• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제20권2호
• /
• pp.173-198
• /
• 2010

The purpose of this paper is to research on the liability for the space damage and the settlement of the dispute with reference to the space activity under the international space treaty and national space law of Korea. The United Nations has adopted five treaties relating to the space activity as follows: The Outer Space Treaty of 1967, the Rescue and Return Agreement of 1968, the Liability Convention of 1972, the Registration Convention of 1974, and the Moon Treaty of 1979. All five treaties have come into force. Korea has ratified above four treaties except the Moon Treaty. Korea has enacted three national legislations relating to space development as follows: Aerospace Industry Development Promotion Act of 1987, Outer Space Development Promotion Act of 2005, Outer Space Damage Compensation Act of 2008. The Outer Space Treaty of 1967 regulates the international responsibility for national activities in outer space, the national tort liability for damage by space launching object, the national measures for dispute prevention and international consultation in the exploration and use of outer space, the joint resolution of practical questions by international inter-governmental organizations in the exploration and use of outer space. The Liability Convention of 1972 regulates the absolute liability by a launching state, the faulty liability by a launching state, the joint and several liability by a launching state, the person claiming for compensation, the claim method for compensation, the claim period of compensation, the claim for compensation and local remedy, the compensation amount for damage by a launching state, the establishment of the Claims Commission. The Outer Space Damage Compensation Act of 2008 in Korea regulates the definition of space damage, the relation of the Outer Space Damage Compensation Act and the international treaty, the non-faulty liability for damage by a launching person, the concentration of liability and recourse by a launching person, the exclusion of application of the Product Liability Act, the limit amount of the liability for damage by a launching person, the cover of the liability insurance by a launching person, the measures and assistance by the government in case of occurring the space damage, the exercise period of the claim right of compensation for damage. The Liability Convention of 1972 should be improved as follows: the problem in respect of the claimer of compensation for damage, the problem in respect of the efficiency of decision by the Claims Commission. The Outer Space Damage Compensation Act of 2008 in Korea should be improved as follows: the inclusion of indirect damage into the definition of space damage, the change of currency unit of the limit amount of liability for damage, the establishment of joint and several liability and recourse right for damage by space joint launching person, the establishment of the Space Damage Compensation Review Commission. The 1998 Final Draft Convention on the Settlement of Disputes Related to Space Activities of 1998 by ILA regulates the binding procedure and non-binding settlement procedure for the disputes in respect of space activity. The non-binding procedure regulates the negotiation or the peaceful means and compromise for dispute settlement. The binding procedure regulates the choice of a means among the following means: International Space Law Court if it will be established, International Court of Justice, and Arbitration Court. The above final Draft Convention by ILA will be a model for the innovative development in respect of the peaceful settlement of disputes with reference to space activity and will be useful for establishing the frame of practicable dispute settlement. Korea has built the space center at Oinarodo, Goheung Province in June 2009. Korea has launched the first small launch vehicle KSLV-1 at the Naro Space Center in August 2009 and June 2010. In Korea, it will be the possibility to be occurred the problems relating to the international responsibility and dispute settlement, and the liability for space damage in the course of space activity. Accordingly the Korean government and launching organization should make the legal and systematic policy to cope with such problems.

• 환경정책연구
• /
• 제3권2호
• /
• pp.31-57
• /
• 2004

Attempts were made to compare and analyze the policies of the United States, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Germany and Denmark concerning Korea's major problems associated with legal liability of the contaminated sites. These countries were chosen from a feasible preliminary analysis of 18 countries of the EU and the U. S. The major problems were revealed based on the analysis of Korean legacy and legislation, which are summarized as follows i) lack of clear detailed technical and legal guidance to determine the responsible party or parties of contaminated sites, ii) no distinction between the strict and non strict legal liability of innocent land owners, iii) no clearly set limit on retroactive legal liability. Comparison of the policies of countries chosen suggested improvements regarding these major problems as follows: i) activating national and international research on soil contamination prevention policy, ii) arranging distinct legal regulation between strict and non strict liability criteria, iii) establishing the limits on innocent and non strict liability, iv) establishing methodology and process of legal liability distribution and compensation, and v) establishing a legal process to redeem any benefit derived from remediation of contaminated sites with the public budget. Our policy suggestions above are not yet conclusive due to a lack of policy implementation simulation. Additional research is needed on aspects of social, economic and long term effects of the proposed policy directions. Nevertheless, application of the policy suggestions of this research would increase the efficacy of Korean policy regarding the survey and remediation of the potentially contaminated sites.

• 항공우주정책ㆍ법학회지
• /
• 제27권2호
• /
• pp.3-27
• /
• 2012

국제항공운송에 관한 규칙의 통일을 위한 바르샤바 협약이 1929년에 채택되었다. 1999년에 국제민간항공기구(ICAO)는 항공사법의 통일을 광범위하게 현대화하는 국제항공운송을 위한 규칙의 통일을 위한 몬트리올 협약을 채택하였다. 몬트리올 협약은 바르샤바 체제 조약 문서를 대체하였으며, 2003년 11월 4일 발효되었다. 몬트리올 협약은 다만 국제협약일 뿐만 아니라, 또한 국내입법에 상당한 영향을 주었다. 한국은 2011년 4월 29일 상법 제6편 항공운송편의 국내 입법을 하였으며, 2011년 11월 24일 발효되었다. 한국 상법 제6편 항공운송편의 국내 입법은 여객에게 생긴 손해에 대한 책임, 수하물에 생긴 손해에 대한 책임, 화물에 생긴 손해에 대한 책임에 관한 규정들을 두고 있다. 몬트리올 협약상 항공운송인의 책임제도의 주요특징은 100,000 특별인출권(SDR)까지 절대책임을 지는 여객의 사망 또는 상해에 대한 2단계 책임제도이며, 그 절대책임액 이상은 아무런 제한없이 반대의 입증부담을 지는 추정적 책임이다. 한국 상법 제6편 항공운송편의 국내 입법은 몬트리올 협약상 항공운송인의 주요책임원칙을 수용하고 있다. 결론적으로, 한국 정부에 의한 항공운송인의 책임에 관한 국내입법은 여객, 수하물 및 화물의 항공운송에 대한 운송인의 책임에 관한 분쟁을 효과적으로 해결하고, 동법이 규정하는 방어와 책임제한에 따라 손해를 입은 여객 또는 송하인에게 적절한 보상을 제공하는데 기여할 것이다.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제49권
• /
• pp.283-324
• /
• 2011

The purpose of this paper is to research the air waybill and the carrier's liability in respect of the carriage of cargo by air under the Montreal Convention of 1999. The Warsaw Convention for the unification of certain rules for international carriage by air was adopted in 1929 and modified successively in 1955, 1961, 1971, 1975 and 1999. The Montreal Convention of 1999 modernized and consolidated the Warsaw Convention and related instruments. Under the Montreal Convention, in respect of the carriage of cargo, the air waybill shall be made out by the consignor. If, at the request of the consignor, the carrier makes it out, the carrier shall be deemed to have done so on behalf of the consignor. The air waybill shall be made out in three orignal parts. Under the Montreal Convention, the consignor shall indemnify the carrier against all damages suffered by the carrier or any other person to whom the carrier is liable, by reason of the irregularity, incorrectness or incompleteness of the particulars and statement furnished by the consignor or on its behalf. The air waybill is not a document of title or negotiable instrument. Under the Montreal Convention, the air waybill is prima facie evidence of the conclusion of the contract, of the acceptance of the cargo and of the conditions of carriage. If the carrier carries out the instructions of the consignor for the disposition of the cargo without requiring the production of the part of the air waybill, the carrier will be liable, for any damage which may be accused thereby to any person who is lawfully in possession of the part of the air waybill. Under the Montreal Convention, the carrier is liable by application of principle of strict liability for the damage sustained during the carriage of cargo by air. The carrier is liable for the destruction or loss of, or damage to cargo and delay during the carriage by air. 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. Under the Montreal Convention, the carrier's liability is limited to a sum of 17 Special Drawing Rights per kilogramme. Any provision tending to relieve the carrier of liability or to fix a lower limit than that which is laid down in this Convention shall be and void. Under the Montreal Convention, if the carrier proves that the damage was caused by the negligence or other wrongful act or omission of the person claiming compensation, or the person from whom he derives his rights, the carrier shall be wholly or partly exonerated from ist liability to the claimant to the extent that such negligence or wrongful act or omission caused the damage. Under the Montreal Convention, any action for damages, however founded, whether under this Convention or in contract or in tort or otherwise, can only be brought subject to the conditions and such limits of liability as are set out in this Convention. Under the Montreal Convention, in the case of damage the person entitled to delivery must complain to the carrier forthwith after the discovery of the damage, and at the latest, within fourteen days from the date of receipt of cargo. In the case of delay, the complaint must be made at the latest within twenty-one days from the date on which the cargo has been placed at his disposal. if no complaint is made within the times aforesaid, no action shall lie against the carrier, save in the case of fraud on its part. Under the Montreal Convention, the right to damage shall be extinguished if an action is not brought within a period of two years, reckoned from the date of arrival at the destination, or from the date on which the aircraft ought to have arrived, or from the date on which the carriage stopped. In conclusion, the Montreal Convention has main outstanding issues with respect to the carrier's liability in respect of the carriage of cargo by air as follows : The amounts of limits of the carrier's liability, the duration of the carrier's liability, and the aviation liability insurance. Therefore, the conditions and limits of the carrier's liability under the Montreal Convention should be readjusted and regulated in detail.

• 한국인터넷방송통신학회논문지
• /
• 제16권2호
• /
• pp.1-8
• /
• 2016

정보통신기술의 발달 및 인터넷 이용의 활성화로 간편결제 등 금융과 정보통신기술의 융합된 핀테크 산업이 활성화 되고 있다. 하지만 현재 법규 상 금융사고 발생 시 금융회사, 핀테크 업체와 소비자 간의 책임이 모호하고 금융기관 또는 전자금융업자가 손해배상을 해야 하는 경우 전자금융거래법 제정('06년) 당시 지정된 전자금융사고 책임이행 보험 가입 최저한도와 현재 전자금융거래 규모, 사고 발생 추이, 보안 투자 규모 등을 비교했을 때 현실적으로 적정하다고 보기 어렵다. 이에 본 논문에서는 국내 금융사고의 현황과 사후처리를 파악하고 현재 사이버 배상책임보험의 한계와 변경 필요성을 지적하고자 한다.

• 한국항해항만학회지
• /
• 제34권3호
• /
• pp.251-255
• /
• 2010

해양사고는 민사법상의 손해배상, 형법상의 책임의 귀속 및 행정상의 제재와 같은 여러 가지 법적 책임 문제를 야기한다. 어떠한 행위에 의하여 결과가 발생하였다고 하여 바로 책임귀속이 되는 것은 아니다. 이러한 책임의 전제로서 해양사고를 야기한 행위와 그 결과 발생사이에 인과관계가 문제된다. 해양사고에 있어서 그 원인 규명은 해양이라는 사고 발생 장소, 증거확보의 어려움, 사고 발생시와 조사 시점과의 시간차 등으로 어려움이 많다. 그러나 정확한 원인 규명은 유사 사고 방지와 책임 소재를 가리는데 매우 중요한 요소이다. 인과관계를 논리학적으로 보면 무한히 확산 가능한 개념이지만 책임귀속에 있어서는 이를 제한할 필요성이 있다. 따라서 이 논문에서는 인과관계 이론을 바탕으로 해양사고에서의 인과관계를 검토하여 책임귀속의 합리적인 판단 기준을 논증한 것이다.

• 항공우주정책ㆍ법학회지
• /
• 제22권2호
• /
• pp.3-25
• /
• 2007

In 2002 Republic of Korea successfully launched a self-made mined proportion rocket and it is expected that she will be able to have own space launching system by 2010. According to Article 14 of the Space Exploration Promotion Act, a new law should be established to impose the limit of compensation for the damage by space accident. Therefore, The Space Accident Liability Act was passed in Korean Congress on Nov. 22, 2007 and it will be enforced in six months. The purpose of this Act is to provide reparation for the damage of the third parties that a launch causes; and the Commonwealth should be insured against any possible space accidents to pay for such a damage. Here space accident means the damages to our life, body, and properties from the launching of space objects. There should be an actual loss to establish the compensation of Liability Act. Article 2 in Liability Act defines "damage" as follows: the term "damage" means loss of life, personal injury or loss of or damage to property of persons. Physical and material damages are included in the conception of damage. The meaning of a launching includes any test launch and launch for a real arrangement which will ultimately provides a wide range of compensation. Article 4 indicates that absolute liability should be imposed in compensating for damage by space accidents. Article 4 also indicates that a launching party should be absolutely liable to compensate for the damage caused by its space object on the surface of the Earth. In general, liability stands where fault is. But if the activity is ultra-hazardous and causes serious harm, the individual needs to compensate for the damage unlimitedly. Because of the many launchings for the Seattleite launching, a launching organization is obligated to the liability insurance in preparation for the space accidents. According to the Article 6 of Space Accident Liability Act, to be insured for the compensation for damage is obligatory. It says: "In accordance with Article 11 in the Space Exploration Promotion Act, the person who wants to receive an approval f3r launching needs to be insured in compensation for the possible damage by space accidents.

• 항공우주정책ㆍ법학회지
• /
• 제24권2호
• /
• pp.19-45
• /
• 2009

우리나라는 항공운송에 관한 사법적 법률관계를 규율하는 법률이 제정되어 있지 아니하므로 항공화물운송을 둘러싼 분쟁을 오로지 항공사의 항공운송약관에 의해 해결을 시도하여 왔다. 그러나 국내항공운송에서 화주의 권익을 보호하고 운송계약당사자의 권리의무를 명확히 하기 위해 항공운송에 관한 법률을 제정할 필요가 있는 것이다. 국제항공운송에 있어서는 1999년에 채택된 몬트리올 협약을 우리나라가 가입하여 2007년 12월 29일 발효되어 있으므로 국제항공운송에 관련된 분쟁에는 몬트리올 협약이 적용된다. 법무부는 2008년에 상법 제6편 항공운송편 제정안을 마련하여 공청회를 거쳐 2008년 12월 31일 국회 제출되어 현재 심의 중에 있다. 상법 항공운송편 제정안은 기본적으로 몬트리올 협약을 근간으로 하고 있으며, 상법의 육상운송 및 해상운송의 제 규정과 위배됨이 없도록 제정목표를 두어 총 3개장 45개 조문 및 부칙으로 구성되어 있다. 상법 항공운송편 제정안가운데 특히 항공화물운송인의 책임에 관한 규정으로 운송인의 책임원인, 비계약적 청구에 적용, 운송인의 책임한도, 운송인의 책임감면, 운송인의 책임소멸, 운송물의 멸실 훼손 등의 통지, 운송인의 사용인.대리인의 책임, 실제 운송인의 책임, 순차운송인의 책임 등에 관한 규정이 있다. 이와 같은 항공화물운송인의 책임에 관한 규정가운데 쟁점사항으로는, 항공운송편 제정안 제913조제1항 단서의 운송인의 면책사유로 몬트리올 협약 제18조제2항에 규정되어 있지 아니한 폭동, 내란, 검역 등이 추가되어 있다는 점, 상법 제121조 및 제147조는 육상운송 및 육상운송주선의 경우 운송인의 책임에 관하여 악의의 경우를 제외하고 1년의 단기 제척기간을 규정하고 있는 반면에 항공운송편 제정안 제902조는 항공운송인의 악의가 있든 없든 2년의 제척기간을 규정하고 있는 점, 항공운송편 제정안 제899조 제3항은 화물운송의 경우 항공운송인의 사용인이나 대리인에게 고의 또는 인식있는 무모한 작위 또는 부작위가 있는 경우에도 사용인이나 대리인인 운송인이 주장할 수 있는 항변과 책임제한을 원용할 수 있다는 점들을 들수 있다. 결론적으로, 상법 항공운송편 제정안에는 당사자 간의 분쟁해결 및 운송인의 책임분산에 관한 규정이 있지 아니한 바 몬트리올 협약 제34조의 중재 및 제50조의 보험에 관한 규정을 수용하여 포함시키는 것이 바람직할 것이다. 또한 상법 항공운송편 제정안이 조속히 국회에서 통과되어 시행될 경우 운송인 등과 화주 간에 화물의 멸실, 훼손 또는 연착으로 인한 손해배상책임에 관한 분쟁을 원활하고 공평하게 해결하는데 기여할 것이다.

• 항공우주정책ㆍ법학회지
• /
• 제1권
• /
• pp.47-85
• /
• 1989

The Fundamental purpose of the Warsaw Convention was to establish uniform rules applicable to international air transportation. The emphasis on the benefits of uniformity was considered important in the beginning and continues to be important to the present. If the desire for uniformity is indeed the mortar which holds the Warsaw system together then it should be possible to agree on a worldwide liability limit. This liability limit would not be so unreasonable, that it would be impossible for nations to adhere to it. It would preclude any national supplemental compensation plan or Montreal Agreement type of requirement in any jurisdiction. The differentiation of liability limits by national requirement seems to be what is occurring. There is a plethora of mandated limits and Montreal Agreement type 'voluntary' limits. It is becoming difficult to find more than a few major States where an unmodified Warsaw Convention or Hague Protocol limitation is still in effect. If this is the real world in the 1980's, then let the treaty so reflect it. Upon reviewing the Warsaw Convention, its history and the several attempts to amend it, strengths become apparent. Hijackings of international flights have given rise to a number of lawsuits by passengers to recover damages for injuries suffered. This comment is concerned with the liability of an airline for injuries to its passengers resulting from aviation terrorism. In addition, analysis is focused on current airline security measures, particularly the pre-boarding screening system, and the duty of air carriers to prevent weapons from penetrating that system. An airline has a duty to exercise a high degree of care to protect its passengers from the threat of aviation terrorism. This duty would seemingly require the airline to exercise a high degree of care to prevent any passenger from smuggling a weapon or explosive device aboard its aircraft. In the case an unarmed hijacker who boards having no instrument in his possession with which to promote the hoax, a plaintiff-passenger would be hard-pressed to show that the airline was negligent in screening the hijacker prior to boarding. In light of the airline's duty to exercise a high degree of care to provide for the safety of all the passengers on board, an acquiescene to a hijacker's demands on the part of the air carrier could constitute a breach of duty only when it is clearly shown that the carrier's employees knew or plainly should have known that the hijacker was unarmed. A finding of willful misconduct on the part of an air carrier, which is a prerequisite to imposing unlimited liability, remains a question to be determined by a jury using the definition or standard of willful misconduct prevailing in the jurisdiction of the forum court. Through the willful misconduct provision of the Warsaw Convention, air carrier face the possibility of unlimited liability for failure to implement proper preventive precautions against terrorist. Courts, therefore, should broadly construe the willful misconduct provision of the Warsaw Convention in order to find unlimited liability for passenger injuries whenever air carrier security precautions are lacking. In this way, the courts can help ensure air carrier safety and prevention against terrorist attack. Air carriers, therefore, would have an incentive to increase, impose and maintain security precautions designed to thwart such potential terrorist attacks as in the case of Korean Air Lines Flight No.858 incident having a tremendous impact on the civil aviation community. The crash of a commercial airliner, with the attending tragic loss of life and massive destruction of property, always gives rise to shock and indignation. The general opinion is that the legal system could be sufficient, provided that the political will is there to use and apply it effectively. All agreed that the main responsibility for security has to be borne by the governments. I would like to remind all passengers that every discovery of the human spirit may be used for opposite ends; thus, aircraft can be used for air travel but also as targets of terrorism. A state that supports aviation terrorism is responsible for violation of International Aviation Law. Generally speaking, terrorism is a violation of international law. It violates the soverign rights of the states, and the human rights of the individuals. I think that aviation terrorism as becoming an ever more serious issue, has to be solved by internationally agreed and closely co-ordinated measures. We have to contribute more to the creation of a general consensus amongst all states about the need to combat the threat of aviation terrorism.

• 의료법학
• /
• 제15권2호
• /
• pp.317-343
• /
• 2014

In order to account for whether a doctor should indemnify damages resulted from violation of duty of care, the fact that a doctor violated duty of care, that damages were incurred, and the link between violation of duty of care and damages incurred, respectively, should be verified. So even though a doctor violated duty of care to patients, he or she will not bear the responsibility to indemnify damages unless it is not verified. If a doctor's negligence in medical practices is assessed that obviously unfaithful medical practice far exceeds the limit of admission of a patient, it will not go against people's general perception of justice or law and order to constitute a medical malpractice itself as an illegal action that will require liabiliy for damage. However, when the limit of admission is set too low, a patient's benefit and expectation of proper medical treatment can be violated. In contrast, if the limit of admission is set high, it can leave too little room for doctors' discretion for treatments due to a bigger risk of indemnification for damages. Thus, a reasonable balance that can satisfy both benefit and expectation of patients and doctors' right to treatment is needed.