• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제32권
• /
• pp.29-56
• /
• 2006

This article primarily concerns the various aspects of the rules to control express terms particularly in standard form which seek to absolve either wholly or in part from the seller's liability for non-conforming goods. It describes and analyzes in detail how English law regulates such terms. In this analysis, it places the following questions; first, whether each jurisdiction treats the seller's liability for non-conformity in quality and quantity as mandatory rules, second, if it does, to what extent it is treated so and third, if not, in what way it controls the seller's attempt to exclude or restrict his liability for non-conformity in quality and quantity. In addition, it attempts to compare the rules under English law with those under Korean law and to evaluate them in light of the discipline of comparative law. In an attempt to evaluate them, it asks the question of whether a solution from one jurisdiction may facilitate the systematic development and reform of another jurisdiction. The evaluation is based upon the idea that the problems of fairness associated with the use of standard terms occur where the customer is unfairly taken by surprise due to his ignorance of the terms, or where even if he knows of the substance of the terms and objects to it, he is met with a take-it-or-leave-it situation.

• 한국항해학회지
• /
• 제19권4호
• /
• pp.41-61
• /
• 1995

The international trade is basically founded on the contract of international sale of goods and backed up by the contract of international carriage of goods and the contract of insurance in the goods carried. For the efficient development of international trade, it is essential to incorporate the above three fields closely together. Economic growth has developed international trade which has accelerated the development of international carriage of goods. As a result of rapid expansion of international carriage of goods, rationalization of transport was required, which has brought about the International Multimodal Transport System(herein after referred to as 'IMT') through containerization. International multimodal transport system has affected international trade a lot, especially the field of insurance a great deal. The aim of this paper is to analyze contents of Multimodal Transport Operator's(MTO's) liability system in the UN Convention on International Multimodal Transport of Goods, 1980 and FIATA Bill of Lading(FBL) as one of current Multimodal Transport Documents. The analysis of MTO's liability system will be a good introductory concept for the further study of insurance problems for the development of IMT.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제69권
• /
• pp.23-43
• /
• 2016

This study describes the exclusion of the seller's liability for defects in title under CISG and UCC. Through comparing two provisions, this article provides contracting parties with guidance regarding choosing governing laws and practical advice. CISG and UCC states not only the seller's liability for defects in title but also the exclusion respectively. Under two provisions, contracting parties who wish to avoid this liability may agree that the liability will not apply. Under UCC ${\S}$2-213(2), the seller's warranty can be disclaimed by specific language in the contract or by the circumstances surrounding the transaction. Although there is no express exclusion provision under CISG Article 41 and 42, Article 6 allows contracting parties to agree that they may exclude the application of the seller's liability. Both Article 42 under CISG and ${\S}$2-213(3) under UCC provide where the buyer furnishes specification to the seller. Under UCC ${\S}$2-213(3), it is the buyer's warranty to hold the seller harmless from any claims which arise from the seller complying with specification furnished by the buyer. But, under CISG Article 42, the seller's duty is excluded if the third party right or claim result from the fact that the seller has complied with specifications provided by the buyer. Therefore Article 42 does not charge the buyer with the duty, but rather limits the circumstances under which he could cause claims under Article 42. Interestingly, CISG has provisions which are absent from UCC. First, under Article 41, the seller escapes the liability if the buyer agree to take the goods subject to the third party right or claim. Second, under Article 42(2)(a), the seller is not liable if the buyer knew or could not have been unaware of the third party right or claim at the time of the conclusion of the contract.

• 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.

• 의료법학
• /
• 제7권1호
• /
• pp.323-386
• /
• 2006

A combination of information technology and medical care has given rise to a new type of medicine, i.e., telemedicine. Broadly defined, telemedicine is the transfer of electronic medical data from one location to another. Both at home and abroad, telemedicine has come to success in establishing appropriate equipment and solutions for such non-conventional medicine. Sooner or later, telemedicine is believed to find itself as one of the universal treatments. In order to facilitate the full-fledged development of telemedicine, a number of legal and institutional problems have to be settled. In Korea, the Medical Act was amended to include such provisions as telemedicine, electronic medical records, electronic prescriptions, etc. and the Act came into force on March 31, 2002. Telemedicine is in common with the conventional medicine in that a physician treats a patient. However, telemedicine is basically differentiated in the followings: - The offer and acceptance of treatment and medication are usually made on-line; - Telemedicine is inherently dangerous because a physician cannot meet face-to-face with a patient; and - Joint and several liability is borne by all the physicians involved in a telemedical consultation. As a result, telemedicine is vulnerable in nature to medical malpractice. Accordingly, there must be some new theories and arguments in the formation of contract and torts. The discussion on the civil liability covers the above-mentioned issues, and would give an insight or guidelines in the concerted operation of provisions with respect to telemedicine. This study delves into the civil liability of physicians involved in telemedical consultations and treatments based upon the conventional malpractice theory.

• 항공우주정책ㆍ법학회지
• /
• 제32권1호
• /
• pp.139-175
• /
• 2017

국회는 2017년 3월 30일 제조물책임법 일부개정법률안을 국회본회의에서 통과시켰다. 본 개정안에는 무엇보다 피해자인 소비자의 입증책임을 완화시키며 제조물책임의 배상책임을 3배까지 증액하는 신설조항이 있어서, 제조물책임관련 소송이 증대될 것이며, 제조물책임보험 가입이 증가할 것이다. 군용항공기 제작사는 군용항공기의 제작목적이 기동성 위주이며, 군의 작전성을 위주로 운용되기 때문에 현실적으로 군용항공기 제조사들이 군용항공기 제조물책임보험을 들 수 없는 현실 상황하에 군용항공기제작사는 제조물책임법과 하자담보책임, 채무불이행책임의 손해배상 위험에 직면하여 있다. 제조물책임법의 시원지인 미국은 1970년대 제조물책임법이 시행되게 되자, 군용항공기제작사의 책임한도에 대하여 학계, 법조계, 보험업계에서 큰 논란이 있었으며, 군용항공기 제작사의 책임문제를 해결하기 위하여, Government Contractor Defense (GCD, 정부계약자항변) 라는 법리를 판례로 만들어 냈다. 한국과 미국정부가 맺고 실제 적용하고 있는 Foreign Military Sales(FMS) 계약서에는 군용항공기제작사에 대한 면책조항이 있다. 군용항공기 제작사가 높은 제조물책임보험을 들 수 없고, 방산원가에도 제조물책임보험료를 반영시키지 않는 현실에서 외국의 수출을 확대하고 있는 군용항공기제작사는 위기 그 자체에 직면하고 있음을 정확히 알고, 시급히 이러한 위기를 해결할 수 있는 입법개정, 정책수립을 하여야만 한다.

• 의료법학
• /
• 제7권2호
• /
• pp.113-136
• /
• 2006

In recent years, as well as the other countries, medical dispute cases increase continuously in China. one of the reason that medical cases increase rapidly like this is after reformation and opening people's sense of independence, law and right come to be high, but a theoretical study about medical malpractice liability is insufficient and there is deficiency at legislation from 1986 civil law general rule is carried out in Chinese. but it is difficulty to deal with those more and more complicated medical dispute only according to the law above. so in 2001 The Chinese Supreme Court established the judicial construction about civil litigation evidence which regulated the shift of the burden of proof of medical malpractice and the relation of cause and effect from the plaintiffs to the defendants. in 2002 the State Council made out Incident of Malpractice Processing Rule. but many scholar pointed out the problem in it. on the other side, according to Chinese Contract Law parties could choose contractual or tort liability to prosecute. but because of the judicial construction above majority of people asked tort liability. of course there are some cases asking contractual liability. then this paper aim at analysis of the Chinese medical malpractice liability, especially of the problems about the subject of responsibility, burden of proof and scope of responsibility.

• 항공우주정책ㆍ법학회지
• /
• 제31권1호
• /
• pp.99-144
• /
• 2016

대상사안에서 한국인은 유럽항공사(에어프랑스)의 초과예약으로 인하여 파리에서 서울행 항공기의 탑승이 거절되었다. 대상사안에서는 국제사법 시행 이후 국제항공운송계약의 준거법, 항공권의 초과예약으로 인한 탑승거절에 대하여 항공사가 부담하는 민사책임 등이 문제되었다. 운송계약이나 소비자의 상거소지 외에서 용역이 제공되는 계약이라고 하더라도 소비자계약에 해당하는 경우에는 소비자의 상대방이 계약체결에 앞서 그 국가에서 광고에 의한 거래의 권유 등 직업 또는 영업활동을 행하거나 그 국가외의 지역에서 그 국가로 광고에 의한 거래의 권유 등 직업 또는 영업활동을 행하고, 소비자가 그 국가에서 계약체결에 필요한 행위를 한 경우나, 소비자의 상대방이 그 국가에서 소비자의 주문을 받은 경우 등에는, 당사자가 준거법을 선택하지 아니하였더라도 국제사법 제27조 제2항이 적용되어 소비자의 상거소지법이 준거법이 된다(대법원 2014. 8. 28. 선고 2013다8410 판결). 이에 따르면, 대상사안에서 문제가 된 국제항공여객운송계약도 소비자계약에 해당하므로, 준거법은 국제사법 제27조 제2항에 의하여 상거소지법인 대한민국 법이 된다. 이는 로마협약(80/934/EEC) 제5조 제4항에서 운송계약이나 소비자에 대한 용역이 소비자가 상거소를 가지는 국가 이외의 장소에서 배타적으로 제공되어야 하는 용역의 제공에 관한 계약에 대하여는 소비자의 상거소지법의 적용을 배제하는 것과 반대견해로, 외국항공사를 이용하여 국제여행을 다녀오는 내국인이 점차 증가하고 있는 상황에서 내국인 보호에 커다란 이정표가 될 수 있다. 다음으로 초과예약의 관행을 긍정한다 하더라도, 항공사는 초과예약으로 인하여 탑승이 거절된 승객에게 적절한 대체항공편을 제공하여야 하고, 만약 그러한 의무를 이행하지 아니한 경우에는 민법상 채무불이행 책임을 부담한다고 판시하여, 항공사의 민사책임을 명확히 하였다는 점에서 의의가 있다.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제67권
• /
• pp.97-118
• /
• 2015

This study reviews the judgements by the Korean Supreme Court on the time of delivery of goods, as it depends on which bonded place the goods are kept for the purpose of the customs clearance. Thereafter, this study analyzes the Ocean Carrier's liability, when the cargoes are mis-delivered without the presentation of bill of lading in relation to the specific bonded place such as an independent bonded warehouse or a self-use bonded warehouse. Furthermore, considering that voyage charter is a kind of marine transport, this study also reviews whether or not the Court's judgements, which has been developed in respect of the carriage of affreightment, could be applied to voyage charter in respect of the time of delivery goods and the Ocean Carrier's liability for mis-delivery. Lastly, in the case that the substantial importer takes the goods from the independent bonded warehouse without the presentation of bill of lading after the customs clearance, it is noted that the Court has made the Ocean Carrier liable for the mis-delivery through the application of theory of double deposit contract. The position of the Court would be understandable in terms of the protection for the bona-fide holder of bill of lading, but this study reviews the limitation of liability as the device for the protection of the Ocean Carrier, considering the situation where the Ocean Carrier is somewhat unreasonably sacrificed under the bonded system provided for the convenience of substantial importer.