• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.31 no.1
• /
• pp.37-62
• /
• 2016

Two controversial issues exist in interpretation of "Force Majeure" set forth in the Article 931 (4) of the Korean Commercial Code. Firstly, its scope of application is ambiguous. Secondly, there is a concern that the "immunity" under paragraph 1 and "Force Majeure" may overlap each other. "Force Majeure" refers an event resulted from either natural disaster or 3rd-party. Meanwhile, the latter implies relatively extensive and comprehensive meaning and its interpretation may vary depends on law enforcement. In general, the aircraft accident hardly results in damage or loss to the 3rd-party. Additionally, it is worth to review newly enacted clause and to define its applicability. When the 3rd party is suffered from damage or loss incurred by any external act, it is necessary to explicit the concept of the non-contractual liabilities with respect to 3rd party. From the perspective of protecting aviation industries, the commercial aviation operator may be entitled to immunity in respect of claim for damage incurred by the event of Force Majeure. However, this approach is directly opposite to the victim's benefit and protection by the law. Therefore, the priority of the legal protection should be considered. Although the interest of the commercial aviation operator is not negligible, the protection of the law should be favorable to the 3rd party. Otherwise, the innocent party has no right to claim for damage incurred by aviation accident. Another issue is about the possibility of overlapping of the provision set forth in the paragraph 1 and 4. The former states that the liabilities shall be exempted on account of either the unsettled political or economic situation but this clause is inconsistent with the interpretation on Force Majeure under the latter. As argued above, this may include any event resulted from either political or economic account by the external influence of the 3rd party, thus these two provisions are overlapped. Consequently, in order to develop ordinances and guidelines and to ensure an equal protection to both parties, above two issues must remain open for further discussions.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.20 no.2
• /
• pp.235-251
• /
• 2005

German working hour law of 1994(Arbeitszeitgesetz) provides maximum working hour as 8 hours a day and 48 hours per week. The law provides that minimum 11 hours rest-time is required between the end of a day's work and the beginning of the next day's work. Namely, the hour that the workers are put under commanding of the user is restricted within 13 hours per day. In the meantime, article 5, 7, 14, and 15 of the law have some letting the exceptional provisions regarding the working hour and rest-time of flight crew, and 2nd administrative order for the aviation transportation business owner, which is established based on such exceptional provisions(2.DV LuftBO), provides the working hour and rest-time of flight crew quite in detail. The administrative order is detailed quite regarding block time, flight working hour, and rest-time. So, it does not need to interpret additionally. Airlines in Korea should observe the both Labor Standard Act applying to general workers and Aviation Act focused on flight crew, so it is difficult that airlines manages working hour and rest-time of the flight crew efficiently. Therefore, it is desirable that our country refers to and considers adopting this legislation method of Germany which regulates working hour and rest-time of flight crew in detail in the 2.DV LuftBO.

• 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).