• 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.

• 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.

• 대한안전경영과학회:학술대회논문집
• /
• 대한안전경영과학회 2001년도 춘계학술대회
• /
• pp.235-239
• /
• 2001

The purpose of this study is to develop an insurance system for product quality liability(PQL) by reviewing some legal issues concerning the product liability It is concluded that the purpose and the function of PQL insurance have to be considered with robust experience data for the life of product, quality system of the company, size of company, the number and amount of products produced by a company and the type of company etc. And this article reviews some problems of policy including the possibility of anti-selection and reverse selection.

• 한국신뢰성학회지:신뢰성응용연구
• /
• 제2권2호
• /
• pp.99-112
• /
• 2002

Risk financing is defined as the methods applied to fund risk treatment and the financial consequences of risk. It is a major component of the transfer of risk and the retention of risk which are, in turn, parts of the risk treatment process. This study applied the general guidelines on risk financing to product liability risk. Product liability risk occurs when potential defects in the process of design, production, and distribution lead to accidents resulting in fatal, financial, and environmental loss. Risk on product liability may be financed in many different ways, each of which may be used singularly or in combination. The most popular and recommendable way suggested in the guidelines is the retention or use of reserves, transfer, credit or insurance.

• 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.

• 항공우주정책ㆍ법학회지
• /
• 제21권1호
• /
• pp.169-189
• /
• 2006

2007년 고흥 우주센타에서 우리가 만든 KSLV(Korea Small Launching Vehicle)이 발사될 예정이며, 우리나라의 우주개발을 체계적으로 진흥하고 우주물체를 효율적으로 이용관리하기 위하여'우주개발진흥법'이 제정되었고 효력을 발휘하고 있다. '우주개발진흥법'제3조 (1)항에서"정부는 다른 국가 및 국제기구와 대한민국이 맺은 우주 관련 조약을 지키며 우주공간의 평화적 이용을 도모한다."라고 규정하고 있는바, 대표적으로 우주조약(1967)과 책임협약(1972)등이 그 대표적인 국제협약들이다. 우주물체로 야기된 손해에 대한 책임협약 제2조에서 발사국은 자국의 우주물체에 대하여"지상(on the surface of the earth) 또는 비행중인 항공기(aircraft in flight)에서 발생된 손해에 대하여 절대적(absolutely liable)으로 배상할 책임이 있다고 규정하고 있다. 우주개발진흥법 제14조 (우주사고에 따른 손해배상책임)에는"우주물체를 발사한 자는 그 우주물체로 인한 우주사고에 따른 손해배상책임을 부담하여야 한다."는 규정은 발사허가의 문제를 넘어, 우주발사자에게 명백하게 책임을 부담하고 있는 것이다. 또한 우주책임협약(1972) 제2조에는 발사국(A launching State)이 배상책임의 주체가 되어 있다. 따라서, 현재 다른 나라의 사례에서 보면, 우주발사자는 제3자 피해 등에 대한 책임보험까지만 배상을 하고 그 보다 많은 배상액이 요구될 때에는 국가가 손해배상을 부담하는 체재로 수행하고 있다. 여기서, 우주발사자에게 제조물책임법을 적용시킬 수 있느냐의 문제가 제기된다. 우리나라는 2002년 7월 1일부터 시행하고 있다. KSLV개발에 있어서 KARl와 러시아제작사간 계약은 공동개발인지 기술이전개발 인지에 대한 명확한 이해가 부족하다. 특히, 러시아 회사들에 대한 책임면책에 대한 규정들이 없는 것으로 알고 있는데, 우주개발의 통념상 상호면책을 한다는 인식만으로 러시아 회사들의 제작 및 개발책임들을 면책할 수 있는 방안은 없다고 판단된다. 따라서, 명백한 책임면책 조항이 없다면, 러시아 회사들에 대하여, 한국의 제조물책임법이 적용될 수 있다고 판단된다. 가장 중요한 법적논점은 KARl와 주요부품업체간에 제조물책임법을 적용할 수 있는가에 대한 문제이다. KARl는 모 주요부품업체간의 물품구매계약특수조건에 대한 합의서 제17조에 제조물책임법에 대한 규정을 하고 있다. 참고로, Appalachian Insurance co. v. McDonnell Douglas 사례를 검토할 필요가 있는데, 본 사건은 Western Union Telegraph사 소유의 원거리 전기통신위성이 본 궤도 진입에 실패한 사례이다. Western Union의 보험회사는 완전한 손실로 간주하여 그 위성에 대해 Western Union 사에 1억 5백만 달러의 보험금을 지급하였다. 5개의 보험회사- Appalachian 보험 회사, Commonwealth 보험회사, Industrial Indemnity, Mutual Marine Office, Northbrook Excess & Surplus 보험회사 - 는 McDonnell Douglas와 Morton Thiokol 그리고 Hitco사를 상대로 과실과 제품에 대한 엄격한 책임을 물어 고소를 했다. Appalachian Insurance co. v. McDonnell Douglas사례를 참고로, KARl는 주요 제작업체의 제조물책임을 면책시켜주는 계약을 맺어야 한다. 주요제작업체가 제조물 책임을 면하기 위하여, 자비로 보험을 들게 되면 곧 KSLV 제작비만 증가하게 되기 때문이다. 따라서, Government Contractor Defense(정부계약자 항변)'의 법적개념을 적용시킬 수 있는지 여부에 대한 연구가 필요하다.

• 대한안전경영과학회지
• /
• 제10권3호
• /
• pp.99-107
• /
• 2008

Product liability(PL) is the producer's compensation to customers for damage incurred by product defects. This paper studies on the organizational culture, promotion process, system construction, system level, product safety review, product safety assurance, system operation, and its effectiveness and necessity of recognition for the PL system of small and medium-sized firms in Gangwon-Do province. The results show that the firms have product safety regulations, but the number of firms which its employees understand the regulations is less than the number of firms which do not understand. Also the number of firms which is preparing PL prevention and insurance, and counterplan for accidents seems to be not in large numbers.

• 무역학회지
• /
• 제45권6호
• /
• pp.157-179
• /
• 2020

This study presented the results of meta-analysis through topic modeling among the papers published in the Journal of the International Trade Association for the purpose of presenting academic research trends in the field of trade insurance and future research directions. Among the total 2,010 papers included in the Journal of the Korea International Trade Association, the analyzed paper covers the subject of trade-related insurance. According to detailed topics, 33 marine insurance (42.31%), 16 export insurance (20.51%), 11 hull insurance (14.10%), and 18 others (23.08%), and 4 other products liability insurance. According to the empirical analysis results, Topic 1 was classified as marine insurance, airworthiness, notice obligation, and collateral, and Topic 2 was derived as a representative topic for loading insurance, emergency risk, and immunity as export insurance. And Topic 3 was classified as vessel, sinking and container in relation to ship insurance, and Topic 4 was analyzed as an important topic such as manufacture and British marine insurance. Through the analysis results, we selected the representative topic used for the trade insurance topic and looked at the status of major research. Trade insurance is an area that requires the development of more theoretical and practical research subjects as an optimal risk management means in international trade transactions. To this end, first, support from the Korea International Trade Association is needed to establish a continuous research subject sharing system for the development of research subjects in the field of trade insurance. Second, academic journal operation management must be continuously managed in which academic research papers can be submitted and published.

• 산업경영시스템학회지
• /
• 제39권2호
• /
• pp.11-18
• /
• 2016

Product liability (PL), which began enforcement in 2002, refers to the legal responsibility of the manufacturers or sellers (wholesales or retailers) for the property damage or bodily harm caused by their product. With a strong enforcement of the Product Liability (PL) Act, companies are required to structure and operate a response system to defend or prevent product accidents efficiently, but small and medium enterprises (SMEs) are unable to respond more aggressively due to limitation of management resources. In this manner, it is important to develop response strategies for SMEs to efficiently cope with the PL Act. In this paper, the PEST (Political, Economic, Social, and Technological) analysis is performed to reveal the impact of the PL Act on SMEs in macro-economic point of view. To formulate SME's PL response strategy, SWOT analysis is performed to categorize each factors from PEST analysis and AHP is applied to identify the intensities of SWOT factors. The prioritized SWOT factor, results of PEST-SWOT-AHP analysis, are used to formulate SME's PL response strategies. The study results are briefly summarized as follows. To reduce product defects, it is necessary for SMEs to formulate PL response strategies for each phase of the product life cycle by continuously collecting and analyzing PL cases in the same industry or for similar products. In addition, SMEs should invest more technological effort to ensure product safety. Further, SMEs should spread PL awareness to all staff members by training internal PL experts. Moreover, a SME should enroll in PL insurance and spread this information to its customers so that they become aware that the company is proactively conforming to the PL law.

• 대한방사선기술학회지:방사선기술과학
• /
• 제30권4호
• /
• pp.305-311
• /
• 2007

조영제는 영상검사를 위해 유용한 의약품이며 점차 그 사용량이 늘어나고 있지만, 불가항력적인 부작용이 발생한다. 부작용에 대비해서 작성하게 되는 조영제 사용 동의서는 의료기관에게는 유리하고 피검자에는 불리한 내용이 담겨져 있어, 동의서에 부작용이 발생할 수 있다는 것에 동의하였다고 하여 그에 대한 손해배상책임까지 면제된다고 볼 수는 없다. 또한 조영제를 사용하는 검사 시 검사자와 조영제제조자는 선량한 관리자의 주의의무, 예견의무, 결과회피의무를 다하여야 하며, 의무를 소홀히 하게 되면 민사상의 책임이 있다. 조영제는 생산, 제조, 유통과정에 결함이 생길 수 있기 때문에 조영제제조자는 의약품 결함으로 인해 손해가 발생된다면 제조물책임을 지게 된다. 결함은 제조물의 제조 설계 또는 표시 상의 결함이나 기타 통상적으로 기대할 수 있는 안전성이 결여되어 있는 것으로 정의하고 있다. 제조물책임이란 제조물의 결함으로 말미암아 그 제조물의 이용자 또는 제 3자가 생명 신체 또는 재산상 손해를 입었을 때 그 제조물의 제조자나 판매자에게 그 결함제조물로 인하여 입은 손해를 배상하도록 책임을 묻는 것을 말한다. 조영제 사용의 증가 추세에 따른 부작용 발생빈도가 높아질 개연성과 함께 피검자들의 건강권에 대한 권리 의식이 점차 강조되고 있는 현실을 감안한다면 이제는 그에 대한 법적 책임이 정리되어야 하고, 조영제제조자는 조영제 사고에 대비하여 자구적인 대처방안을 수립하거나, 조영제 제조단체 공동으로 제조물책임보험을 들도록 하는 방안이 마련되어야 할 것이다. 의료기관과 조영제 회사 간의 거래 계약 체결 시 조영제 부작용에 대한 내용을 포함함으로써 의료기관이나 검사 당사자의 조영제 부작용 법적 책임을 경감할 수 있을 것이다.