• Proceedings of the Korean Institute Of Construction Engineering and Management
• /
• autumn
• /
• pp.46-53
• /
• 2001

Differing Site Conditions('DSC') Claims among construction claims are on the increase as a direct result of the steady construction of Social Overhead Capital Facilities initiated by Government. As DSC claims generally became apparent during the intial stage of the construction project, it is necessary to timely review and study the proposal on the prevention of DSC claims because delayed settlement will incur more substantial damages to all parties concerned. This research is focused on the identification and analysis of the causes for DSC claims as applicable to design-build project in public sector and it presents the possible short term, medium and long term proposals on the improvement of causes related with DSC claims. The major results of this research are summarized as follows: 1. Improvement of contractor's tender practice 2. Contractor's division of responsibility on the site survey 3. Improvement of owner's exculpatory clause 4. Flexibility on the adjustment of contract amount The proposals stated above could be useful in resolving the DSC claims between owner and contractors.

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

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