• 항공우주정책ㆍ법학회지
• /
• 제22권2호
• /
• pp.53-83
• /
• 2007

The purpose of this paper is to study precedent cases of the Air carrier liability for passengers. The article 17 of Warsaw Convention (also in Montreal Convention article 17-1) provides the Air carrier liability for passengers which is the most essential part of the Air carrier liability. According to these Conventions, 1) the carrier is liable for damage sustained in case of death or bodily injury of a passenger. Precedents and theories have disagreements on whether the damage covers the mental injury as well. 2) The carrier is liable for damage sustained from aviation accident. The definition of 'aviation accident' is becoming problematic. 3) The carrier is liable for damage sustained in case of death or bodily injury of a passenger upon condition only that the accident which caused the death or injury took place on board the aircraft or in the course of any of the operations of embarking or disembarking. The question at issue is the range of the operations of embarking or disembarking. This paper introduces the precedents (also, the model precedents) about the carriers liability for passengers and related cases, so as to help understand the trend of judicial decisions. Furthermore, the cases, once took all of the attention of the international air carriers, concerned with the 'Economy class syndrome' (DVT : Deep Vein Thrombosis) are also presented. Under the new Montreal Convention, the carriers liability for passengers will continue to be the main issue. Thus it is required that academics as well as practical businesses may keep up their studies about this issue.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제40권
• /
• pp.97-144
• /
• 2008

The purpose of this paper is to review the text of national legislation relating to the carrier's liability in respect of the carriage of passengers, baggage and cargo by air in major states such as United Kingdom, Germany, France, Canada, Russia and China, and to compare the air carrier's liability under the national legislations of above states with them under the Warsaw System relating to the international carriage by air. Also this paper reviews the text of the draft legislation relating to the carrier's liability in respect of the carriage by air in Korea. The Warsaw Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to International Carriage 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. A the Convention, or certain of its principles, with the object of regulating their national air transport. 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 principles of the liability of the air carrier under the Montreal Convention have been adopted into national legislations by the United Kingdom, Germany, France, Canada, Russia and China. Now the Ministry of Justice of Korea is proceeding to make a new national legislation relating to the liability of the air carrier in respect of the carriage by air. The draft legislation of the Part VI the Carriage by Air of the Commercial Code 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 in Korea will contribute to settle efficiently the dispute on the carrier's liability in respect of the carriage of passengers, baggage and cargo by air.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제13권2호
• /
• pp.377-401
• /
• 2004

Delay in the air transport occurs when passengers, baggage or cargo do not arrive at their destination at the time indicated in the contract of carriage. The causes of delay in the carriage of cargo are no reservation, lack of space, failure to load the cargo on board, loading the cargo on the wrong plane, failure to off-load the cargo at the right place, or to deliver the covering documents at the right place. The Montreal Convention of 1999 Article 19 provides that "The carrier is liable for damage occasioned by delay in the carriage by air of cargo. Nevertheless, the carrier shall not be liable for damage occasioned by delay if it proves that it and its servants and agents took all measures that could reasonably be required to avoid the damage or that it was impossible for it or them to take such measures." The Montreal Convention Article 22 provides liability limits of the carrier in case of delay for cargo. In the carriage of cargo, the liability of the carrier is limited to 17 SDR per kilogram unless a special declaration as to the value of the cargo has been made. The Montreal Convention Article 19 has shortcomings: it is silent on the duration of the liability for carriage. It does not give any indication concerning the circumstances to be taken into account in cases of delay, and about the length of delay. In conclusion, it is desirable to define the period of carriage with accuracy, and to insert the word 'unreasonable' in Article 19.

• 항공우주정책ㆍ법학회지
• /
• 제26권1호
• /
• pp.147-176
• /
• 2011

급속히 성장하고 있는 민용항공운송업의 발전과는 달리 중국의 현행 항공운송법은 상당히 원칙적이고 추상적으로 규정되어 있어 항공운송과 관련하여 일어나는 분쟁에 적용하는데 있어서 많은 어려움을 겪고 있다. 또한 여러 부문규장에 산재하는 운송관련 규정들은 항공운송법 체계의 혼란과 비통일성을 가져다주었다. 이는 중국항공운송업의 진일보의 발전을 저애한다. 이와 같은 점을 고려하여 이 논문에서는 항공운송인의 책임 제도를 중심으로 중국 항공운송법의 법체계와 주요내용들을 살펴보았다. 중국민항법과 국무원 산하의 민용항공총국에서 제정 및 반포한 부문규장에 산재되어 있는데 법체계는 운송인 책임기간, 책임부담의 범위, 책임배상한도액 및 예외, 책임부담의 원칙, 운송인의 면책사유, 이의제출기한, 법의 적용, 관할법원, 소송시효에 관한 중국 법규정을 분석 소개하였다. 이어서 중국법원에서 다룬 실제사건과 결부하여 중국항공운송법 상의 문제점들을 구체적으로 점검하고 법 개정의 필요성과 앞으로의 전망을 제시하였다. 앞으로 중국 항공운송법을 개정함에 있어서 운송인책임과 관련하여 우선 먼저 운송인의 배상책임한도액을 상향조정해야 한다. 둘째로 국내항공운송과 국제항공운송 구분이 없이 운송인의 배상책임한도액을 제정함이 바람직하다. 셋째로 항공기연착에 관한 법 규정을 보완해야 한다. 넷째로, 민항법과 관련 부문규장에서 여객에 대한 운송인의 정신적 손해배상 내용을 명확히 할 필요가 있으며 법원은 향후 항공운송분쟁에 관한 분쟁에서 정신적 손해배상청구가 있는 경우 고려요소, 배상금 금액의 산정 등 기준을 판결문에서 명확하고 자세하게 밝히는 것이 바람직하다.

• 항공우주정책ㆍ법학회지
• /
• 제1권
• /
• pp.47-85
• /
• 1989

The Fundamental purpose of the Warsaw Convention was to establish uniform rules applicable to international air transportation. The emphasis on the benefits of uniformity was considered important in the beginning and continues to be important to the present. If the desire for uniformity is indeed the mortar which holds the Warsaw system together then it should be possible to agree on a worldwide liability limit. This liability limit would not be so unreasonable, that it would be impossible for nations to adhere to it. It would preclude any national supplemental compensation plan or Montreal Agreement type of requirement in any jurisdiction. The differentiation of liability limits by national requirement seems to be what is occurring. There is a plethora of mandated limits and Montreal Agreement type 'voluntary' limits. It is becoming difficult to find more than a few major States where an unmodified Warsaw Convention or Hague Protocol limitation is still in effect. If this is the real world in the 1980's, then let the treaty so reflect it. Upon reviewing the Warsaw Convention, its history and the several attempts to amend it, strengths become apparent. Hijackings of international flights have given rise to a number of lawsuits by passengers to recover damages for injuries suffered. This comment is concerned with the liability of an airline for injuries to its passengers resulting from aviation terrorism. In addition, analysis is focused on current airline security measures, particularly the pre-boarding screening system, and the duty of air carriers to prevent weapons from penetrating that system. An airline has a duty to exercise a high degree of care to protect its passengers from the threat of aviation terrorism. This duty would seemingly require the airline to exercise a high degree of care to prevent any passenger from smuggling a weapon or explosive device aboard its aircraft. In the case an unarmed hijacker who boards having no instrument in his possession with which to promote the hoax, a plaintiff-passenger would be hard-pressed to show that the airline was negligent in screening the hijacker prior to boarding. In light of the airline's duty to exercise a high degree of care to provide for the safety of all the passengers on board, an acquiescene to a hijacker's demands on the part of the air carrier could constitute a breach of duty only when it is clearly shown that the carrier's employees knew or plainly should have known that the hijacker was unarmed. A finding of willful misconduct on the part of an air carrier, which is a prerequisite to imposing unlimited liability, remains a question to be determined by a jury using the definition or standard of willful misconduct prevailing in the jurisdiction of the forum court. Through the willful misconduct provision of the Warsaw Convention, air carrier face the possibility of unlimited liability for failure to implement proper preventive precautions against terrorist. Courts, therefore, should broadly construe the willful misconduct provision of the Warsaw Convention in order to find unlimited liability for passenger injuries whenever air carrier security precautions are lacking. In this way, the courts can help ensure air carrier safety and prevention against terrorist attack. Air carriers, therefore, would have an incentive to increase, impose and maintain security precautions designed to thwart such potential terrorist attacks as in the case of Korean Air Lines Flight No.858 incident having a tremendous impact on the civil aviation community. The crash of a commercial airliner, with the attending tragic loss of life and massive destruction of property, always gives rise to shock and indignation. The general opinion is that the legal system could be sufficient, provided that the political will is there to use and apply it effectively. All agreed that the main responsibility for security has to be borne by the governments. I would like to remind all passengers that every discovery of the human spirit may be used for opposite ends; thus, aircraft can be used for air travel but also as targets of terrorism. A state that supports aviation terrorism is responsible for violation of International Aviation Law. Generally speaking, terrorism is a violation of international law. It violates the soverign rights of the states, and the human rights of the individuals. I think that aviation terrorism as becoming an ever more serious issue, has to be solved by internationally agreed and closely co-ordinated measures. We have to contribute more to the creation of a general consensus amongst all states about the need to combat the threat of aviation terrorism.

• 항공우주정책ㆍ법학회지
• /
• 제27권2호
• /
• pp.3-27
• /
• 2012

국제항공운송에 관한 규칙의 통일을 위한 바르샤바 협약이 1929년에 채택되었다. 1999년에 국제민간항공기구(ICAO)는 항공사법의 통일을 광범위하게 현대화하는 국제항공운송을 위한 규칙의 통일을 위한 몬트리올 협약을 채택하였다. 몬트리올 협약은 바르샤바 체제 조약 문서를 대체하였으며, 2003년 11월 4일 발효되었다. 몬트리올 협약은 다만 국제협약일 뿐만 아니라, 또한 국내입법에 상당한 영향을 주었다. 한국은 2011년 4월 29일 상법 제6편 항공운송편의 국내 입법을 하였으며, 2011년 11월 24일 발효되었다. 한국 상법 제6편 항공운송편의 국내 입법은 여객에게 생긴 손해에 대한 책임, 수하물에 생긴 손해에 대한 책임, 화물에 생긴 손해에 대한 책임에 관한 규정들을 두고 있다. 몬트리올 협약상 항공운송인의 책임제도의 주요특징은 100,000 특별인출권(SDR)까지 절대책임을 지는 여객의 사망 또는 상해에 대한 2단계 책임제도이며, 그 절대책임액 이상은 아무런 제한없이 반대의 입증부담을 지는 추정적 책임이다. 한국 상법 제6편 항공운송편의 국내 입법은 몬트리올 협약상 항공운송인의 주요책임원칙을 수용하고 있다. 결론적으로, 한국 정부에 의한 항공운송인의 책임에 관한 국내입법은 여객, 수하물 및 화물의 항공운송에 대한 운송인의 책임에 관한 분쟁을 효과적으로 해결하고, 동법이 규정하는 방어와 책임제한에 따라 손해를 입은 여객 또는 송하인에게 적절한 보상을 제공하는데 기여할 것이다.

• 항공우주정책ㆍ법학회지
• /
• 제1권
• /
• pp.163-191
• /
• 1989

The accident of the midair collision, passengers' falling or goods' dropping occurs or supersonic aircraft make a sonic boom during their conveying passengers or goods to the destination. The accident in transmit damages the their parties on the surface or their properties. In these cases, the third parties who were harmed to their lives or properties have the right to claim damages against the air carrier who caused them. These matters have become one of the important things since aircraft conveyed passengers and goods. Therefore, it is a great concern to settle these matters by law. But the Safety of the present aircraft has been much increased and the aircraft have become larger in size. Its flight altitude became higher than before. So the relationship of the aircraft to the third parties is much different from that of the earlier aircraft. The air transport is now indispensable to our life. It is not so easy to control these matters. In the early part of 20th century, when the third parties suffered the damage, many European countries made laws on the basis of the principle of liability without fault. But each country had a variety of its own law, and different kinds of difficulties have been brought about. Accordingly, the Rome Convention on Surface Damage (1933, 1952, 1978) has been made and revised. In spite of being revised, it contains many problems, and is not carried into effect world-wide. On the other hand, there are no regulations about the compensation of the third parties damaged in Korean existing laws. In case the damage is brought about to them, it is obviously true that the settlement of the liability of compensation for damage should be made by the general principle on the tort in domestic laws. At this point, it is urgent that we make a special law though the domestic legislation as a preliminary measure before we sign the international convention to save third damaged. It is desirable that we should, for the responsibility of the air carriage for the demage of the third parties on the surface, bring in the theory of the absolute liability in view of the legislation of many conutries. As the aircraft fly in the sky, their flight always contains some danger. It is very difficult to prove the fault, and the operator should suffer the principle of liability without fault or the similiar one. In case the liability without fault will be imposed upon the operator for the damage of the third parties, it is necessary to bring in the liability protection system for the protection and up upbringing of the air carriage. The Burden of danger of the air carriage will be reduced by introducing the system. A domestic legislation measure should be necessarily taken as soon as possible as a legal security measure on these matters.

• 항공우주정책ㆍ법학회지
• /
• 제18권
• /
• pp.9-39
• /
• 2003

프로펠러여객기 운항시대에 만들어졌던 국제항공운송인의 민사책임관계를 규정한 1992년의 바르샤바조약은 1955년의 헤이그 개정의정서, 1961년의 과다라하라조약, 1971년의 과테말라의정서 및 1975년의 몬트리올 제1, 제2, 제3및 제4의 정서 등 한개의 조약과 여섯 개의 의정서 등에 의하여 여러 차례 개정이 되었고 보완되면서 70여 년간 전세계를 지배하여 왔지만 오늘날 초음속(마하)으로 나르고 있는 제트여객기 운항시대에 적합하지 않아 "바르샤바조약체제" 상의 문제점이 많이 제기되어 왔다. 특히 시대에 뒤떨어진 "바르샤바조약체제" 는 2개의 조약과 여섯 개의 의정서로 매우 복잡하게 구성되어 있었으며 항공기사고로 인한 국제항공운송인의 손해배상사건에 있어 배상한도액이 유한책임으로 규정되어 있어 항상 가해자인 항공사와 피해자인 여객들간에 분쟁(소송 등)이 끊이지 않고 있으므로 이를 어느정도 해결하기 위하여 UN산하 ICAO에서는 상기 여러 개 조약과 의정서를 하나의 조약으로 통합(integration)하여 단순화시키고 현대화(modernization)시키기 위하여 20여 년간의 작업 끝에 1999년 5월에 몬트리올에서 새로운 국제항공운송인의 민사책임에 관한 조약(몬트리올 조약)을 제정하였다. "바르샤바조약체제" 를 근본적으로 개혁한 몬트리올 조약은 71개국과 유럽통합지역기구가 서명하였으며 미국을 비롯하여 33개국이 비준하여 2003년 11월 3일부터 전세계적으로 발효되었음으로 이 조약은 앞으로 전세계의 항공운소업계를 지배하게 되리라고 본다. 본 논문에서는 몬트리올 조약의 성립경위와 주요내용(국제항공여객운송인의 손해배상책임: (1)총설, (2)조약의 명칭, (3)조약의 전문, (4)국제항공여객에 대한 책임원칙과 배상액((ㄱ)국제항공여객의 사상에 대한 배상, (ㄴ)국제항공여객의 연착에 대한 배상), (5)손해배상 한도액의 자동조정, (6)손해배상금의 일부전도, (7)손해배상청구소송의 제기관계, (8)국제항공여객의 주거지에서의 재판관할관계, (9)항공계약운송인과 항공실제운송인과의 관계, (10)항공보험)을 요약하여 간략하게 설명하였다. 1999년 몬트리올 조약의 핵심사항은 국제항공운송인의 손해배상책임에 관하여 무한책임을 원칙으로 하되 100,000 SDR까지는 무과실책임주의를 채택하였고 이 금액을 초과하는 부분에 대하여서는 과실추정책임주의를 채택하였음으로 "2단계의 책임제도" 를 도입한 점과 항공기사고로 인한 피해자(여객)는 주소지의 관할법원에 가해자(항공사)를 상대로 손해배상청구소송을 제기할 수 있는 제 5재판관할권을 새로이 도입하였다는 점이다. 현재 우리 나라는 전세계에서 항공여객수송량이 11위 권에 접어들고 있으며 항공화물수송량도 3위 권을 차지하고 있음에도 불구하고 아직도 이 조약에 서명 내지 비준을 하지 않고 있음은 문제점으로 지적될 수가 있음으로 그 해결방안으로 세계의 항공산업선진국들과 어깨를 나란히 하고 상호 협력하기 위하여 조속히 우리 나라도 이 조약에 서명하고 비준하는 것이 필요하다고 본다. 한편 우리 나라와 일본은 국내항공운송에 있어서는 국내에서 항공기사고가 발생하였을 때에 국내항공여객운송인의 민사책임을 규정한 법률이 없기 때문에 항상 항공사 측과 피해자간에 책임원인과 한계 및 손해배상액을 놓고 분규가 심화되어 가고있으며 법원에서 소송이 몇 년씩 걸리어 피해자 보호에 만전을 기 할 수가 없는 실정에 있다. 현재 이와 같은 분규의 신속한 해결을 위하여 국내항공운송약관과 민상법의 규정을 적용 내지 준용하여 처리할 수밖에 없는 실정인데 항공기사고의 특수성을 고려하여 볼 때 여러 가지 문제점이 많이 제기되고 있다. 이와 같은 문제점을 해결하기 위하여 국내항공여객운송인의 책임한계 및 손해배상액을 분명하게 정하고 재판의 공평성과 신속성을 도모하기 위하여서는 항공운송계약 당사자간의 책임관계를 명확하게 규정한 "가칭, 항공운송법" 의 국내입법이 절실히 필요하다고 본다.

• 항공우주정책ㆍ법학회지
• /
• 제32권2호
• /
• pp.3-31
• /
• 2017

지난 2017년 10월 12일 영국 고등법원(Royal Courts of Justice)은 항공기 운항지연에 따른 항공사의 보상책임에 관하여 판단하였다. 2건의 사건이 병합된 사안에서 원고인 승객들은 영국 리버풀을 출발하여 아랍에미레이트의 두바이를 경유하여 각각의 목적지인 방콕과 시드니로 가기 위해 피고 항공사와 운송계약을 체결하였다. 사안에서 최종 목적지에 승객이 연착되었는지 여부를 판단함에 있어서 연결편을 포함하는 전체 항공여정이 고려되어야 한다는 원고측의 주장에 대해 피고 항공사는 첫 번째 항공편에 발생한 연착만이 항공사의 책임을 판정하는 고려의 대상이 되어야 한다고 주장하였다. 결국 이러한 다툼은 유럽연합(EU)의 항공소비자 보호에 관한 Regulation (EC) No. 261/2004의 적용범위에 관한 것이었다. 즉, 첫 번째 항공운송은 EU지역의 공항을 이륙한 항공편이었고, 두 번째 항공운송은 EU가 아닌 다른 지역에서 운항되었고 더욱이 해당 운송인이 EU에서 설립된 항공사가 아니므로 환승 이후의 항공운송에 관해서는 Regulation 261의 적용이 배제되므로 규정된 금전보상의무가 인정될 수 없다고 피고 항공사가 주장하였던 것이다. 본 논문은 이와 같이 연결편에 의한 항공운송 계약의 이행에서 발생한 지연에 관한 Regulation 261의 적용범위가 문제되었던 사례와 유럽연합사법법원(Court of Justice of the European Union, CJEU)의 판례를 검토할 목적에서 기술되었다. 해당 사례를 연구하는 것은 우리 국민과 항공사에게 시사하는 바가 적지 않다. 우선 Regulation 261 규정에 따라, EU지역을 출발하는 모든 항공사를 이용하는 승객은 동 규정의 적용대상에 포함되므로 EU를 출발하는 우리 국적사들은 Regulation의 직접 적용을 받게 된다. 비록 지리적인 이유로 유럽을 출발하여 우리나라를 경유해서 타국으로 환승하는 여객이 사안에서 문제가 되었던 중동지역과 비교할 때 절대적으로 많지는 않을 것으로 생각되지만, 해당 규정의 의미와 판례동향은 분명히 참고가 필요할 것으로 본다. 나아가 그 서문에서 천명하고 있는 바와 같이 Regulation 261은 기본적으로 항공운송인 보다 소비자인 여객의 권리보호에 친화적인 판례를 다수 도출하고 있는 바, 우리나라의 항공소비자 보호를 위한 법제연구에도 본 연구는 좋은 참고가 될 수 있을 것으로 본다.

• 항공우주정책ㆍ법학회지
• /
• 제7권
• /
• pp.101-134
• /
• 1995

Article 3 Paragraph 1 of the Warsaw Convention regulates the requirements of passenger tickets, Article 4 Paragraph 3, the requirements of baggage tickets, Article 8, the requirements of airway bills. In this article the writer has discussed the legal nature of the documents of air carriage, such as air waybills, passenger tickets and baggage checks. Further, the writer has also discussed several issues relating to the use of the documents of air carriage under the Warsaw Convention. Article 3 Paragraph 2, as well as Article 4 Paragraph 4 and 9 provides that the carrier shall not be entitled to avail himself of the provisions of the Convention which evade or limit his liability. In particular, the Montreal Agreement of 1966 provides that the notification on the carrier's liability in passenger ticket should be printed in more than 10 point type size with contrasting ink colors. However, another question is whether the carrier shall not be entitled to avail himself of the liability limit under the Convention in case the type size is below 10 points. The Convention does not specify the type size of certain parts in passenger tickets and only provides that the carrier shall not be entitled to avail himself of liability limit, when a carrier fails to deliver the ticket to passenger. However, since the delivery of passenger tickets is to provide an opportunity for passengers to recognize the liability limit under the Convention and to map out a subsequent measures, the carrier who fails to give this opportunity shall not be entitled to avail himself of the liability limit under the Convention. But some decisions argue that when the notice on the carrier's liability limit is presented in a fine print in a hardly noticeable place, the carrier shall not be entitled to avail himself under the Convention. Meanwhile, most decisions declare that regardless of the type size, the carrier is entitled to avail himself of liability limit of the provisions of the Convention. The reason is that neither the Warsaw Convention nor the Montreal Agreement stipulate that the carrier is deprived from the right to avail himself of liability limit of the provisions of the Convention when violating the notice requirement. In particular, the main objective of the Montreal Agreement is not on the notice of liability limit but on the increase of it. The latest decisons also maintain the same view. This issue seems to have beeen settled on the occasion of Elisa Chan, et al. vs. Korean Airlines Ltd. The U.S. Supreme Court held that the type size of passenger ticket can not be a target of controversy since it is not required by law, after a cautious interpretation of the Warsaw Convention and the Montreal Agreement highlighting the fact that no grounds for that are found both in the Warsaw Convention and the Montreal Agreement. Now the issue of type size can hardly become any grounds for the carrier not to exclude himself from the liability limit. In this regard, any challenge to raise issue on type size seems to be defeated. The same issue can be raised in both airway bills and baggage tickets. But this argument can be raised only to the tranportation where the original Convention is applied. This creates no problem under the Convention revised by the Hague Protocol, because the Hague Protocol does not require any information on weight, bulk, size, and number of cargo or baggage. The problem here is whether the carrier is entitled to avail himself of the liability limit of the provisions of the Convention when no information on number or weight of the consigned packages is available in accordance with Article 4 of the Convention. Currently the majority of decisions show positive stance on this. The carrier is entitled to avail himself of the liability limit of the provisions of the Convention when the requirement of information on number and weight of consigned packages is skipped, because these requirements are too technical and insubstancial. However some decisions declare just the opposite. They hold that the provisions of the Convention Article 4 is clear, and their meaning and effect should be imposed on it literally and that it is neither unjust nor too technical for a carrier to meet the minimum requirement prescribed in the Convention. Up to now, no decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court on this issue is available.