• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제69권
• /
• pp.327-348
• /
• 2016

Under the Korean legal system, as an actual carrier is not the contractual party to the contract for carriage of goods by sea, it has been tortiously liable for the damage to, or loss of cargo, should there be the negligence by its part. However, the Rotterdam Rules introduces a revolutionary liability regime for the actual carrier. According to the Rotterdam Rules, the liability of the actual carrier is same with that of a contractual carrier with the result that a shipper is entitled to bring the direct action to the actual carrier, as well as the contractual carrier on the same basis. Nevertheless, it is expected to take long time for the new approach in respect of actual carrier's liability to be confirmed by many countries, and furthermore most of shipping countries including Korea still adopt the Hague-Vis by Rules where the shipper is not allowed to bring the direct action to the actual carrier. This study reviews on whether or not the alteration of actual carrier's liability based on Rotterdam Rules would be reasonable, considering the current Korean legal system. Furthermore, this study, whilst recognizing that the overall introduction of the new liability regime is somewhat premature, suggests the imposition of contractual liability to the actual carrier from a long-term perspective. Having in mind that the article 809 of the Korean Commercial Act allows the shipper to bring the direct action to the shipowner only in the case that a time charterer is the contractual carrier, this study explores a method to apply the contractual liability to the actual carrier in the case that a slot charterer or freight forwarder is the contractual carrier, in order to establish the uniform liability system.

• 한국항공운항학회지
• /
• 제12권3호
• /
• pp.41-63
• /
• 2004

The area covered by product liability in broadest sense is so vast that an attempt to analyse all its impact on the aviation world risk. Every effort has been made to confine our review of subject a closely as possible to its influence on aircraft manufacturers, airlines and passengers, in spite of strong connections with other spheres of commercial. Product Liability in aviation is the liability of aircraft's manufacturer, processor or non-manufacturing seller for injury to the person or property of a buyer or third party caused by a product which has been sold. Here-in a product is aircraft, third party is passengers who suffered damage by defective design, defective construction, inadequate instructions for handling in aircraft. Whenever a product turns out to be defective after it has been sold, there are under Anglo-American law three remedies available against the aircraft's manufacturer (1) liability for negligence (2) breach of warranty (3) strict liability in tort. There are Under continental law Three remedies available against the aircraft's manufacturer (1) liability for defective warranty (2) liability for non-fulfillment of obligation (3) liability in tort. It is worth pointing out here an action for breach of warranty or for defective warranty, for non-fulfillment of obligation is available only to direct purchaser on the basis of his contract with the aircraft's manufacturer, which of course weakness its range and effectiveness. An action for tort offers the advantage of being available also to third parties who have acquired the defective product at a later stage. In tort, obligations are constituted not only by contract, but also by stature and common law. In conclusion, There in no difference in principle of law. In conclusion I would like to make few suggestions regarding the product liability for aircraft's manufacturer. Firstly, current general product liability code does not specify whether government offices(e.g. FAA) inspector conducted the inspection and auditory certificate can qualify as conclusive legal evidence. These need to be clarified. Secondly, because Korea is gaining potential of becoming aircraft's manufacturer through co-manufacturing and subcontracting-manufacturing with the US and independent production, there needs legislation that can harmonize the protection of both aircraft's manufacturers and their injured parties. Since Korea is in primary stage of aviation industry, considerate policy cannot be overlooked for its protection and promotion. Thirdly, because aircraft manufacturers are risking restitution like air-carriers whose scope of restitution have widened to strict and unlimited liability, there needs importation of mandatory liability insurance and national warranty into the product liability for aircraft's manufacturers. Fourthly, there needs domestic legislation of air transportation law that clearly regulates overall legal relationship in air transportation such as carrier & aircraft manufacturer's liability, and aviation insurance.

• 한국건축시공학회지
• /
• 제18권2호
• /
• pp.195-202
• /
• 2018

The defects that are bound to arise in most construction projects cause disputes among the contracting parties regarding the defect warranty liability (DWL)guaranteed by the retention of the contractor's performance security at the end of the performance period of the contract. Most current projects involve a multiple-tier contractual relationship, causing the liability for some defects to overlap. In addition, many construction projects are made up of multiple detailed work types which an expert hired by the owner inspects the part completed by the contractor and pays an interim payment. However, after the completion of work, the contractor will still hold the defect warranty liability. In a scenario in which the work is delayed due to reasons for which the owner is responsible, the defect warranty liability period is also increased, imposing an additional burden on the contractor. In this study, basic research was carried out with the goal of reducing problems related to defect warranty liability Problems related to defect warranty liability cases and the nature of the defect warranty liability period were investigated. Possible solutions to the problems caused by the DWL that were suggested include the separation of the negligence liability period and the strict liability period, as well as the introduction of a retention money system.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제12권
• /
• pp.133-162
• /
• 1999

The international sale transaction is in essence a sale of goods and presents all those commercial and legal problems in any sale of goods. As a result, A International sales contract imposes several duties on the parties : the seller must deliver the goods and transfer ownership in them, while the buyer must pay the price and take delivery of the goods. However, there are several problems which impede a active transaction between seller and buyer who have their places of business in other countries each other. Therefore, It is necessary to provide the concept on the conformity of goods in the Int'l Sale of Goods. Especially, In our consideration for the point of time when defects occurs, the existence of non-conformity of goods should be judged on the basis of time of delivery rather than time of contract. Moreover, The burden of proof about nonconformity of goods is another fact which make an international dispute between the contractual parties in an international trade. Thus, The consistency in the interpretation of law must be maintained betweened the warranty and seller's liability. In the Uniform Commercial Code and UN Convention, non-conformity of contract is made of contract liability. And in our civil and commercial law provisions of warranty should be understand as the special ones of the provisions of general non-performance of obligation liability. As a result, More concrete study of them is required because they may have a great influence especially on international trade. As a result, We should be our best in finding a helpful and systematic structure that the dualistic structure of nonperformance of obligation liability and warranty liability must be unified by studying the theories of English and American warranty and our legal system, as well as international practice and usage being used in an international trade.

• International Journal of Human Ecology
• /
• 제6권2호
• /
• pp.63-72
• /
• 2005

This paper considered the impact of changing the product liability rule from consumer to producer liability on product safety under asymmetric information. In particular, it has been attempted to remove several constraints on antecedent studies. The main results of the study are as follows: under the misperception of the risk on a product, consumers may underestimate the probability of product failure. In this case, the accident rate can be lowered under the producer's liability rule. However, even under the asymmetric information, a consumer's estimation on the probability may be converged with the expected risk level, which could be called the 'rational expectation.' In this situation the probability of product failure can be lowered under the strict liability with contributory negligence. Additionally, it is possible to reduce the probability of product failure when a legal rule that imposes liability on cheapest cost avoider is admitted.

• 대한가정학회지
• /
• 제34권5호
• /
• pp.67-84
• /
• 1996

This study examined two laws protecting consumer's safety, the 'Product Liability Law' and 'Legal Regulations on Recall Service.' and investigated the need for and importance of the laws. Second, the requirements regarding the procedures for implementing these laws were reviewed. Regarding the 'Product Liability Law', the study considered how the damage and injury of consumers caused by defects in production would be compensated and under what conditions. Regarding the law to regulate Recall service, this study reviewed when and how producers must recall their products because of their defects. Finally, the directions for enacting these laws were suggested, and several difficulties arising from their enactment were considered. Several suggestions were made to enact these two raws in order to enhance comsumer safety, consumer sovereignty, and consumer well-being.

• 산경연구논집
• /
• 제8권6호
• /
• pp.25-31
• /
• 2017

Purpose - This study examines car accidents that occurred in South Korea territory, and analyzes criminal liability of the offender and certain issues of driver's insurance, but a civil liability to the injured is excluded as civil liability belongs to auto insurance. Research design, data, and methodology - With carrying out this research, case study of driver's liability and literature review were adopted throughout. For this, car accidents that occurred in South Korean territory were examined and then criminal liability of the offender and certain issues of driver's insurance were analyzed. Results - From this case study on driver's liability it was found that the offender cannot receive insurance money from the insurer irrespective of the valid drive insurance, if there is no 'bill of agreement of criminal consensus'. This study suggests some ideas, offers suggestions of convenience and assistance of qualified claim staff to overcome a hurdle of drive insurance. Conclusions - As long as the accident is not a fraud and scam by the parties concerned, advance payment of agreement of criminal consensus is required to the insured, the policy holder within the limit of liability of driver insurance, on condition that the drive insurance is valid.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제63권
• /
• pp.63-88
• /
• 2014

The culpa in contrahendo is a doctrine that "damages should be recoverable against the party whose blameworthy conduct during negotiations for a contract brought about its invalidity or prevented its perfection". In China, Chinese Civil law gradually adopted Culpa in Contrahendo under the former 'economic contract law' and the 'general rules of the civil law', then the legal system of culpa in contrahendo was formally established under Contract Law of the People's Republic of China(CLPRC) in 1999. To put it concretely, Art. 42, 43, 58 of the Chinese Civil Law expressly establishes a culpa in contrahendo liability derived from a principle of good faith governing pre-contractual negotiations. however, in general, culpa in contrahendo has been recognized a independent legal liability as distinct from contractual default liability and torts liability. This article provides a general description of the characteristics of culpa in contrahendo under Chinese Contract Law, and both theoretical issues that have arisen in Chinese academics and relevant important precedent in Chinese Courts. This article also analyzed trend of judgment on precedents that the Supreme Peoples's Court of the PRC applied culpa in contrahendo.

• International Journal of Computer Science & Network Security
• /
• 제22권5호
• /
• pp.284-288
• /
• 2022

The article analyzes the regulations of current criminal law, which ensures the protection and protection of information relations, offers the optimal model of the system of norms of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, which establishes liability for violation of information. The subject of the article is protected information, which should include information or data, the procedure for access to and distribution of which, regardless of the method of submission, storage or organization, are subject to legal regulation in accordance with laws and regulations. For the purposes of criminal law, information as an object of criminal law protection should be classified on the following grounds: depending on the content: personal or family secrets; information constituting a state secret; data included in the official secret; information that constitutes a professional secret; information that constitutes a commercial, tax, banking secret, and, depending on the medium - documented and undocumented.

• 대한방사선기술학회지:방사선기술과학
• /
• 제30권2호
• /
• pp.89-93
• /
• 2007

조영제를 사용한 방사선과 검사의 조영제 부작용에 대한 위험성은 잘 알려져 있으며, 조영제의 부작용을 줄이기 위한 연구도 지속적으로 진행되어 왔다. 또한 조영제 부작용에 대한 사전검사를 하더라도 조영제에 의한 치명적 부작용을 예측하기 어렵다. 이러한 조영제 부작용에 대한 법적책임에 대하여 최근에는 의료기관개설자의 책임이 중요시되고 있다. 의료기관은 환자의 건강을 목적으로 하는 조직체이다. 그리고 조직체는 그 구성원에 의한 과실에 책임이 있다. 그러므로 의료기관개설자는 의료서비스에 대해서 기대가능한 모든 노력을 하여야 하며, 불충분 또는 불완전한 조직편성 및 진료조치가 이루어지지 않게 하여야 할 조직의무를 부담한다. 이러한 점에서 의료기관은 방사선조영검사시에 조영제를 주입하는 단계로부터 검사의 완료에 이르기까지 전과정에 충분하고도 완전한 조직편성과 적정한 진료 확보를 위한 제반조치를 취할 책임이 있다. 따라서 환자의 안전과 진료의 적정을 위하여 의료기관이 조직적으로 필요한 조치를 시행하지 않거나 불충분한 경우에는 불법행위법상 의료기관 독자적인 조직책임을 지게 되며, 의료기관의 조직의무위반은 의료기관 자신의 책임이므로 내부관계에서 의료기관종사자 개인에게 구상권을 행사할 수 없다.