• Journal of the Korean Society for Aviation and Aeronautics
• /
• v.17 no.4
• /
• pp.94-106
• /
• 2009

오늘날 항공기사고는 우리나라뿐만 아니라 세계도처에서 때때로 발생되고 있다. 특히 항공기에 대한 갑작스러운 테로 공격 또는 일반 항공사고에 기인된 항공기의 추락 및 물건의 낙하로 인하여 지상에 있는 제3자에게 손해를 입히는 경우가 간혹 발생되고 있다. 이와 같은 항공사건에 있어 가해자(항공기 운항자)는 피해자(지상 제3자 등)에 대하여 불법행위책임을 부담하게 되는데 이러한 사건들을 해결하기 위하여 1952년의 개정로마조약과 1978년의 몬트리올의정서 등이 있음으로 본 논문에서는 이들 조약의 성립경위 및 주요내용과 개정이유 등을 간략하게 설명하였다. 특히 2001년 9월 11일에 뉴욕에서 발생된 이른바 항공기 납치에 의한 동시다발 테러 사건의 피해는 4대의 항공기에 탑승한 승객 및 승무원 266명이 전원 사망하였고 워싱턴에 있는 미국 방성청사에서의 사망 및 실종이 125명, 세계무역센터에서의 사망 및 실종이 약5,000여명에 달하는 막대한 피해가 발생되었다. 9/11참사사건은 지상에 있는 제3자의 인적 및 물적 손해가 거액에 달하였음으로 이에 따라 영국의 로이드보험 등 세계보험업계가 크게 손실을 입게 되어 항공보험을 기피하는 현상이 생겨나 법적인 문제점이 제기되었다. 국제민간항공기구(ICAO)에서는 9/11사태 이후 이와 같은 테로 사건의 법적대응책과 자구책을 마련하기 위하여 약 8년간의 심의 끝에 항공기에 대한 테로 공격(불법방해 행위)과 1952년 개정로마조약의 현대화(일반위험) 등 새로운 2개 조약을 2009년 5월 2일에 성립시켜 공표하였다. 상기 새로운 2개의 조약 중 첫째 조약은 항공기의 불법방해 행위에 기인된 제3자에 대한 손해 배상에 관한 조약(Convention on Compensation for Damage to Third Parties, Resulting from Acts of Unlawful Interference Involving Aircraft: 일명 불법방해조약이라고 호칭함: Unlawful Interference Convention)이고 둘째 조약은 항공기에 기인된 제3자에 대한 손해배상에 관한조약 (Convention on Compensation for Damage Caused by Aircraft to Third Parties: 일명 일반위험 조약이라고 호칭함: General Risk Convention) 이다. 본 논문에서는 이 새로운 2개 조약에 대한 ICAO가 주관한 성립경위와 주요 내용 및 필자의 논평을 제시하였고 이들 조약에 대하여 한국의 조속한 비준을 촉구하는 바이다.

• 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.

• 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.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.19 no.2
• /
• pp.9-53
• /
• 2004

This paper described the contents of theme entitled "Domestic Legislative Problems on the Civil Liability of Air Carrier in Korea" including the current example of fourteen countries' legislation ((1) Great Britain, (2) United States of America, (3) Canada, (4)European Union), (5) Germany, (6) France, (7) Italy, (8) Spain, (9) Swiss, (10) Australia, (11) Japan, (12) People's Republic of China, (13) Taiwan, (14) North Korea) relating to the aviation law or air transport law. Though the Korean and Japanese aviation act has provided only the public items such as (1) registration of aircraft, (2) persons engaged in aviation, (3) operation of aircraft, (4) aviation facilities including airport, (5) air transport business, (6) investigate of aircraft accidents etc., but they could not regulated the private items such as the legal relations of the air transport contract (1) air passenger ticket, (2) air luggage ticket, (3) airway bill, (4) liability of air carrier, (5) amount of compensation for damage caused by aircraft accidents, (6)jurisdiction, (7) arbitration, (8) limitation of action, (9) combined carriage, (10) carriage by air performed by an actual carrier other than contracting carrier, damage caused by aircraft to the third parties etc. in their aviation act until now. In order to solve speedily the legal problems on the limitation of air carrier's liability and long law suit and disputes between wrongdoers and survivors etc, it is necessary and desirable for us to enact a new "Draft for the Air Transport Act" including the abovementioned private items. I would like to propose personally and strongly the legislation of "Draft for the Air Transport Act" in Korea in emphasizing the importance of ensuring protection of the interests of consumers air passengers and shippers in carriage by air and the need for equitable compensation between air carriers and survivors caused by the aircraft accidents such as the German Air Transport Act (Luftverkerhrsgesetz).

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.33 no.1
• /
• pp.3-43
• /
• 2018

Auf die ganze Welt macht unbemannte $Flugger{\ddot{a}}te$(sog.Drohnen) in vielen Bereichen rasch Fortschritte und Anwendungen gezeigt. Nachdem ferngesteuerte Drohnen $urspr{\ddot{u}}nglich$ $prim{\ddot{a}}r$ $f{\ddot{u}}r$ $milit{\ddot{a}}rische$ Zwecke entwickelt wurden, $erh{\ddot{o}}cht$ sich derzeit ihre zivile Nutzung sowohl im Freizeit- als auch im Dienstleistungsbereich(Paketdrohnen, Drohnen-taxi) stetig. Mit der vermehrten Drohnennutzung steigen allerdings auch die damit verbundenen Risiken und Herausforderungen. In Zusammenhang damit stellt sich dann die Frage, ob $gegenw{\ddot{a}}rtige$ Vorschriften im Bereich von Luftrecht zurecht gekommen sind. Es sieht sich gerade der zwei Schwerpunkt $gegen{\ddot{u}}ber$. Erstens kann $Passagierebef{\ddot{o}}rderung$ mit unbemanntem Luftfahrzeug(mehr als 150kg) im $gegenw{\ddot{a}}ritigen$ Luftrecht keine Anwendung finden. Denn das kor. Luftsicherheitsgesetz und sein Durchsetzungsverordnung definieren die Terminologie von unbemannten Luftfahrzeugen und unbemannten $Flugger{\ddot{a}}te$ als "wenn eine Person nicht an Bord geht und ferngesteuert wird". Also soll Drohne nach dieser gesetzlichen Definition nur "ohne Person" geflogen werden. Das besagt ohne Piloten und ohne Passagiere. Zweitens ist unbemannte $Flugger{\ddot{a}}te$(weniger als 150kg) nicht auf Handelsgesetz anzuwenden, auf das ${\ddot{u}}ber$ Anspruchsgrundlage und Zurechnungsnorm des gewerblichen Luftverkehr geregelt ist. Der unbemannte Luftfahrzeuglieferdienst bringt nicht nur die Gefahr einer $Besch{\ddot{a}}digung$ des Frachtguts mit sich, sondern auch die Gefahr von $Bodensch{\ddot{a}}den$ durch Dritte. Gemäß ${\S}$ 896 des Handelsgesetzes ist aber die Anwendung von unbemannte $Flugger{\ddot{a}}te$(weniger als 150kg) $hierf{\ddot{u}}r$ begrenzt, weil unbemannt $Flugger{\ddot{a}}te$ $einschl{\ddot{a}}gig$ in Ultralight $Flugger{\ddot{a}}t$ ist, die im Handelsgesetz ausschließlich besteht. Technische Fortschritt und die dadurch $erm{\ddot{o}}glichten$ kommerziellen Anwendungen werden die Nachfrage nach unbemannter $Flugger{\ddot{a}}te$ wecken. Die Umsetzung der $bez{\ddot{u}}glichen$ Vorschriften sollte auch diese Entwicklung aktiv begleitet und $fr{\ddot{u}}hzeitig$ kommuniziert und erarbeitet werden, damit Hersteller und Nutzer $fr{\ddot{u}}hzeitig$ Planungssicherheit haben.