing over the goods to the buyer actually under the interpretation that the buyer should take claim damages to the seller, if the goods are handed over to the buyer under the right of stoppage in transit, it is not appropriate because the opinion may disable the right of stoppage in transit. The right of stoppage in transit could be carried out under any payment conditions except letter of credit and under any mode of transportation except the cases that carrier is the buyer himself or the agent of the buyer. It could be executed regardless the forms of the transport document.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.21 no.2
• /
• pp.9-53
• /
• 2006

오늘날 항공기사고는 우리나라뿐만 아니라 세계도처에서 때때로 발생되고 있다. 특히 외국항공기의 돌연한 추락 또는 물건의 낙하로 인해 지상에 있는 제3자에게 손해를 입히는 경우가 간혹 발생되고 있다. 이와 같은 사건에 있어 가해자(항공기운항자)는 피해자(지상 제3자)에 대하여 불법행위책임을 부담하게 되는데 이 사건해결을 위하여 1952년 및 1978년의 개정로마조약 등이 있음으로 본 논문에서는 이들 조약의 성립경위 및 주요내용과 개정이유 등을 설명하였다. 현재 국제민간항공기관(ICAO)에서는 2001년도 미국의 9,11테러사건 이후 이와 같은 사건의 법적조치와 대응을 위하여 1952년 개정로마조약의 현대화에 관한 새로운 조약초안이 발표되었다. 본 논문에서는 이 새로운 조약초안의 현대화를 위한 ICAO의 활동과 이 조약 초안에 대한 주된 내용과 필자의 논평(견해)을 밝히었다. 한편 본 논문에서는 항공운송인의 책임에 관계된 국제조약과 세계 각국(미국, 영국, 독일, 프랑스, 러시아, 오스트레일리아, 중국 등)의 입법례 등을 참작한 후 우리나라의 현실에 적합한 항공운송법 시안에 관한 국내입법의 추진방향과 항공운송약관의 효력문제, 동법시안을 제정하여야만 되는 이유, 입법경위, 입법방안, "항공운송법 시안"의 주요항목 등 작성하여 제시하였다.