• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.30 no.1
• /
• pp.95-116
• /
• 2015

Air transport agreement can be divided into air passenger contract of carriage and aviation also of the contract of carriage. And air carriers for damages greater (1) cause reason, of (2) limit reason, (3) exemption reason. Exemption reason for the extinction of the liability for damages in our Commercial Code, the Convention and domestic law are mixed. Convention on the Commercial Code and air transport, air transport people, if it is proved and that it has taken all the measures that are needed for the prevention of damage to overdue damage of passengers, liability is waived. So what was to achieve the requirements of all the actions that are reasonably necessary in any case is a problem. Amendment has the feature that the treaty for the International Air Transport reflect in accordance with the domestic situation, while being struck by international standards encompassing land, sea and air transport, even on the system. However, Commercial Code while mainly reflect the Montreal Convention governing air carrier's liability issues on the contract of carriage, a problem which the Convention had also began to occur together. So the problem due to accept the treaty to fit the domestic situation occurs. There is a need for analysis of all of the actions that are "reasonably necessary, which is defined in the Commercial Code. If there is no claim within Value Date rotor two years to air carriers on the court for the damage caused by air transport, the responsibility of air carriers disappear, sued the period of such two years, what kind of meaning on domestic law extension and stop to be whether it is interpreted, it should be determined to do their aggressive measures for the reasonable care and accident prevention.

• 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.27 no.1
• /
• pp.75-101
• /
• 2012

As the Reublic of Korea revised the Commercial Code including 40 articles of air transport enacted newly on May 23, 2011, so Korea became first legislative examples in the Commercial Code of the developed and developing countries. I would like to explain briefly the main contents of my paper such as (1) history of enacting newly Part VI (air transport) in the Korea's revised commercial law, (2) legal background enacting newly Part VI (air transport) in the Korea's revised commercial law and the problems on the conditions of air transport, (3) every countries' legislative examples on the civil liability of aircraft's operator, (4) unlawful Interference Convention and general risk convention of 2009, (5) main contents and prospects of the revised Commercial Code for the liability of aircraft's operator etc as the followings. Meanwhile as the Aviation Act, Commercial Code and Civil Code in Korea and Japan did not regulated at all the legal basis of solution on the disputes between victims and offender for the amount of compensation for damage due to personal or property damage caused by aircraft accidents in Korea and Japan, so it has been raised many legal problems such as protection of victims, standard of decision in trial in the event of aircraft accident's lawsuit case. But the Korean Revised Commercial Code including Part VI, air transport regulations was passed by the majority resolution of the Korean National Assembly on April 29, 2011 and then the South Korean government proclaimed it on May 23 same year. The Revised Commercial Code enforced into tothe territory of the South Korea from November 24, 2011 after six month of the proclaimed date by the Korean Government. Thus, though Korean Commercial Code regulated concretely and respectively the legal relations on the liability of compensation for damage in the contract of transport by land in it's Part II (commercial activities) and in the contract of transport by sea in its Part V (marine commerce), but the Amended Commercial Act regulated newly 40 articles in it's Part VI (air transport) relating to the air carrier's contract liability on the compensation for damage caused by aircraft accidents in the air passengers and goods transport and aircraft operator's tort liability on compensation for damage caused by the sudden falling or collision of aircraft to third parties on the surface and so it was equipped with reasonable and unified system among the transport by land, marine and air. The ICAO adopted two new air law conventions setting out international compensation and liability rules for damage caused by aircraft to third parties at a diplomatic conference hosted by it from April 20 to May 2, 2009. The fight against the effects of terrorism and the improvement of the status of victims in the event of damage to third parties that may result either from acts of unlawful interference involving aircraft or caused by ordinary operation of aircraft, forms the cornerstone of the two conventions. One legal instrument adopted by the Conference is "the Convention on Compensation for Damage to Third Parties, Resulting from Acts of Unlawful Interference Involving Aircraft" (Unlawful Interference Convention). The other instrument, "the Convention on Compensation for Damage Caused by Aircraft to Third Parties" (General Risk Convention), modernizes the current legal framework provided for under the 1952 Rome Convention and related Protocol of 1978. It is desirable for us to ratify quickly the abovementioned two conventions such as Unlawful Interference Convention and General Risk Convention in order to settle reasonably and justly as well as the protection of the South Korean peoples.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.33 no.2
• /
• pp.169-197
• /
• 2018

The purpose of this study is to present a reasonable and concrete standard for the Korean aviation insurance compulsory subscription system. Through this, we aim to improve the current revision of laws and regulations, and ultimately create an environment in which the safety and property of the Korean people who use aircraft with appropriate aviation insurance can be secured. In particular, by reviewing the aviation business law and its new laws and regulations enacted in 2017, the legislative improvement direction of aviation insurance will be proposed. In order to maintain the continuous growth of the air transportation industry and to make amicable compensation for the victims, considering the characteristics of the total accident, instantness, and giganticness of air accidents in which a lot of people and property are lost in the event of an accident, adequate insurance coverage is essential. In this respect, the compulsory insurance to amend the principle of freedom of contract, which is the great principle of the modern judicial system, will be persuasive. However, in comparison with foreign legislation, the legal provisions on Korea's obligation to comply with aviation insurance need to be revised around the following issues: First, it is reasonable to enforce the regulation of the mandatory aviation insurance by legislation from the Congress not by administrative regulations. Because it will force the monetary obligations of the individual such as common air carriers. Second, our law regulations respond to various kinds of air damages by using the phrase "limit of liability stipulated in international conventions". However, as we have seen in the text, the range of compensation are various according to the use of legal instruments in international conventions such as the Montreal Convention, which governs the compensation of passengers for damages to passengers today. Third, in countries with narrow territories, such as Korea, there are big differences in flying time and insurable risk between domestic and international transportation. Therefore, it is necessary to divide domestic transportation and international transportation even in the obligation to join the insurance. This dual discipline has the advantage for rookies in air carrier market who mainly start their business from domestic service. Fourth, according to Korean law, the regulations of automobile loss insurance is applicable to the aviation mandatory insurance of unmanned aerial vehicle accident which is lack of persuasion. In the future, it will be appropriate to discipline insurance for unmanned aerial vehicles with unlimited potential for development from a long-term perspective.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.35 no.2
• /
• pp.113-136
• /
• 2020

Worldwide, so-called 'over-booking' of Air Carriers is established in practice. Although not invalid, despite their current contracts, passengers can be refused boarding, which can hinder travel planning. The Korean Supreme Court ruled that an airline carrier who refused to board a passenger due to over-booking was liable for compensation under the "Nonperformance of obligation". But what the court should be thinking about is when the benefit(transport) have been disabled. Thereforeit may be considered that the impossibility of benefit (Transport) due to the rejection of boarding caused by 'Over-booking' may be not the 'subsequent impossibility', but not the 'initialimpossibility '. The legal relationship due to initial impossibility is nullity (imposibilium nulla est obligation). When benefits are initial impossibile, our civil code recognizes liability for damages in accordance with the law of "Culpa in Contrahendo", not "nonperformance of obligation". On this reason, the conclusion that the consumer will be compensated for the loss of boarding due to overbooking by the Air Carrier is the same, but there is a need to review the legal basis for the responsibility from the other side. However, it doesn't matter whether it is non-performance or Culpa in Contrahendo. Rather, the recognition of this compensation is likely to cause confusion due to unstable contractual relationships between both parties. Even for practices permitted by Air Carriers, modifications to current customary overbooking that consumers must accept unconditionally are necessary. At the same time, if Air Carriers continue to be held liable for non-performance of obligations due to overselling tickets, it can be fatal to the airline business environment that requires overbooking for stable profit margins. Therefore, it would be an appropriate measure for both Air Carriers and passengers if the Air Carrier were to be given a clearer obligation to explain (to the consumer) and, at the same time, if the explanation obligation is fulfilled, the Air Carrier would no longer be forced to take responsibility for overbooking.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.32 no.1
• /
• pp.3-51
• /
• 2017

From a historical point of view, while the Warsaw Convention was passed in 1924 to regulate the unified judicial responsibility in the global air transportation industry, protection of airline consumers was somewhat lacking in protecting air carriers. In principle, the air carrier does not bear any obligation or liability when the aircraft is not operated normally due to natural disasters such as typhoon or heavy snowfall. However, in recent years, in developed countries such as the US and Europe, there has been a movement in which regulates the air carriers' obligation to protect their passengers even if there is no misconduct or negligence. Furthermore, the legislation of such advanced countries imposes an obligation on the airlines to compensate the loss separately from damages in case the abnormal operation of the aircraft is not caused by force majeure but caused by their negligence. Under this historical and international context, Korea is also modifying the system of aviation consumer protection by referring to other foreign legislation. However, when compared with foreign countries, our norm has a few drawbacks. First, the airline's protection or care obligations are mixed with the legal liability for damages in the provision, which seems to be due to the lack of understanding of the airline's passenger protection obligation. The liability for damages, which is governed by the International Convention or the Commercial Act, shall be determined by judging the cause of the airline's liability in respect of the damage of the individual passenger in the course of the air transportation. However, the duty to care and the burden for compensation shall be granted to all passengers who feel uncomfortable with the abnormal operation regardless of the cause of the accident. Also, our compensation system for denied boarding due to oversale is too low compared to the case of foreign countries, and setting the compensation amount range differently based on the time for the re-routing is somewhat unclear. Regarding checked-baggage claim, it will be necessary to refund the fee only from the fact that the baggage is delayed without asking whether there is any damage occurred from the delayed baggage. This is the content of the duty to care, which is different from the current Commercial Act or the international convention, in which responsibility is different depending on whether the airline takes all the necessary measures in order to prevent delaying of the baggage. The content of force majeure, which is a requirement for exemption from the obligation to care passengers on the airplane, shall be reconsidered. Maintenance for safe navigation is not considered to be included in force majeure, and connection to airplanes, airport conditions are disputable. According to the EC Regulation, if the cause of the abnormal operation of the airline is force majeure, the airline's compensation obligation is exempted but the duty to care of airline company is still meaningful. Furthermore, even if the main role of aviation consumer protection is on an airline, it is the responsibility of government agencies to supervise the fulfillment of such protection obligations. Therefore, it is necessary for the Korean government to actively take measures such as enforcing incentives for airlines that faithfully fulfill their obligation to care and imposed penalties on the contrary.

• 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.23 no.2
• /
• pp.3-29
• /
• 2008

The volume of air passengers and cargo transportation has increased rapidly in recent years. This trend will be even more noticeable as the high-tech service industry expands and the globalization progresses. In an effort to reflect and to cope with this trend, many conventions concerning international air transportation have been concluded. The Republic of Korea has also acceded to the Montreal Convention of 1999 on September 20th, 2007 which became effective on December 29th 2007. However, Korea currently does not provide any private law on the liability of domestic air carrier, leaving the regulation wholly to the general conditions of carriage of private air lines. These general conditions of carriage, however, are not sufficient to regulate the liabilities of domestic air carriers, because they cannot be fully recognized as a legitimate source of law applicable in the court. This situation is inconvenient for both air carrier and their customers. Thus, the Ministry of Justice of Korea has decided to enact a law that will regulate domestic air transportation, namely, "Domestic Carriage by Air Act", as a part of the Korean Commercial Code. So was composed a special committee for legislation of the Domestic Carriage by Air Act. This writer has led the committee as a chairman. The committee has held in total 10 meetings so far and has completed a draft bill for the part VI of the Korean Commercial Code, "Air Carriage." The essentials of the draft are as follows: First, the establishment of Part VI in the Commercial Code. The Korean Commercial Code already includes a series of provisions on road transportation in part II and carriage by sea in part V. In addition to these rules regulating different types of transportation, the Domestic Carriage by Air Act will newly establish part VI to regulate air carriages. Eventually, the Commercial Code will provide an integrated legal system on the transportation industry. Second, the acceptance of the basic liability system which major international conventions, such as Montreal Convention of 1999 and Guadalajara Convention of 1961, have adopted. This is very important, because the law of air carriage is unified worldwide through various international conventions, making it necessary and significant for the new act to achieve conformity between rules of international air carriage and that of domestic air carriage. Third, the acceptance of Rome Convention system on damage caused by foreign aircraft to third parties on the surface. Fourth, the application of rules on domestic road carriage or carriage by sea mutatis mutandis with necessary modifications. This very point is the merit of inserting domestic air transportation law into the Commercial Code. By doing so, the number of articles can be reduced and the rules on air carriage can conform to that of road transportation and carriage by sea. The bill is expected to be passed by the parliament at the end of this year and is expected to be effective by end of July 2009.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.25 no.2
• /
• pp.43-77
• /
• 2010

The development of the aviation industry has exponentially increased the volume of passengers and cargo and gradually expanded the damage scope of all kinds of accidents in the process of transportation. As a result, the need for aviation insurance has accordingly grown bigger and bigger every day. That is why most nations have a law to force mandatory insurance on the aviation industry. However, the Montreal Convention of 1999, which Korea also signed and today has the most extensive effect in the international civil aviation community, offers no clear interpretations about the coverage of aviation insurance along with the Air Transport Business Promotion Act of Korea. The advanced nations of air transport business such as EU, the U. S. A. and Canada prescribe the coverage of aviation insurance and have a law that makes it mandatory for all the passengers and third parties to cover air carrier's liability. EU requires them to include cargo and baggage in scope of coverage, and the U. S. A. and Canada recommend insuring by having a shipper receive a written notice containing information about whether the concerned cargo is insured or not. Making the scope of coverage of aviation insurance clear by law serves several purposes including diversifying risks for air transport companies, providing the victims with enough protection, observing the international accountability required in the air transport industry, and promoting the productive and sustainable growth of the aviation industry. Thus problems with Korea's aviation insurance should be resolved by clearly stating the coverage of aviation insurance that the Korean air carriers and operators need to insure according to the current state of Korea's air transport by consulting the legislations of the advanced nations in air transports. and enacting a law to comprehensively govern Korea's aviation insurance.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.30 no.2
• /
• pp.37-81
• /
• 2015

AirAsia QZ8501 Jet departed from Juanda International Airport in, Surabaya, Indonesia at 05:35 on Dec. 28, 2014 and was scheduled to arrive at Changi International Airport in Singapore at 08:30 the same day. The aircraft, an Airbus A320-200 crashed into the Java Sea on Dec. 28, 2014 carrying 162 passengers and crew off the coast of Indonesia's second largest city Surabaya on its way to Singapore. Indonesia's AirAsia jet carrying 162 people lost contact with ground control on Dec. 28, 2014. The aircraft's debris was found about 66 miles from the plane's last detected position. The 155 passengers and seven crew members aboard Flight QZ 8501, which vanished from radar 42 minutes after having departed Indonesia's second largest city of Surabaya bound for Singapore early Dec. 28, 2014. AirAsia QZ8501 had on board 137 adult passengers, 17 children and one infant, along with two pilots and five crew members in the aircraft, a majority of them Indonesian nationals. On board Flight QZ8501 were 155 Indonesian, three South Koreans, and one person each from Singapore, Malaysia and the UK. The Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 departed from Kuala Lumpur International Airport on March 8, 2014 at 00:41 local time and was scheduled to land at Beijing's Capital International Airport at 06:30 local time. Malaysia Airlines also marketed as China Southern Airlines Flight 748 (CZ748) through a code-share agreement, was a scheduled international passenger flight that disappeared on 8 March 2014 en route from Kuala Lumpur International Airport to Beijing's Capital International Airport (a distance of 2,743 miles: 4,414 km). The aircraft, a Boeing 777-200ER, last made contact with air traffic control less than an hour after takeoff. Operated by Malaysia Airlines (MAS), the aircraft carried 12 crew members and 227 passengers from 15 nations. There were 227 passengers, including 153 Chinese and 38 Malaysians, according to records. Nearly two-thirds of the passengers on Flight 370 were from China. On April 5, 2014 what could be the wreckage of the ill-fated Malaysia Airlines was found. What appeared to be the remnants of flight MH370 have been spotted drifting in a remote section of the Indian Ocean. Compensation for loss of life is vastly different between US. passengers and non-U.S. passengers. "If the claim is brought in the US. court, it's of significantly more value than if it's brought into any other court." Some victims and survivors of the Indonesian and Malaysia airline's air crash case would like to sue the lawsuit to the United States court in order to receive a larger compensation package for damage caused by an accident that occurred in the sea of Java sea and the Indian ocean and rather than taking it to the Indonesian or Malaysian court. Though each victim and survivor of the Indonesian and Malaysia airline's air crash case will receive an unconditional 113,100 Unit of Account (SDR) as an amount of compensation for damage from Indonesia's AirAsia and Malaysia Airlines in accordance with Article 21, 1 (absolute, strict, no-fault liability system) of the 1999 Montreal Convention. But if Indonesia AirAsia airlines and Malaysia Airlines cannot prove as to the following two points without fault based on Article 21, 2 (presumed faulty system) of the 1999 Montreal Convention, AirAsia of Indonesiaand Malaysia Airlines will be burdened the unlimited liability to the each victim and survivor of the Indonesian and Malaysia airline's air crash case such as (1) such damage was not due to the negligence or other wrongful act or omission of the air carrier or its servants or agents, or (2) such damage was solely due to the negligence or other wrongful act or omission of a third party. In this researcher's view for the aforementioned reasons, and under the laws of China, Indonesia, Malaysia and Korea the Chinese, Indonesian, Malaysia and Korean, some victims and survivors of the crash of the two flights are entitled to receive possibly from more than 113,100 SDR to 5 million US$ from the two airlines or from the Aviation Insurance Company based on decision of the American court. It could also be argued that it is reasonable and necessary to revise the clause referring to bodily injury to a clause mentioning personal injury based on Article 17 of the 1999 Montreal Convention so as to be included the mental injury and condolence in the near future.