• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.30 no.1
• /
• pp.3-29
• /
• 2015

In case of C-410/11, Pedro Espada $S\acute{a}nchez$ and Others v Iberia $L\acute{i}neas$ $A\acute{e}reas$ de $Espa\tilde{n}a$ SA., ECLI:EU:C:2012:747, the passengers of a flight between Barcelona and Paris, whose baggage had been lost, lodged a claim before a Spanish court, asking for compensation. More specifically, the claimants were a family of four (two adults and two children), and had stored all their personal items in two suitcases, which had been checked in and tagged but never returned to the passengers in question. The four claimants relied on the Montreal Convention, ratified by the EU, which provides that each passenger can claim up to 1,000 SDRs in compensation (i.e. ${\euro}1,100$) in case his or her baggage is lost; thus, they sought to recover ${\euro}4,400$ (4,000 SDRs, i.e. 1,000 SDRs x4). The preliminary reference issue raised by the Spanish court to the CJEU regarded the $Montr\acute{e}al$ Convention's correct interpretation; in particular, it asked whether compensation should be available only to passengers whose lost baggage had been checked in "in their own name" or whether it is also available to passengers whose personal items had been stored in the (lost) baggage of a different passenger. The CJEU held that compensation had to be granted to all passengers whose items had been lost, regardless of whether these had been stored in baggage checked in "in their own name." In fact, it maintained that the real aim of the $Montr\acute{e}al$ convention is to provide passenger-consumers with protection for the loss of their personal belongings, so the circumstance of where these were being carried is not relevant. Nevertheless, the CJEU clarified that it is for national courts to assess the evidence regarding the actual loss of an item stored in another passenger's baggage, and maintained that the fact that a group of people were travelling together as a family is a factor that may be taken into account.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.31 no.1
• /
• pp.99-144
• /
• 2016

The summary of the case is as follows: a Korean passenger booked and purchased a business class ticket from Air France that was scheduled to depart from Paris and arrive in Seoul. When the passenger arrived at the check-in counter, he was told that all business class seats were occupied. It was because the flight was overbooked by Air France. The passenger cancelled the Air France flight and took another air carrier. After arriving in Korea, he brought suit against Air France for damages. The purpose of this article is to discuss the governing law when interpreting the contract of international air carriage in accordance with the Korean Private International Act (2001) and to analyze air carrier's civil liability for the bumped passenger in the overbooking case. If the parties have not chosen the applicable law the contract shall be governed by the law of the habitual residence of the consumer in the following situations: prior to the conclusion of the contract, the opposite party of the consumer conducted solicitation of transactions and other occupational or business activities by an advertisement in that country or conducted solicitation of transactions and other occupational or business activities by an advertisement into that country from the areas outside that country and the consumer took all the steps necessary for the conclusion of the contract in that country or in case the opposite party of the consumer received an order of the consumer in that country [Article 27 (1), (2) of the Private International Act]. Since the contract of international carriage falls into the consumer contract, the Supreme Court viewed that the governing law of the contract in this case would be the law of the habitual residence of the consumer (Supreme Court Decision 2013Da8410 decided on Aug. 28, 2014). This interpretation differs from the article 5 (4) of Rome Convention(80/934/EEC) which declares that the consumer contract article shall not apply to neither a contract of carriage nor a contract for the supply of services where the services are to be supplied to the consumer exclusively in a country other than that in which he has his habitual residence. Even though overbooking can be considered as a common industry practice, an air carrier must burden civil liability in case of breach of contract for the involuntary bumped passenger(Seoul Central District Court Decision 2014Na48391 decided on Jan. 29, 2015). In case of involuntary bumping, an air carrier must offer re-routing to passenger's final destination by an alternative flight. If an air carrier fails to effect performance in accordance with the tenor and purport of the obligation, the involuntary bumped passenger may claim damages(Article 390 of the Civil Code).

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.32 no.1
• /
• pp.225-285
• /
• 2017

In regard to the regulations related to the RPA(Remotely Piloted Aircraft), which is sometimes called in other countries as UA(Unmanned Aircraft), ICAO stipulates the regulations in the 'RPAS manual (2015)' in detail based on the 'Chicago Convention' in 1944, and enacts provisions for the Rules of UAS or RPAS. Other contries stipulates them such as the Federal Airline Rules (14 CFR), Public Law (112-95) in the United States, the Air Transport Act, Air Transport Order, Air Transport Authorization Order (through revision in "Regulations to operating Rules on unmanned aerial System") based on EASA Regulation (EC) No.216/2008 in the case of unmanned aircaft under 150kg in Germany, and Civil Aviation Act (CAA 1998), Civil Aviation Act 101 (CASR Part 101) in Australia. Commonly, these laws exclude the model aircraft for leisure purpose and require pilots on the ground, not onboard aricraft, capable of controlling RPA. The laws also require that all managements necessary to operate RPA and pilots safely and efficiently under the structure of the unmanned aircraft system within the scope of the regulations. Each country classifies the RPA as an aircraft less than 25kg. Australia and Germany further break down the RPA at a lower weight. ICAO stipulates all general aviation operations, including commercial operation, in accordance with Annex 6 of the Chicago Convention, and it also applies to RPAs operations. However, passenger transportation using RPAs is excluded. If the operational scope of the RPAs includes the airspace of another country, the special permission of the relevant country shall be required 7 days before the flight date with detail flight plan submitted. In accordance with Federal Aviation Regulation 107 in the United States, a small non-leisure RPA may be operated within line-of-sight of a responsible navigator or observer during the day in the speed range up to 161 km/hr (87 knots) and to the height up to 122 m (400 ft) from surface or water. RPA must yield flight path to other aircraft, and is prohibited to load dangerous materials or to operate more than two RPAs at the same time. In Germany, the regulations on UAS except for leisure and sports provide duty to avoidance of airborne collisions and other provisions related to ground safety and individual privacy. Although commercial UAS of 5 kg or less can be freely operated without approval by relaxing the existing regulatory requirements, all the UAS regardless of the weight must be operated below an altitude of 100 meters with continuous monitoring and pilot control. Australia was the first country to regulate unmanned aircraft in 2001, and its regulations have impacts on the unmanned aircraft laws of ICAO, FAA, and EASA. In order to improve the utiliity of unmanned aircraft which is considered to be low risk, the regulation conditions were relaxed through the revision in 2016 by adding the concept "Excluded RPA". In the case of excluded RPA, it can be operated without special permission even for commercial purpose. Furthermore, disscussions on a new standard manual is being conducted for further flexibility of the current regulations.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.30 no.2
• /
• pp.249-277
• /
• 2015

Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 ("Regulation") is a common rule on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights. In some recent cases of European nations, passengers sued the air carrier in order to obtain monetary compensation under Article 7(1) of the Regulation. Some courts dismissed the actions on the grounds that, unlike denied boarding or cancellation of the flight, the Regulation provides no compensation in relation to delayed flights. However, Court of Justice of the European Union(CJEU) ruled that Regulation 261/2004 must be interpreted to mean that passengers whose flights are delayed have a right to compensation in cases when the loss of time is equivalent to, or is in excess of three hours - where the passengers eventually reached their final destination three hours or more later than the originally scheduled arrival time. It is true that a strict interpretation of the regulation would suggest that passengers whose flight has merely been delayed are not entitled to compensation. They should only be offered assistance in accordance with the Articles 6 and 9. Nevertheless, the Court recognized the same right to the same compensation for passengers of flights delayed by more than three hours as that explicitly provided for passengers of cancelled flights. On the one hand, the Court bases this ruling on the recitals of the Regulation, in which the legislature links the question of compensation to that of a long delay, while indicating that the Regulations seek to ensure a high level of protection for passengers regardless of whether they are denied boarding or their flight is cancelled or delayed. On the other hand, the Court interprets the relevant provisions of the Regulation in light of the general principle of equal treatment. Furthermore, the Court delivered a ruling that the loss of time inherent in a flight delay, which constitutes an inconvenience within the intention of Regulation No 261/2004 and which cannot be categorized as 'damage occasioned by delay' within the meaning of Article 19 of the Montreal Convention, cannot come within the scope of Article 29 of that convention. Consequently, under this view, the obligation under Regulation No 261/2004 intended to compensate passengers whose flights are subject to a long delay is in line with Article 29 of the Montreal Convention. Although the above interpretation of the Court can be a analogical interpretation, the progressive attitude of the Regulation and the view of Court forward to protect passengers' interest is a leading role in the area of international air passenger transportation. Hopefully, after the model of the positive support in Europe, Korea can establish a concrete rule for protecting passengers' right and interest.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.20 no.1
• /
• pp.211-253
• /
• 2005

Recently, the Korean Supreme Court released two important decisions concerning damages for the pain and suffering from Aircraft noise. The local people who are living near the Air Force practice site at Maehyang-ri and the Kimpo International Airport brought lawsuits against the Korean government requesting damages for their financial loss from the severe noise and the damages for their pain and suffering. Plaintiffs alleged that they suffered physical malfunctions, extreme disturbances and the reduction of property values from the extreme noises which were daily repeated. District Court of Seoul Province did not allow plaintiffs all but the damages for pain and suffering. Plaintiffs could not prove the causation between their financial loss and the noise. The Supreme Court confirmed the lower court's decision. Article V of the National Compensation Act (analogous to the Federal Tort Claims Act of the USA) reads, "the government shall be liable for any loss caused by the defect on establishment or maintenance of public facilities." In the two cases, the major issue was whether the government's establishment or maintenance of Air Force practice site and the airport was defective because they caused serious noise to surrounding neighbors. Previously, the Supreme Court interpreted the clause "defect on establishment or maintenance of public facilities" as failure of duty to provide safety measures to the degree generally required to ordinary manager. However the Court at this time interpreted differently that the defect could be found if the facility caused to any person loss to the degree intolerable. In the two cases the Court confirmed the lower court's finding that noise level at the site was severe enough to be intolerable. This standard is based on the severity of the loss rather than the failure of duty. It became easier for plaintiffs to prove the cause of action under this interpretation. The consequence of the ruling of these two cases is 'rush to the courtroom' by the local people at similar situations. The ruling of these two cases was not appropriate both in theory and in consequence. The Korean tort system is basically based on the theory of negligence. Strict liability is exceptional only when there is special legislation. The Court created strict liability rule by interpreting the Art. V of the National Compensation Act. This is against the proper role of the court. The result of the cases is also dismal. The government was already sued by a number of local people for damages. Especially the Department of Defense which is operating many airports nationwide has financial hardship, which will cause downsizing military practice by the Air Force in the long run, This is no good to anyone. Tens of millions of dollars which might be used for compensation might be better used to prevent further noise problem surrounding airports.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.31 no.1
• /
• pp.145-167
• /
• 2016

UN Security Council is entitled to power for determining the existence of the threat to the peace. Specifying the provisions adopted in accordance with the chapter 7 of the UN Charter, its resolution is deemed as document confirming its decision about the threat to the peace. In general, resolutions adopted by the Security Council acting under Chapter VII of the Charter, are considered binding, in accordance with Article 25 of the Charter. Regarding to the terms of the Resolutions to be interpreted, the word "decide" is used as to the suspension of the ballistic missile program, the word "demand" is used as to the stopping of the the launch of ballistic missile, and the word "demand" is used as to return to the missile test moratorium. These provisions may be deemed to determining specific obligations to be imposed upon the States in accordance with the 1967 Outer Space Treaty. On the other hand, the Resolutions may be limited to the decision, not leading to a sort of international legislation, the main purpose of which is to provide a legal basis for international sanctions against Northe Korea. North Korea missile test case has reminded us of continuing discussion about whether the decision of the Security Council lacks the legislative authority due to its decision process. Furthermore, having regard to the outer space and space activities, the outer space law regime would be not compatible with the Security Council decision process in that the former presupposes the agreement among all States parties, while the latter based upon the agreement between Council member States. Therefore, it is premature to consider the Security Council decision as becoming the lex specialis of the space law regime.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.32 no.1
• /
• pp.177-200
• /
• 2017

This writer have thus far reviewed the civil and criminal obligations of the directors of a parent company that sponsored financially troubled affiliates. What was discussed here applies to logistics companies in the same manner. Hanjin Shipping cannot expect its parent company, Korean Air to prop it up financially. If such financial aid is offered without any collateral, under Korean criminal law, the directors of the parent company bears the burden of civil and criminal responsibility. One way to get around this is to secure fairness in terms of the process and the content of aid. Fairness in terms of process refers to the board of directors making public all information and approving such aid. Fairness in terms of content refers to impartial transactions that block out any possibilities of the chairman of the corporate group acting in his private interest. In the case of Korean Air bailing out Hanjin, the meeting of board of directors were held five times and a thorough review was conducted on the risks involved in the loans being repaid or not. After the review, measures to guard against undesirable scenarios were established before finally deciding on bailing out Hanjin. As such, there are no issues. In terms of the fairness of content, too, there were practically no room for the majority shareholder or controlling shareholder to pocket profits at the expense of the company. This is because the continued aid offered to a financially troubled company (i.e. Hanjin Shipping) was a posing a burden to even the controlling shareholder. This writer argues that the concept of the interest of the entire corporate group needs to be recognized. That is, it must be recognized that the relationship of control and being controlled between parent company and affiliate company, or between affiliate companies serves a practical benefit to the ongoing concern and growth of the group and is therefore just. Moreover, the corporate group and its affiliates, as well as their directors and management must recognize that they have an obligation to prioritize the interests of the corporate group ahead of the interests of the company that they are directly associated with. As such, even if Korean Air offered a loan to Hanjin Shipping without collateral, the act cannot be treated as an offense to law, nor can the directors be accused of damages that they bear the responsibility of compensating under civil law.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.29 no.2
• /
• pp.87-108
• /
• 2014

Recent examples of abuse by black consumers (including air travellers) against emotional laborers have become a serious social issue in Korea in that they are likely to violate human rights of those laborers. Emotional labor is a form of emotion regulation that creates a publicly visible facial and bodily display, and also emotional management within the workforce that creates a situation in which the emotion management by workers can be exchanged in the marketplace. Example professions that require emotional labor are: nurses, doctors, waiting staff, and television actors. However, as the economy moves from a manufacturing to a service-based economy, many more workers in a variety of occupational fields are expected to manage their emotions according to employer demands when compared to the past. One of symptoms deriving from emotional labor is smile mask syndrome abbreviated SMS, which is a psychological disorder proposed by professor Makoto Natsume where subjects develop depression and physical illness as a result of prolonged, unnatural smiling. And higher degree of using emotion regulation on the job is related to higher levels of employees' emotional exhaustion, and lower levels of employees' job satisfaction. In most part, emotional laborers are more abused and hurt by so called black consumers who are raising complaints relating to products and services purchased against service providers for the purpose of maliciously getting compensation. Against this background, the Korean Government abolished "the Consumer Protection Act" and instead promulgated "the Basic Consumer Act" in September 2006 which stipulates that consumers are expected to have protection as well as responsibility and duty. The Aviation Security Act cites the examples of prohibited behaviors (unruly passengers) while they are travelling. In addition, human rights of emotional laborers could be more protected by the enhancement of etiquettes and cavalry and improvement of culture and working environment.

• Journal of the Korea Academia-Industrial cooperation Society
• /
• v.20 no.3
• /
• pp.576-586
• /
• 2019

Airlines need to reduce their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions because of the Paris Climate Agreement and ICAO CORSIA. This examined the degree of the strategic responses to which the airlines have made and the problems in the emission trading system (ETS). According to the analysis, the total amount of emission all the airlines made in the last three years was 116% more than the emission allowance imposed by the central government resulting in 10.7 billion KRW additional emission expense. Airlines would also face an increased carbon cost due to the implementation of ICAO CORSIA by purchasing an additional paid-in emission allowance in international routes. Although it is effective to retire the old aircraft early and induce the brand-new fuel-efficient aircraft to reduce GHG emissions, it is impractical in the short-term due to the tremendous amount of investment. To reduce the emission, airlines are washing engines, using ultra-light ULD and carts in the cabin, increasing the use of flaps and preventing the use of APU. On the other hand, these are very limited measures for reducing emissions according to the ICAO's mandatory emission target.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.33 no.1
• /
• pp.45-79
• /
• 2018

An increase of airplanes and military aircraft operation lead to significant demanding of residential claims by people who live in nearby airports and military bases due to noise, vibration and residential damages caused by aircraft operations. In recent years, a plaintiff has filed a lawsuit against the defendant, claiming the prohibition of using claimant's possessed land as a helicopter landing route, and the Daejeon High Court was in favour of the plaintiff. Although the Supreme Court later dismissed the Appeal Court decision, it is necessary to discuss the case of setting flight prohibited zone. In Japan, the airport noise lawsuits have been filed for a long time, mainly by environmental groups. Unlike the case that admitted residential damages caused by noise, the Yokohama District Court for the first time sentenced a judgment of the prohibition of the flight. This ruling was partially changed in the appellate court and some of the plaintiffs' claims were adopted. However, the Supreme Court of Japan finally rejected such decision from appeal and district courts. Atsugi Base is an army camp jointly used by the United States and Japan, and residents, live nearby, claim that they are suffering from mental damage such as physical abnormal, insomnia, and life disturbance because of the noise from airplane taking off and landing in the base. An administrative lawsuit was therefore preceded in the Yokohama District Court. The plaintiff requested the Japan Self-Defense Forces(hereinafter 'JSDF') and US military aircraft to be prohibited operating. The court firstly held the limitation of the flight operation from 10pm to 6am, except unavoidable circumstance. The case was appealed. The Supreme Court of Japan dismissed the original judgment on the flight claim of the JSDF aircraft, canceled the first judgment, and rejected the claims of the plaintiffs. The Supreme Court ruled that the exercise of the authority of the Minister of Defense is reasonable since the JSDF aircraft is operating public flight high zone. The court agreed that noise pollution is such an issue for the residents but there are countermeasures which can be taken by concerned parties. In Korea, the residents can sue against the United States or the Republic of Korea or the Ministry of National Defense for the prohibition of the aircraft operation. However, if they claim against US government regarding to the US military flight operation, the Korean court must issue a dismissal order as its jurisdiction exemption. According to the current case law, the Korean courts do not allow a claimant to appeal for the performance of obligation or an anonymous appeal against the Minister of National Defense for prohibiting flight of military aircraft. However, if the Administrative Appeals Act is amended and obligatory performance litigation is introduced, the claim to the Minister of National Defense can be permitted. In order to judge administrative case of the military aircraft operation, trade-off between interests of the residents and difficulties of the third parties should be measured in the court, if the Act is changed and such claims are granted. In this connection, the Minister of National Defense ought to prove and illuminate the profit from the military aircraft operation and it should be significantly greater than the benefits which neighboring residents will get from the prohibiting flight of military aircraft.