• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.30 no.2
• /
• pp.177-199
• /
• 2015

Commerce enriches human life enriched and within commerce, transportation of cargo is arguably the most important in business transactions. Traditionally, marine transport has been major commercial transaction, but carriage cargo by air is on the increase. While the fare for freight in comparison with that of ocean is higher, air freight has many benefits that justify the higher shipping fee; lower insurance premium, packing charges, inventory control, cost management and especially speed. Therefore, air freight transport is accumulating gradually. An air waybill(AWB) is needed in the air transport flow. It is a nonnegotiable security, so the holder cannot transfer of a right to a third party. Some scholars suggest that a negotiable AWB is needed. However, it seems nearly impossible to do so; an e-AWB use shows a gain in numbers, even if it has not met expectations. Going forward, it would appear reasonable to conduct a follow-up study on the utility and legal problem for e-AWB. After sending goods, the consignor has the right of disposition of cargo in some cases, and more research is necessary, because it is related to change of ownership and a trade settlement. According to WATS (World Airlines Transport Statistics), the Korean Air took third place in international freight in 2014, and fifth in total, domestic and international to great acclaim. However, there is a lack of research supporting the business showing. It is hope that more studies on e-AWB, stoppage in transit, and a risk of outstanding amount, etc. connect to develop Korean air freight industry.

• Journal of Korea Fair Competition Federation
• /
• no.134
• /
• pp.16-27
• /
• 2007

부당공동행위 관련제도의 전반적인 변화과정에서 논란의 소지가 있는 과징금 및 손해배상제도에 대한 경제적.법리적 분석을 통하여 부당공동행위에 대한 실질적이고 합리적인 규제의 틀을 모색할 필요가 있다. 나아가 과징금부과처분에 대한 관련 취소청구소송사례들에서 나타난 재량권 남용과 일탈을 줄이기 위한 적절한 방안도 모색되어야 한다.

• Proceedings of the Korean Institute of Navigation and Port Research Conference
• /
• 2013.06a
• /
• pp.288-290
• /
• 2013

해양안전심판제도는 해양사고의 원인을 밝혀 해양안전에 이바지함을 목적으로 하고 있음에도, 실질적으로 원인조사보다는 징계를 주목적으로 하는 것처럼 보일 수 있다. 해양사고가 발생하였을 경우, 지방해양안전심판원은 원인재결 및 징계재결을 하는데, 해기사나 도선사에게 징계재결을 하면 이는 침익적인 행정처분에 해당된다. 이러한 행정처분에 다툼이 있을 경우 중앙해양안전심판원에 구제를 요청하면 행정심판이 된다. 행정심판의 재결에 대하여 다시 대법원에서 다투는 것이 행정소송이 된다. 일반적으로, 행정심판의 재결은 3심제의 재판을 받을 수 있으나, 해양안전심판제도에서 중앙해양안전심판원의 재결에 대한 행정소송은 대법원 전속관할 단심제로 운영되고 있어 헌법의 기본권 중의 하나인 재판청구권에 대한 위헌 논란이 계속되고 있으므로, 이 논문에서는 해양안전심판제도의 본래의 목적인 해양사고 원인규명을 통한 해상안전의 확보 및 징계재결로 인한 침해된 국민의 권리를 구제하기 위한 개선방안을 제안하고자 한다.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.24 no.2
• /
• pp.79-117
• /
• 2023

Among the healthcare-related judgments handed down in 2002, there was a significant ruling on the timing of the duty of explanation, stating that, in order to ensure the exercise of the patient's right to self-determination, the patient must be given time to consider and decide on the risks and side effects of a medical procedure in specific circumstances. In addition, in a case where an insurance company claimed unjust enrichment against a medical institution on behalf of its insureds, the court provided a clear standard by distinguishing between active and passive requirements regarding the need to preserve the right of subrogation of creditors. In the area of medical administration, there was a ruling that clarified that a medical institution's business suspension under the National Health Insurance Act is directed against the medical institution, a ruling that broadly recognized causation in a case of compensation for side effects of corona vaccination, and a ruling on the scope of a medical practitioner's license, such as the use of ultrasound devices by an oriental medicine practitioner. In a case involving a patient's claim for eviction from a medical institution, the court reviewed a ruling on just cause for termination of a hospitalization contract in relation to Article 15(1) of the Medical law.

• 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).

• Korean Security Journal
• /
• no.14
• /
• pp.485-516
• /
• 2007

Jeju Special Self-Government Province adopted an autonomous police system for the first time since 60 years in Korean police. The purpose of autonomous police system is to offer a police service to be suitable in regional conditions. But Jeju autonomous police system for nearly one year after adoption is criticized to be established on the ground of political reason but not local decentralization. Actually Jeju autonomous police has not a clear cut jurisdiction and operation scope because of the jurisdiction duplication between national and autonomous police. The original task is confined on environment and sightseeing so on given to administration police for local self-government. So criminal investigation authority on general crimes is not to Jeuju autonomous police on account of special judicial police. First, it is the structural rationalization of Jeju autonomous police system. It speaks that Jeju provincial police bureau and police station have to be as national police institution, on the other hand, patrol district station and police box have to be as autonomous police institution. Of course, functional division has to be followed. National police performs managing all the assembly and demonstration by the management law on assembly and demonstration including the suppression against any large scale demonstration and disturbance, also the investigation on serious crimes just as international crimes and broaden area crimes including all the felony. Together national police performs the duty concerned to all the foreign affairs and national securities in along with the investigation on traffic accidents. On the other hand, autonomous police performs the function for citizen's life safety as crime prevention and the enforcement on the violation against police operation law, together the traffic management and the regulation on traffic violations. and the investigation on minor crime as simple violence or petty larceny including the management on local big events. Second, the budgetary of autonomous police is rationalized by the share of budgeting between Korean government and Jeju special self-government province. Third, urgent arrest authority on general crime and the rights of claims for the summary trial on minor crimes are given to autonomous police. Of course, this problem is resolved naturally in case of giving the investigation rights to autonomous police on minor crimes.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.30 no.2
• /
• pp.83-153
• /
• 2015

As our economy grows and the number of aircraft increase, the number of civil execution against aircraft cases are likely to increase as well in the future. The purpose of this article is to present the legal theory on the civil execution against aircrafts by drawing on the legal theory on the civil execution against vessels which constitute a relatively large number of cases thus observed. The provisions of the civil execution against immovables or vessel, shall basically apply mutatis mutandis to the civil execution against aircraft or light aircraft. The civil execution against ultra-light flying devices or a foreign aircraft shall be executed in conformity with the civil execution against movables. There are a compulsory auction, an auction to execute a security right to aircraft, and an auction under the right of retention, etc. in the civil execution against an aircraft. A compulsory execution against an aircraft means an execution carried out by a creditor against a debtor's aircraft to obtain satisfaction of claims for the purpose of payment of money. The court of execution of a compulsory execution against an aircraft shall be the district court having jurisdiction over the airport of stoppage or storage of such aircraft at the time of seizure. The forums of execution of a compulsory execution against an aircraft shall be exclusive forums. When a court has rendered an order on commencing an auction, it shall order an execution officer to receive a certificate of the aircraft's registration and other documents as required for its operation, and to submit them to the court. A court may revoke the procedures for a compulsory auction when an execution officer fails to obtain a transfer of the aircraft's registration certificate, etc. and the location of the aircraft is not evident, not later than an elapse of 2 months from the date on which an order on commencing an auction has been rendered. In the case where it is deemed that there exists a business-related need or other based on proper reasoning, the court may permit the aircraft's operation, upon the motion submitted by the debtor. In this case, there shall be a consent from the creditor, the highest bidder, the next highest bidder and successful bidder. A court may, upon a motion submitted by the creditor, make the dispositions required for observing and preserving the aircraft. When a debtor has submitted the documents under subparagraph 2 or 4 of the Article 49 of the Civil Execution Act, and furnished the guarantee equivalent to the claims of the execution creditors and the creditors demanding a distribution and to the costs for execution, before a declaration of bid, the court shall, upon request, revoke other procedures than those for distribution. The provisions of a obligatory auction against vessel or aircraft and an auction to execute a security right to real estate or vessel, shall apply mutatis mutandis to an auction to execute the security right to aircraft. In an auction to execute the security right to aircraft case, an executive title is not necessary. An executory exemplification is not necessary in an application for an auction to execute the security right to aircraft. A court should examine the existence of security right and claim secured. No order on commencing an auction procedure shall be issued with non-existence or invalidity of the security right and absence or extinguishment of the claim secured. Furthermore, these prohibitions are the reason of a decision on non-permit for sale, the court overlooked these prohibitions, and the decision on a permit for sale became final and conclusive, the successful bidder who paid the price and registered of ownership could not acquire ownership of the aircraft sold. A court may render a ruling to put plural aircrafts up for a blanket auction, only when they are in restraint and related matter (Supreme Court Order 2001Ma3688 dated on August 22, 2001). A righter of retention on aircraft may file a request for an auction against the aircraft. The provisions of an auction to execute a security right to aircraft shall apply mutatis mutandis to the formal auction. Airport facility fee and an aircraft are not in restraint and related matter, so an airport management corporation does not hold the right of retention on the aircraft (Supreme Court Decision 2011Da29291 decided on April 10, 2014). In an auction in accordance with the right of retention, all encumbrances (e.g., mortgages) on the sold aircraft shall be extinguished by a sale under the legal conditions for sale. Not only creditors who have claims for preferential payment but also general creditors could demand for distribution. The precedence of the claim of the right of retention on aircraft and that of general creditor's claims are equal.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.23 no.2
• /
• pp.67-92
• /
• 2008

The purpose of this paper is to research the requirements and effect of the document of carriage in respect of the carriage of cargo by air under the Montreal Convention of 1999, IATA Conditions of Carriage for Cargo, and the judicial precedents of Korea and foreign countries. Under the Article 4 of Montreal Convention, in respect of the carriage of cargo, an air waybill shall be delivered. If any other means which preserves a record of the carriage are used, the carrier shall, if so requested by the consignor, deliver to the consignor a cargo receipt. Under the Article 7 of Montreal convention, the air waybill shall be made out by the consignor. If, at the request of the consignor, the carrier makes it out, the carrier shall be deemed to have done so on behalf of the consignor. The air waybill shall be made out in three original parts. The first part shall be marked "for the carrier", and shall be signed by the consignor. The second part shall be marked "for the consignee", and shall be signed by the consignor and by the carrier. The third part shall be signed by the carrier who shall hand it to the consignor after the goods have been accepted. Under the Article 5 of Montreal Convention, the air waybill or the cargo receipt shall include (a) an indication of the places of departure and destination, (b) an indication of at least one agreed stopping place, (c) an indication of the weight of the consignment. Under the Article 10 of Montreal Convention, the consignor shall indemnify the carrier against all damages suffered by the carrier or any other person to whom the carrier is liable, by reason of the irregularity, incorrectness or incompleteness of the particulars and statement furnished by the consignor or on its behalf. Under the Article 9 of Montreal Convention, non-compliance with the Article 4 to 8 of Montreal Convention shall not affect the existence of the validity of the contract, which shall be subject to the rules of Montreal Convention including those relating to limitation of liability. The air waybill is not a document of title or negotiable instrument. Under the Article 11 of Montreal Convention, the air waybill or cargo receipt is prima facie evidence of the conclusion of the contract, of the acceptance of the cargo and of the conditions of carriage. Under the Article 12 of Montreal Convention, if the carrier carries out the instructions of the consignor for the disposition of the cargo without requiring the production of the part of the air waybill or the cargo receipt, the carrier will be liable, for any damage which may be accused thereby to any person who is lawfully in possession of that part of the air waybill or the cargo receipt. According to the precedent of Korea Supreme Court sentenced on 22 July 2004, the freight forwarder as carrier was not liable for the illegal delivery of cargo to the notify party (actual importer) on the air waybill by the operator of the bonded warehouse because the freighter did not designate the boned warehouse and did not hold the position of employer to the operator of the bonded warehouse. In conclusion, as the Korea Customs Authorities will drive the e-Freight project for the carriage of cargo by air, the carrier and freight forwarder should pay attention to the requirements and legal effect of the electronic documentation of the carriage of cargo by air.