• 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.

• 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.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제58권
• /
• pp.127-148
• /
• 2013

The Rotterdam Rules provide that port terminal operator may avoid or limit their liability for cargo loss, damage or delay in delivery or breach of any other obligation under the Rules by invoking the provisions that may provide a defence for, or limit the liability of, the carrier. Consequently the port terminal operator who are involved in the provision of maritime services may avoid or limit their liability for cargo loss, damage or delay in delivery or breach of any other obligation under the Rules. The port terminal operator to be applied for the Himalaya clause under the Rules must show that it has the requisite link with a Contracting State. In addition, the port terminal operator performs service to the period of time between the arrival of the goods at the port of loading and their departure from the port of discharge. The port terminal operator's liability for breaches of its obligation is limited to 875 SDR per package or other shipping units, or 3 SDR per kilogram of the gross weight of the goods. In addition, compensation for delay shall be limited to an amount equivalent to two and one-half times the fright payable on the goods delayed.

• 한국항만경제학회지
• /
• 제31권2호
• /
• pp.41-53
• /
• 2015

Paracomon Inc. v. Telus Communication사건('Realice호 사건')에서 Realice호의 닻이 항해과정에서 해저광섬유케이블에 얽히는 사고가 발생하자, 선주사의 대표이사이자 선장은 사용 중인 케이블을 절단해 버렸다. 케이블 소유회사는 선주에게 수리비를 청구하였고, 선주는 케이블 소유회사의 청구액을 책임보험자에게 청구하였다. 그런데 캐나다 대법원은, 선주는 1976년 해사채권에 대한 책임제한에 관한 조약('1976년 책임제한조약')에 따라 케이블 소유회사에 대한 손해배상책임을 일정 한도로 제한할 수 있으나, 케이블을 절단한 선주의 비행은 1993년 캐나다 해상보험법(Canada Marine Insurance Act)상 보험자의 면책사유인 피보험자의 고의적 불법행위(wilful misconduct)에 해당되어 책임보험자에게 보험금을 청구할 수 없다고 판결하였다. 결국 이번 판결로 선주는, 케이블소유회사에 대한 책임제한권은 인정받았으나, 책임보험자에 대한 보험금청구권은 상실하게 되었다. Realice호 사건은 국제조약상 선주에게 인정되는 책임제한과 그에 대한 책임보험의 보상 간의 상호 관계를 최초로 다루고 있다는 점에서 우리에게 시사하는 바가 크다. 따라서 본 논문의 목적은 Realice호 사건에서 대법원의 판결 이유를 분석하고, 해운 보험업계 이해와 지금까지 확립된 해상법에 기초하여 판결의 정당성을 평가하는데 있다. 본 논문은 1976년 책임제한조약의 입법 연혁을 고려할 때 선주가 책임제한권을 갖는다는 대법원의 판결은 타당하지만, 해운 및 보험업계의 이해, 제3자의 직접청구권의 도입취지, 책임제한 배제사유의 입법 과정 등을 고려할 때 책임보험자가 면책된다는 대법원의 판결은 적절하지 않다는 결론을 내린다. 끝으로, 본 논문은 이번 대법원 판결에 기초하여 2014년 세월호 사건에서 선주의 책임제한과 책임보험자의 보상 문제를 검토한다.

• 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.

• 항공우주정책ㆍ법학회지
• /
• 제26권1호
• /
• pp.177-213
• /
• 2011

현재 우주활동에 의하여 발생된 손해에 대한 배상책임과 관련된 국제조약으로 1967년 우주조약과 1972년 우주손해배상책임조약이 있으며, 또한 우리나라 국내법으로 2008년 우주손해배상법이 있다. 우주조약은 우주활동에 대한 국가의 국제적 책임과 우주물체에 의한 손해에 대한 국가의 불법행위 책임에 관하여 규정하고 있다. 우주손해책임조약은 발사국의 절대적 책임, 과실책임, 연대책임, 배상청구권자, 배상청구방법, 배상청구기한, 배상청구와 국내적 구제, 손해배상액, 청구위원회 설치 등에 관하여 규정하고 있다. 우리나라 우주손해배상법은 우주손해의 정의, 우주손해책임조약과의 관계, 발사자의 무과실책임 및 책임의 집중, 발사자의 손해배상책임한도액, 발사자의 책임보험 가입, 정부의 피해자 구조 및 발사자 지원 등에 관하여 규정하고 있다. 우주사고로 인한 손해배상책임 관련 사례들로 Iridium33과 Cosmos 2251 위성충돌 사건, Cosmos 954 위성추락 사건, Martin Marietta의 위성발사 실패 사건, Westar VI 위성 작동불량 사고 등이 있으며, 이러한 우주사건에 관한 분쟁 또는 소송에 있어서 위성의 발사국, 발사자 및 제조자의 손해배상책임 부담문제에 관련하여 절대책임(엄격책임)원칙 또는 과실책임원칙이 적용되어 해결되고 있다. 우주손해책임조약의 개선방안으로 손해배상청구권자의 명확한 규정, 청구위원회의 결정의 구속력 확보 등을 들 수 있고, 우리나라 우주손해배상법의 개선방안으로 손해배상범위에 간접손해 포함, 손해배상책임 한도액의 통화단위 변경, 공동발사자의 연대책임 및 구상권 신설, 우주손해배상심의위원회의 설치 등을 들 수 있다. 우리나라는 2009년 6월 전남 고흥군 외나로도에 우주센터가 준공되어 동년 8월 및 2010년 6월 우리나라 최초 소형 우주발사체 나로호(KSLV-1)를 두차례 발사하였다. 향후 우리나라는 우주활동 과정에서 우주관련 국제조약 및 국내법상의 국제적 책임 및 우주손해에 대한 배상책임 등 문제들이 발생할 가능성이 있으므로 우리정부 및 우주물체 발사기관은 이러한 문제들에 대한 법적 제도적 대응책을 마련해야 할 것이다.

• 항공우주정책ㆍ법학회지
• /
• 제5권
• /
• pp.101-118
• /
• 1993

Generally there is no law and liability system which applies particulary to commercial space ventures. There are several international treaties and national statutes which deal with space ventures, but their impact on the liability of commercial space ventures has not been significant. Every state law in the United States will impose both tort and contract liability on those responsible for injuries or losses caused by defective products or by services performed negligently. As with the providers of other products and services, those who participate in commercial space ventures have exposure to liability in both tort and contract which is limited to the extent of the resulting damage The manufacturer of a small and cheap component which caused a satellite to fail to reach orbit or to operate nominally has the same exposure to liability as the provider of launch vehicle or the manufacturer of satellite into which the component was incorporaded. Considering the enormity of losses which may result from launch failure or satellite failure, those participated in commercial space ventures will do their best to limit their exposure to liability by contract to the extent permitted by law. In most states of the United States, contracts which limit or disclaim the liability are enforceable with respect to claims for losses or damage to property if they are drafted in compliance with the requirements of the applicable law. In California an attempt to disclaim the liability for one's own negligence will be enforceable only if the contract states explicitly that the parties intend to have the disclaimer apply to negligence claims. Most state laws of the United States will refuse to enforce contracts which attempt to disclaim the liability for gross negligence on public policy grounds. However, the public policy which favoured disclaiming the liability as to gross negligence for providers of launch services was pronounced by the United States Congress in the 1988 Amendments to the 1984 Commercial Space Launch Act. To extend the disclaimer of liability to remote purchasers, the contract of resale should state expressly that the disclaimer applies for the benefit of all contractors and subcontractors who participated in producing the product. This situation may occur when the purchaser of a satellite which has failed to reach orbit has not contracted directly with the provider of launch services. Contracts for launch services usually contain cross-waiver of liability clauses by which each participant in the launch agrees to be responsible for it's own loss and to waive any claims which it may have against other participants. The crosswaiver of liability clause may apply to the participants in the launch who are parties to the launch services agreement, but not apply to their subcontractors. The role of insurance in responding to many risks has been critical in assisting commercial space ventures grow. Today traditional property and liability insurance, such as pre-launch, launch and in-orbit insurance and third party liability insurance, have become mandatory parts of most space projects. The manufacture and pre-launch insurance covers direct physical loss or damage to the satellite, its apogee kick moter and including its related launch equipment from commencement of loading operations at the manufacture's plant until lift off. The launch and early orbit insurance covers the satellite for physical loss or damage from attachment of risk through to commissioning and for some period of initial operation between 180 days and 12 months after launch. The in-orbit insurance covers physical loss of or damage to the satellite occuring during or caused by an event during the policy period. The third party liability insurance covers the satellite owner' s liability exposure at the launch site and liability arising out of the launch and operation in orbit. In conclusion, the liability in commercial space ventures extends to any organization which participates in providing products and services used in the venture. Accordingly, it is essential for any organization participating in commercial space ventures to contractually disclaim its liability to the extent permitted by law. To achieve the effective disclaimers, it is necessary to determine the applicable law and to understand the requirements of the law which will govern the terms of the contract. A great deal of funds have been used in R&D for commercial space ventures to increase reliability, safety and success. However, the historical reliability of launches and success for commercial space ventures have proved to be slightly lower than we would have wished for. Space insurance has played an important role in reducing the high risks present in commercial space ventures.

• 의료법학
• /
• 제7권2호
• /
• pp.331-364
• /
• 2006

Medical supplies have contradiction of efficacy and side effect to the various diseases together. Therefore, people have tried to reduce the side effects and also provide various methods to cope with any damages from the medicine quickly. In the case of accidents by medical supplies, the victim can be protected with advantage by the Product Liability Law rather than the Torts. The limit of Product Liability Law's application depends on whether medical supplies belong to the product or not. According to Product Liability Law, the product should be processed. Therefore, medical supplied should be processed to be the category of product. It can be said that the medical supplies in pharmacy, Chinese medicine, medical herbs, biological medicine manufactures, blood manufactured medicine, cord blood, hemopoietic progenitior cell and stem cell belongs to the manufactured products. The mixture by the prescription of doctor or preparation of pharmacist can be recognized as the product because prescription or preparation is a manufacturing act. Therefore, applying Product Liability Law to manufacturer, doctor or pharmacist would achieve the goal which is protecting the victims extensively.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제77권
• /
• pp.145-168
• /
• 2018

The purpose of this paper is to introduce the limitation of liabilities of multimodal transport operators(MTO) in Korea. Also, this paper reviews the revised draft of Korean Commercial Code in 2015. This paper analyzes Korean multimodal transport systemand the limitation of liabilities of MTO by analyzing articles, regulations and practices of Korean Commercial Code and it's the draft in 2015. The paper, also, studies multimodal transport rules by comparing specifically international treaty, rules, or practices. In Korea, Article 816 of Commercial Code treats multimodal transportation adopting the network liability regime. The Article describes only the case of the multimodal transportation where the maritime carriage is engaged. Korea proposed the draft of multimodal transport regulation of Commercial Code in 2015 because present law could not apply for the multimodal transportation involved in the air or land carriage. This paper support the draft of Korean Commercial Code in 2015 because it is necessary to make a predictable legal system of multimodal transport and the limitation of liability reflecting practices or customs.

• 항공우주정책ㆍ법학회지
• /
• 제22권2호
• /
• pp.27-51
• /
• 2007

The cumulative result of the work by the ICAO Secretariat, the Secretariat Study Group and the Council Special Group on the Modernization of the Rome Convention of 1952 are two draft Conventions, namely: "Draft Convention on Compensation for Damage Caused by Aircraft to Third Parties, in case of Unlawful Interference", and "Draft Convention on Compensation for Damage Caused by Aircraft to Third Parties" The core provisions of the former draft Convention are as follows: The liability of the operator is strict, that is, without the necessity of proof of fault. It would be liable for damage sustained by third parties on condition only that the damage was caused by an aircraft in flight(Article 3). However, such liability is caped based on the weight of the aircraft(Article 4). It is envisaged to create an independent organization called the Supplementary Compensation Mechanism, with the principle purpose to pay compensation to persons suffering damage in the territory of a State Party, and to provide financial support(Article 8). Compensation shall be paid by the SCM to the extent that the total amount of damages exceeds the Article 4 limits(Article 19). The main issues on the farmer draft Convention are relating to breaking away from Montreal Convention 1999, no limits on individual claims but a global limitation on air carrier liability, insurance coverage, cap of operators' strict liability, and Supplementary Compensation Mechanism. The core provisions of the latter draft Convention are as follows: the liability of the operator is strict, up to a certain threshold tentatively set at 250,000 to 500,000 SDRs. Beyond that, the operator is liable for all damages unless it proves that such damage were not due to its negligence or that the damages were solely due to the negligence of another person(Article 3). The provisions relating to the SCM and compensation thereunder do not operate under this Convention, as the operator is potentially for the full amount of damages caused. The main issues on the latter draft Convention are relating to liability limit of operator, and definition of general risks. In conclusion, we urge ICAO to move forward expeditiously on the draft Convention to establish a third party liability and compensation system that can stand ready to protect both third party victims and the aviation industry before another 9/11-scale event occurs.