• Monthly Korean Chicken
• /
• v.16 no.9
• /
• pp.120-123
• /
• 2010

• Product Safety
• /
• s.215
• /
• pp.60-63
• /
• 2011

• 월간 기계설비
• /
• s.308
• /
• pp.40-41
• /
• 2016

정부는 그동안 부정당업체가 언제까지 입찰 제한을 받는지 명시적으로 규정하고 있지 않아 처분 대상자의 법적 안정성을 심각하게 해친다는 문제점을 보완하기 위해 부정당업자 입찰 참가자격 제한제도에 제척기간을 도입하는 등 국가를 당사자로 하는 계약에 관한 법률을 개정했다. 또한 부정당업자 제재처분에 대한 정보를 공개키로 했으며, 법령 시행령 시행규칙 등에 나뉘어 있던 제재요건 내용을 합쳐 국가계약법에 각 제재 사유를 직접 명시했다.

• Korean Journal of Construction Engineering and Management
• /
• v.23 no.2
• /
• pp.65-75
• /
• 2022

On 11 June 2021, the Supreme Court ruled that the judgment of the lower court was justified for the subject case, that the plaintiff could assert the defendant's liability for default due to incomplete performance even though the warranty period for defects which stipulated in the particular condition of the contract has expired. In Korean civil law, the concurrent between the exclusion period for defect warranty and the extinctive prescription for default liability is conceded, since the exclusion period and the extinctive prescription have their respective purposes in law, therefore these two should be judged by harmonizing them based on that they are mutually related. If the subject judgment is generalized, there is no reason to exist for the provisions of defect liability in the construction contract any longer. This study examines the subject judgments through the general theory and precedent case studies on the defect liability and default liability, then derived any problems that may arise if the subject judgment is generalized. In addition, based on a realistic model, it was suggested for a practical improvement method that both the provisions of the warranty period shall be changed realistic and to stipulate the character of its nature as written provisions in the contract.

• Journal of the Korea Institute of Building Construction
• /
• v.12 no.1
• /
• pp.42-53
• /
• 2012

Lawsuits related to defects in apartment buildings involve a range of legal issues, based on which the current subjective judgment system has been established. This study aims to organize the judgment system by stage of lawsuit from a legal perspective by reviewing the factors dealt with in precedent research. The main issues at hand include assignment of obligation, the day on which the computation of exclusion period begins and the day on which the defect repair is completed. The rationality of the current subjective judgment system could be determined by reviewing the recent cases. Based on the findings of the review, the following are suggestions for improvements and complements of the system. First, the process of assignment of obligation should be systemized, and the guarantee insurance system that provides a warranty deed should be improved as well. In addition, improvements and systemization should be made to clarify the responsibilities for any defect arising from the agreements that are not stipulated on the contract, computation of abatement rate of compensation and the system by which the responsibility for the defects is completed when residents acquire ownership from rental status.

• The Journal of the Korean life insurance medical association
• /
• v.19
• /
• pp.109-117
• /
• 2000

연구배경 : 3대 특정질병 진단보험금지급의 양상과 경향을 평가하고자 하였다. 방법 : 1997년 7월${\sim}$1999년 3월까지 당사의 한 건강보험가입자 중 1998년 1월${\sim}$1999년 9월 기간동안 당사 약관상의 정의에 의한 악성종양, 급성심근경색증, 뇌졸중으로 진단보험금이 지불된 총 411건에 대해 조사하였다. 결과 : 3대 특정질병 진단보험금 지급건 총 411건의 구성을 보면 악성종양이 290건(70.6%), 급성심근경색이 25건(6.1%) 그리고 뇌졸중이 96건(23.3%)이었다. 남녀비율은 남자 280건(68.1%), 여자 131건(31.9%)이었다. 3대 특정질병 진단급여금 지급건의 평균연령은 $3.88{\pm}5.9$이었다. 3대 특정질병 진단보험금 지불건은 $30{\sim}39$세 연령대에서 187건(45.4%)으로 가장 많았고, 그 다음으로 $40{\sim}49$세 연령대 178건(43.2%)의 순이었다. 계약시점에서 3대 특정질병 진단보험금 지급 시까지 평균진단확정 기간은 325.2일${\pm}$184.9일 이었다. 계약 후 12개월 내에 진단지급보험금 발생건은 총 193건(55.3%)이었고, 12개월 이후에 지급된 건은 156건(44.7%)이었다. 계약 후 12개월 내에 진단지금보험금 발생건 193건을 분석하여 보면 3개월 이상${\sim}$4개월 미만이 40건(20.7%)로 가장 많았다. 악성종양의 신체계통별로 보면 소화기관>유방>여자생식기>호흡기계 순이었다. 악성종양을 장기별로 보면 위암>유방암>간암 및 담도계암>결장암과 직장암, 자궁경부암의 순이었다. 남자의 경우 위암>간암 및 담도계암>결장암과 직장암의 순이었고 여자의 경우 유방암>자궁경부암(상피내암 제외)>결장암, 직장암의 순이었다. 뇌졸중의 종류별 빈도를 보면 뇌경색증(47.9%)>뇌내출혈(34.4%)>거미막하출혈(9.4%)의 순이었다. 결론 : 3대 특정질병 중 악성종양이 다수를 차지하고 있었고, 남자가 여자보다 훨씬 많았고 주로 $30{\sim}39$세 연령대, $40{\sim}49$세 연령대였다. 계약 후 12개월 내에 진단지급보험금 발생건을 분석하여 보면 3개월 이상${\sim}$4개월 미만이 40건(20.7%)으로 가장 많았다는 것은 역선택의 가능성 그리고 제척기간 중 발생한 3대 특정질환이 3개월 이후 특히 3개월 이상${\sim}$4개월 미만 사이에 지급청구되었을 가능성을 시사하는 것으로 사료된다.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.27 no.2
• /
• pp.37-57
• /
• 2017

On 9 March 2017, a Tribunal constituted under the ICSID Convention issued its ruling in the case of Ansung Housing v. People's Republic of China, dismissing with prejudice all claims made by the Claimant, Ansung Housing Co., Ltd., in its Request for Arbitration, pursuant to ICSID Arbitration Rule 41(5). Ansung Housing v. PRC has drawn attention since it is the first case where an investor with Korean nationality initiated an ICSID arbitration on the basis of the Korea-China Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT) as amended in 2007 between the Republic of Korea and the People's Republic of China. The Tribunal finds that its ruling is about a lack of jurisdiction of the ICSID and of its own competence as well as regarding manifest lack of legal merit due to a lack of temporal jurisdiction, since a Respondent's Rule 41(5) objection is concerned with the three-year limitation period in Article 9(7) of the Korea-China BIT. The Tribunal held that, under Article 9(7) of the Korea-China BIT, the limitation period begins with an investor's first knowledge of the fact that it has incurred loss or damage, not with the date on which it gains knowledge of the quantum of that loss or damage. Finally, the Tribunal held that Ansung submitted its dispute to ICSID and made its claim for purposes of Article 9(3) and (7) of the BIT after more than three years had elapsed from the date on which Ansung first acquired knowledge of loss or damage and that the claim is time-barred and, as such, is manifestly without legal merit. It remains to be seen whether the aggrieved Claimant initiates annulment proceedings before an ad hoc committee under the ICSID Convention. It is quite interesting to see whether the decisions by the Tribunal should be reversed on the basis of the Claimant's arguments as to the start date as well as the end date of the limitation period under the Korea-China BIT.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.29 no.2
• /
• pp.55-86
• /
• 2014

The U.S. General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1994 (the "GARA") created a statute of repose that bars any claims arising from an aviation product or component more than 18 years after its date of delivery. The statute was enacted to protect general aviation aircraft manufacturers from the excessive product liability costs. The GARA included four exceptions: (a) medical emergency patients, (b) those not on the aircraft, (c) those based on written warranties, and (d) those causally related to a "knowing misrepresentation" made by the manufacturer to the FAA. The GARA also incorporates a provision for revised starting point of reckoning to which any repairs or replacements of an aviation product. This note aimed to discuss General Aviation and GARA in depth including the meaning of statue of repose, its exceptions. The various precedents about GARA were also reviewed in here as well. From the GARA, as a comparative legal issue in aviation product liability, there can be some suggestions for revision of Korean Products Liability Act. First, it seems to be reasonable to regulate the specific statute of repose provisions for various category of products. In GARA, the period of 18 years is reasonable concerning to the average aircraft life. Second, in order to avoid exhausting debate and for the judicial economy, it needs to clarify when the statute begins to run. GARA's 18 year limitation period begins to run on the different date whether it was delivered to its first purchaser or a person engaged in the business of selling the aircraft. Last but not least, proper exceptions should be added into the law for equity matter of the statute of repose does not apply. For example, a manufacturer is not protected by GARA if it knowingly misrepresents certain safety information to the FAA.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.24 no.2
• /
• pp.19-45
• /
• 2009

The purpose of this paper is to research the contents and issues of the draft legislation of Part VI the Carriage by Act of Korean Commercial Code in respect of the liability of the carrier in the carriage of cargo by air, comparing to the related provisions of the Montreal Convention of 1999. The Montreal Convention in respect of the international carriage by air was adopted in 1999, and Korea has ratified the Montreal Convention in 2007. However, there is now no national legislation in respect of the carriage by air in Korea. Thus, the Ministry of Justice has prepared the draft legislation of Part VI the Carriage by Air of the Korean Commercial Code in July 2008, and the draft legislation is now being reviewed by the National Assembly. The draft provisions of Part VI the Carriage by Air are basically adopting most of the related provisions of the Montreal Convention in respect of the carriage of cargo by air and some draft provisions are applying the related provisions of the Korean Commercial Code in respect of the carriage of cargo by land and sea. In respect of the liability of the carrier in the carriage of cargo by air, the contents of the draft legislation of Part VI the Carriage by air are composed of the provisions in respect of the cause of the liability of the and the application for the non-contractual claim, the limit of liability, the exoneration from liability, the extinguishment of liability, the notice of damage to cargo, the liability of the agents and servants of the carrier, and the liability of the actual carrier and successive carrier. The draft legislation of the Carriage by Air of Korean Commercial Code is different from the provisions of the Montreal Convention is respect of the liability of the carrier in the carriage of cargo by air as follows : the draft Article 913 paragraph 1 provides additionally the riot, civil war and quarantine as the exoneration causes from the liability for damage to the cargo of the carrier in the Article 18 paragraph 2 of the Montreal Convention. In respect of the liability of the carrier in carriage of cargo by air, the draft legislation of Part VI the Carriage by Air does not provide the settlement by arbitration of dispute relating to the liability of the carrier and the requirement of adequate insurance covering the liability of the carrier which are provided in the Montreal Convention. In author's opinion, it is desirable that the above mentioned provisions such as the arbitration and the insurance shall be inserted into the draft legislation of the Carriage by Air of Korean Commercial Code. In conclusion, the legislation of Part VI the Carriage by Air of the Korean Commercial Code shall be made by the National Assembly as soon as possible for the smooth and equitable compensation for damage to cargo arising during the carriage by air.