• Proceedings of the Korean Institute of Navigation and Port Research Conference
• /
• 2019.05a
• /
• pp.220-221
• /
• 2019

향후 도입이 검토되고 현재 개발되고 있는 자율운항선박(MASS)에 대한 법적문제에 대한 검토가 필요하게 되어 국제해사기구(IMO) 법률위원회(LEG)에서 이러한 법적사항을 논의하게 되었다. 이에 법률위원회에서 진행되고 있는 자율운항선박의 책임 및 보상 문제 관련 논의사항 및 최근 동향에 대해서 분석하고 우리나라가 참여하고 있는 LEG 협약의 규정검토작업에 대한 동향도 살펴보고자 한다.

• Journal of Navigation and Port Research
• /
• v.34 no.3
• /
• pp.251-255
• /
• 2010

A marine accident is caused various legal liability such as compensation for damages on civil law, responsibility on the Criminal Code and administrative sanctions. The results occurred by any acts is not connected directly to the legal responsibility. As a prior condition for these legal liabilities, it is required the causation between the act caused and the occurrence of the effect. It is very difficult to find out the cause in marine accidents, because of trouble of a proof security, the place occurred, time difference between accident and investigation point of time etc.. However, finding out the correct cause is an element important to prevent similar accident and to determine the liability reverted. The logical concept of the causation is not limited, but there is early necessity to limit it in the liability reverted. Therefore, this study aims to suggest reasonable standard to determine liability reverted in marine accidents.

• 월간 기계설비
• /
• no.9 s.218
• /
• pp.40-42
• /
• 2008

공정거래위원회(위원장 백용호)는 지난 7월 25일 건설공제조합이 원수급자와 체결하는 하도급 대금지급보증계약상 보증책임의 범위를 지나치게 제한한 조항이 "약관의 규제에 관한 법률" (이하 "약관법"이라 함)에 위반된다고 판단하고 사업자에게 이를 60일 이내에 수정.삭제하도록 시정권고 조치하였다. 이에따라 건설공제조합의 불공정약관이 개선되면 앞으로 설비건설업체들이 하도급대금지급보증서를 받고서도 건설공제조합으로부터 보증금을 받지 못하는 폐단이 사라지게 될 것으로 보여진다.

• 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.

• 해운
• /
• no.8 s.19
• /
• pp.44-44
• /
• 2005

• Journal of Venture Innovation
• /
• v.4 no.3
• /
• pp.141-150
• /
• 2021

Although management decisions centered on the board of directors and directors must be made in order to effectively promote ESG management, the company's management is not obligated to make decisions considering ESG factors. A Korean corporation(company) is an established organization for commercial or other profit, and the purpose of treating a legal organization as a corporation is to easily handle the legal relationship of a group (corporate's property) and individual property of a group member, but legal person such as rights to "harm public rights" or "defend fraud". Criminal liability for illegal acts of a corporation, but the liability of a corporation (natural person) for illegal acts of a corporation is recognized within a limited range, but the criminal liability of a corporation (natural person) is limited. As the social responsibility of a corporation is great, limiting the responsibility of a corporation-related person (natural person) to civil responsibility will halve its effectiveness if considering the impact on the corporation's national economy. Objective requirements such as the completeness of control, hybridization of property, infringement of creditors' rights, and small-capitalization, and the subjective intention of abusing the company system to avoid legal application to controlling shareholders should be denied. Despite the increasing influence on corporate society, such as large-scale projects and astronomical business profits, corporate officials (natural persons) are forced to be held liable for negligence and intentional liability within a limited range. In such cases, it is necessary to introduce criminal responsibility separately from civil responsibility to legal persons (natural persons) in consideration of the maturity of capitalism in Korean society and the economic status of the world. In Korea, the requirements for recognition of corporate denial are strict, but the United States says that it is sufficient to have control or fraud. Therefore, it is not about civil responsibility, but about criminal responsibility of a legal person (natural person), so if fraud is recognized, it can strengthen the corporate social responsibility.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.31 no.1
• /
• pp.3-36
• /
• 2016

Recently, the Supreme Court of Korea delivered a milestone judgment about air related multimodal transport. At there, the mattered cargo, some expensive jewellery, was transported from Qingdao, China to downtown office of consignee at Seoul via Incheon airport in Korea. As an air waybill was issued in this case, there was an air transport agreement between consignor and air courier operator. After arriving at Incheon airport, the shipment was transport by land arranged by the air courier operator, who was a defendant in this case. Upon arriving at the final destination, it was found that the jewellery was lost partly and based on circumstantial evidence, the damage presumed to be occurred during the land transport. As a subrogee, the insurance company who paid for consignee filed an action against the air courier operator for damage compensation. Defendant contended that Montreal convention should be applicable in this case mainly for limited liability. The lower court of this case confirmed that applying the limited liability clause under Montreal Convention is improper under the reason that the damage in this case was or presumed to be occurred during surface transport. It was focused on the Montreal Convention article 18 which says that the period of the carriage by air does not extend to any carriage by land, by sea or by inland waterway performed outside an airport. However, the Supreme Court overturned the lower court's decision. The delivered opinion is that the terms of condition on the air waybill including limited liability clause should be prevailed in this case. It seems that the final judgment was considered the fact that the only contract made in this case was about air transport. This article is for analysis the above decisions from the perspective that it is distinguishable between a pure multimodal transport and an expanded air transport. The main idea of this article is that under the expanded air transport, any carriage by land, sea or inland waterway only for the performance of a contract for carriage by air, for the purpose of loading, delivery or transhipment is still within the scop of air transport.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.27 no.2
• /
• pp.3-27
• /
• 2012

The Warsaw Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to International Carriage by Air was adopted in 1929. In 1999, the ICAO adopted the Montreal Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air vastly modernizing the unification of private air law. The Montreal Convention replaced the instruments of the Warsaw system, and came into force on 4 November 2003. The Montreal Convention is not only an international convention. It has also exercised a considerable influence on national legislation. Korea has made the national legislation of the Part VI the Carriage by Air of Commercial Act on April 29, 2011, and it has brought into force on November 24, 2011. The national legislation of the Part VI the Carriage by Air of Commercial Act of Korea has the provisions on the liability for damage caused to passenger, the liability for damage caused to baggage, and the liability for damage caused to cargo. The main feature of the liability regime of the air carrier under the Montreal Convention is the two-tier liability system for death or injury of the passenger with strict liability up to 100,000 SDR and presumptive liability with a reversed burden of proof without any limit above that threshold. The national legislation of the Part VI the Carriage by Air of the Commercial Act of Korea has adopted the main principles of the liability of the air carrier under the Montreal Convention. In conclusion, the national legislation relating to the liability of the air carrier by the Korean government will contribute to settle efficiently the dispute on the carrier' liability in respect of the carriage of passengers, baggage and cargo by air, and to provide proper compensation to the passenger or consignor who has suffered damage, subject to the defenses and limitations it sets out.

• Journal of the Korea Institute of Information Security & Cryptology
• /
• v.20 no.6
• /
• pp.97-109
• /
• 2010

Although the primary liability for online copyright infringement may fall on the individual who illegally copies, transfers, and/or distributes the copyrighted content, the issue of indirect liability for Online Service Providers (OSPS) that provide a channel for the distribution of illegal content has recently come under the spotlight. Currently, in an effort to avoid liability for indirect copyright infringement and improve their reputation, most OSPs have voluntarily applied filtering technology. Under the Copyright Act of Korea, special types of OSPS including P2P and Web-based Hard Drive (WebHard) are required to incorporate filtering technology, and may be charged with penalties if found without one. However, despite the clear need for filtering mechanisms, several arguments have been set forth that question the efficacy and appropriateness of the system. As such, this paper discusses the liability theory adopted in the US. -a leader in internet technology development-and analyzes the scope of liability and filtering related regulations in our copyright law. In addition, this paper considers the current applications of filtering as well as limits of the applied filtering technology in OSPS today. Finally, we make four suggestions to improve filtering in Korea, addressing issues such as clarifying the limits and responsibilities of OSPS, searching for cooperative solutions between copyright holders and OSPS, standardizing the filtering technology to enable compatibility among different filtering techniques, and others.

• 복합운송
• /
• s.147
• /
• pp.16-17
• /
• 2005