• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.29 no.2
• /
• pp.3-54
• /
• 2014

The Republic of Korea enacted the Air Transport Act in Commercial Law which was entered into force in November, 2011. The Air Transport Act in Korean Commercial Law was established to regulate domestic carriage by air and damages to the third party which occur within the territorial area caused by aircraft operations. There are some problems to be reformed in the Provisions of Korean Commercial Law for the aircraft operator's liability of compensation for damages to the third party caused by aircraft operation as follows. First, the aircraft operator's liability of compensation for damages needs to be improved because it is too low to compensate adequately to the third party damaged owing to the aircraft operation. Therefore, the standard of classifying per aircraft weight is required to be detailed from the current 4-tier into 10-tier and the total limited amount of liability is also in need of being increased to the maximum 7-hundred-million SDR. In addition, the limited amount of liability to the personal damage is necessary to be risen from the present 125,000 SDR to 625,000 SDR according to the recent rate of prices increase. This is the most desirable way to improve the current provisions given the ordinary insurance coverage per one aircraft accident and various specifications of recent aircraft in order to compensate the damaged appropriately. Second, the aircraft operator shall be liable without fault to damages caused by terrorism such as hijacking, attacking an aircraft and utilizing it as means of attack like the 9 11 disaster according to the present Air Transport Act in Korean Commercial Law. Some argue that it is too harsh to aircraft operators and irrational, but given they have also some legal duties of preventing terrorism and in respect of helping the third party damaged, it does not look too harsh or irrational. However, it should be amended into exempting aircraft operator's liability when the terrorism using of an aircraft by well-organized terrorists group happens like 9 11 disaster in view of balancing the interest between the aircraft operator and the third party damaged. Third, considering the large scale of the damage caused by the aircraft operation usually aircraft accident, it is likely that many people damaged can be faced with a financial crisis, and the provision of advance payment for air carrier's liability of compensation also needs to be applied to the case of aircraft operator's liability. Fourth, the aircraft operator now shall be liable to the damages which occur in land or water except air according to the current Air Transport Act of Korean Commercial Law. However, because the damages related to the aircraft operation in air caused by another aircraft operation are not different from those in land or water. Therefore, the term of 'on the surface' should be eliminated in the term of 'third parties on the surface' in order to make the damages by the aircraft operation in air caused by another aircraft operation compensable by Air Transport Act of Korean Commercial Law. It is desired that the Air Transport Act in Commercial Law including the clauses related to the aircraft operator's liability of compensation for damages to the third party be developed continually through the resolutions about its problems mentioned above for compensating the third party damaged appropriately and balancing the interest between the damaged and the aircraft operator.

• International Commerce and Information Review
• /
• v.15 no.2
• /
• pp.285-313
• /
• 2013

By the revision of the Commercial Code of Korea in 1991 and 2007, some provisions for the regulation of Time Charterparty have been introduced into our own maritime law system. But, those provisions are in their nature mainly the reproduction of the provisions prescribed in the standard forms of time charterparty which are widely used, such as BALTIME Charter and NYPE Form, and the subject matters of their regulation are restrictive, so that the applicability of the provisions is not desirable. The cargo is lost or damaged, the cargo owner should seek compensation form, or sue, the carrier as, traditionally, under the COGSA, the cargo carrier is responsible for loss of damage of cargo. However, it is difficult to determine who is the responsible carrier under charters. There is no test to determine the carrier, but the courts in every country generally consider the bill of lading. Although the master has general authority to sign bills of lading on behalf of the shipowner, he can also sign bills of lading for, and on behalf of, the charterer. In this case, the charter is considered the carrier. Furthermore, the charterer is authorized to contract with third parties on behalf of the shipowner and, as such, the responsible carrier is the shipowner. Therefore, when determining the carrier we should examine carefully the all factors and the circumstances surrounding the case. Also, negligence of a captain of a time-chartered ship causing damages to a third party. It will analyze the legal character of a time-charter contract, review judicial precedents on time-charter. The Inter-Club Agreement was drawn up and is intended to be a somewhat easier way of allocating liability for cargo claims between owners and charterers and, although there is still scope for disputes to arise, the Inter-Club Agreement does in fact to some extent make the allocation of liabilities for cargo claims easier. Finally, it will also make legislative suggestions to resolve complex issues involving maritime transportation contracts under the current Commercial Code.

• Journal of radiological science and technology
• /
• v.30 no.4
• /
• pp.305-311
• /
• 2007

Contrast medium is a useful drug for radiological examinations and usability of it gradually increases while it has some inevitable adverse reaction and it is difficult to predict the occurrence and the degree of adverse reactions. Although the patient consented permission for the use of contrast media, the hospital could not be exempted from the responsibility for the adverse contrast media reaction. During radiological contrast media examination, the radiologist and the contrast media producer have the duty of precaution, prediction and avoid adverse results. In addition, they have reliabi lity of patient remedy for neglecting the duty. Since contrast medium are manufactured or processed as movable properties, the manufacturers are bound to the product liability if damages occur due to the defects in pharmaceuticals. In consideration of the characteristics of product liability, it is necessary to demand high degree of duty of care and diligence from producer or to reduce patient's burden of proof in a product liability lawsuit. For securing compensation ability and liability implementation, products compensation liability insurance is required for contrast medium manufacturers. In conclusion, contrast medium producer has legal liability for adverse reactions and the contract concluded with producer and hospital including legal liability will reduce liability of hospital and radiologist, patient.

• Proceedings of the Korea Contents Association Conference
• /
• 2018.05a
• /
• pp.211-212
• /
• 2018

주식회사의 이사는 광범위한 권한을 행사할 수 있다. 이러한 이사가 법령 또는 정관에 위반한 행위를 하거나 임무를 해태하여 회사나 제3자에게 손해를 발생시킨 경우에는 책임 추궁이 이루어져야 한다. 우리나라에서는 이사에 대한 책임 추궁이 제대로 이루어지지 않는 면이 있기 때문에 실효성이 있는 책임추궁제도가 마련되어야 한다.

• 레미콘
• /
• no.4 s.71
• /
• pp.75-88
• /
• 2002

제조물의 결함으로 인하여 소비자 또는 제3자의 생명, 신체, 재산 등에 손해가 발생했을 경우 그 제조물의 제조업자나 판매업자에게 손해배상 책임을 지게 하는 법리를 제조물책임(PL)이라하며, 제조물책임법(PL)의 시행(2002.7.1)에 따라 제조업자의 PL인지도를 제고하고, 대응활동 추진을 활성화하기 위하여 PL제도 및 대응방안 등을 집중적으로 홍보함에 회원사 여러분의 업무에 도움을 주고자 중소기업청 발표자료 중 일부 편집게재 합니다.

• Proceedings of the Korean Society of Computer Information Conference
• /
• 2014.01a
• /
• pp.165-168
• /
• 2014

채권자대위권은 채권자가 자기의 채권을 보전하기 위하여 채무자에 속하는 권리를 행사할 수 있는 권리이다(민법제404조). 채무자의 권리는 채무자가 행사함이 원칙이나 채무자가 제3채무자에 대한 권리를 행사하지 아니함으로 채무자의 책임재산을 제대로 보전하지 않아 총채권자의 공동담보에 부족한 부분이 생길 때에는 채권자로 하여금 채무자의 권리를 행사하여 책임재산의 보전을 꾀할 수 있도록 할 필요가 있고, 이러한 목적을 위한 제도가 바로 채권자대위권제도이다. 그러나 채권자대위권제도는 채권자 취소권에 비해 상대적으로 주목받지 못하고 있는 것이 현실이다. 즉 실제와 현행민법 규정사이에 커다란 괴리가 존재하고 있고, 행사의 범위, 효과에 관한 규정을 두고 있지 않고 있다. 이는 전적으로 학설과 판례에 위임되어 있는 실정이므로 따라서 본 논문에서는 채권자대위권에 관한 문제점을 검토해보고, 정확한 명문규정이나 제도적 장치를 마련하는 제도의 취지 및 목적에 합당할 수 있도록 합리적인 방안을 제시하고자 한다.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.21 no.1
• /
• pp.65-95
• /
• 2006

It is essential that the liability for damage on the surface caused by aircraft be regulated at international level. However, the Rome Convention on Damage Caused by Foreign Aircraft to Third Parties on the Surface of 1952 and the Montreal Protocol of 1978 did not have significant worldwide repercussions since few countries have ratified them. So the Secretariat ofthe ICAO has produced the draft Convention for the modernization of the Rome Convention in 2002 and the Special group has considered the text of the draft Convention so far. The draft Convention contains main issues with regard to the liability system of the operator and the insurability of the risks for damage to third parties on the ground. In order to protect the air transport sector of a country as well as to facilitate speedy recoveries by victims, Work on modernizing the Rome Convention should be continued and the new Convention should be finalized in the near future.

• 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.

• Journal of Environmental Policy
• /
• v.8 no.4
• /
• pp.125-147
• /
• 2009

The Basic Environmental Policy Act (BEPA) (Law No. 4257 effective 1. August 1990) sets forth the basic policies and administrative framework for environmental preservation, leaving more detailed regulations, and emission controls to separate laws targeting air, water, and solid waste, etc. The BEPA Article 31 adopts an unprecedented strict liability standard for damages as an absolute liability. The BEPA Article 31 provides for liability as follows. If a company is alleged to have caused damage through pollution of the environment, it will be liable for damages unless it can show that the pollution did not cause damages, or that it did not actually cause pollution. If the company did cause pollution, and if the pollution is the cause for the damages in question, the company will be liable irrespective of whether it was negligent or otherwise at fault. If there are two or more companies involved in the pollution, but it is unclear which company caused the damages, all of the companies will be jointly and severally liable for the damages. In this paper, the author attempts to uncover the problems of BEPA Article 31 and then seeks desirable amendments by comparing it to the German Environmental Liability Act. First, it will be necessary to provide definitions of 'companies etc.'. Second, it will be necessary to enumerate the kinds of company facilities. Third, it will be necessary to provide exclusionary clauses on material damages. Fourth, it will be necessary to show 'presumption of cause and effect'. Fifth, it will be necessary to provide a clause on 'right to information'. Sixth, it will be necessary to provide a clause for force majeure. Seventh, it will be necessary to take measures to secure abundant liability for damages which can be caused by the owner of the facility, the potential polluter. Finally, it is appropriate that Korea now legislate an Environmental Liability Act akin to the German Environmental Liability Act.

• International Commerce and Information Review
• /
• v.3 no.1
• /
• pp.197-223
• /
• 2001

최근 B2B 전자상거래 확산에 따른 물류문제를 해결하고 오프라인 물류와의 차별화롤 시도하기 위한 목적으로 다양한 물류측면의 대안이 제시되고 있다. 먼저 물류산업 자체의 e-business화를 추진함으로 기존 물류체계에서의 고비용 문제, 책임 소재가 불분명한 서비스 문제를 해결하고 운송정보의 실시간 제공을 통한 발주자, 화주자 간의 긴밀한 커뮤니케이션 형성과 해외시장을 겨냥한 글로벌 물류체계를 구축해야 한다. 다음으로 물류업종의 지나친 세분화, 기존 물류업체의 영세성과 혁신마인드의 부족, 그에 따른 제조 유통업체의 경쟁적 자가물류 확충의 악순환으로 제3자 물류시장 성장기반이 제한되어 오는 등 구조적인 문제점을 극복하기 위하여 주요 운송업체가 영세한 화주나 창고관리 위탁업무까지 대행하여 주는 지금까지의 제3자 물류 체제에서 대기업이 물류시장에 새롭게 진출하면서 사이버 물류시스템을 기반으로 기존 주요 운송업계와 VAN 사업자가 장악하고 있는 물류정보 서비스를 주도하는 제4자 물류체제로의 전환이 요구된다. 왜냐하면, SCM과 전자상거래 환경 하에서는 공급 망 내의 물류를 최적화하여 기업의 경쟁력을 강화하기 위해서 기능적 아웃소싱의 단계를 거쳐 물류기능의 통합과 운영의 자율권이 증대, 전체적인 공급연쇄 솔루션을 제공하는 서비스 제공자와 함께 기업의 경영자원, 능력, 기술을 관리하고 결합하는 공급연쇄 통합자로서 제4자 물류가 필요하기 때문이다. 이와 같은 제4자 물류체제가 본격 형성될 경우 물류정보와 인프라가 복잡하게 업혀있는 기존 물류산업이 재편되고, 특화된 물류솔루션을 바탕으로 한 산업별 물류체제 구축이 가속화될 것으로 예견되며, 일반기업 입장에서 물류부문의 아웃소싱이 촉진되어 물류산업기반이 확충될 수 있을 것이다.