• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.30 no.1
• /
• pp.3-29
• /
• 2015

In case of C-410/11, Pedro Espada $S\acute{a}nchez$ and Others v Iberia $L\acute{i}neas$ $A\acute{e}reas$ de $Espa\tilde{n}a$ SA., ECLI:EU:C:2012:747, the passengers of a flight between Barcelona and Paris, whose baggage had been lost, lodged a claim before a Spanish court, asking for compensation. More specifically, the claimants were a family of four (two adults and two children), and had stored all their personal items in two suitcases, which had been checked in and tagged but never returned to the passengers in question. The four claimants relied on the Montreal Convention, ratified by the EU, which provides that each passenger can claim up to 1,000 SDRs in compensation (i.e. ${\euro}1,100$) in case his or her baggage is lost; thus, they sought to recover ${\euro}4,400$ (4,000 SDRs, i.e. 1,000 SDRs x4). The preliminary reference issue raised by the Spanish court to the CJEU regarded the $Montr\acute{e}al$ Convention's correct interpretation; in particular, it asked whether compensation should be available only to passengers whose lost baggage had been checked in "in their own name" or whether it is also available to passengers whose personal items had been stored in the (lost) baggage of a different passenger. The CJEU held that compensation had to be granted to all passengers whose items had been lost, regardless of whether these had been stored in baggage checked in "in their own name." In fact, it maintained that the real aim of the $Montr\acute{e}al$ convention is to provide passenger-consumers with protection for the loss of their personal belongings, so the circumstance of where these were being carried is not relevant. Nevertheless, the CJEU clarified that it is for national courts to assess the evidence regarding the actual loss of an item stored in another passenger's baggage, and maintained that the fact that a group of people were travelling together as a family is a factor that may be taken into account.

• Journal of Information Technology Services
• /
• v.13 no.3
• /
• pp.149-164
• /
• 2014

The laws and policies governing Korea's game regulations are becoming more and more topics for debate as we enter the Age of Internet. The nature of the basis for Internet regulations and policies are not rooted in freedom of speech or fundamental values of democracy, but rather focused on solving real-world problems such as protection of the youth. Furthermore, the reality is that regulatory devices for keeping the social order such as regulating gambling are being applied directly to games without consideration on the characteristics of Internet gaming, raising concerns that the expansion of constitutional values and innovative empowerment inherent to the Internet are being weakened. The Geun-Hye Park Administration which succeeded Myung-Bak Lee's Administration, even went so far as to implement the so-called "Shutdown Policy", which prohibits access to Internet games during pre-defined time zones and also instigated a time zone selection rule. In order to curb the gambling nature of Internet games, government-led policies such as the mandatory personal identification and prohibition of player selection or in other words mandatory random player selection are being implemented. These institutions can inhibit freedom of speech, which is the basis of democracy, violate the right of equality through unreasonable discrimination between domestic and foreign service providers, and infringe upon the principles of administrative law, such as laws, due process in policies, and balance in among policies and governmental bodies. Going forward, if Korea's Internet game regulations and polices is to develop in a rational manner, regulatory frameworks will need to be designed to protect the nature of the Internet and its innovative values that enable the realization of constitutional values; for example, the Internet acting as the "catalytic media for freedom of expression as a fundamental human right ", which has already been acknowledged by the Korea's Constitutional Court. At the same time, transparent procedures should be put into place that will allow diverse participation of stakeholders including game service providers, game users, the youth and parents in the legislation and enforcement process of regulatory institutions; policies will also need to be transformed to enable not only regulatory laws but also self-regulation system to be established. And in this process, scientific and empirical analysis on the expected effects before introducing regulations and the results of enforcing regulations after being introduced will need to be strengthened.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.23 no.4
• /
• pp.29-74
• /
• 2022

As social disasters occur under the Disaster Management Act, which can damage the people's "life, body, and property" due to the rapid spread and spread of unexpected COVID-19 infectious diseases in 2020, information collected through inspection and reporting of infectious disease pathogens (Article 11), epidemiological investigation (Article 18), epidemiological investigation for vaccination (Article 29), artificial technology, and prevention policy Decision), (3) It was used as an important basis for decision-making in the context of an infectious disease crisis, such as promoting vaccination and understanding the current status of damage. In addition, medical policy decisions using infectious disease data contribute to quarantine policy decisions, information provision, drug development, and research technology development, and interest in the legal scope and limitations of using infectious disease data has increased worldwide. The use of infectious disease data can be classified for the purpose of spreading and blocking infectious diseases, prevention, management, and treatment of infectious diseases, and the use of information will be more widely made in the context of an infectious disease crisis. In particular, as the serious stage of the Disaster Management Act continues, the processing of personal identification information and sensitive information becomes an important issue. Information on "medical records, vaccination drugs, vaccination, underlying diseases, health rankings, long-term care recognition grades, pregnancy, etc." needs to be interpreted. In the case of "prevention, management, and treatment of infectious diseases", it is difficult to clearly define the concept of medical practicesThe types of actions are judged based on "legislative purposes, academic principles, expertise, and social norms," but the balance of legal interests should be based on the need for data use in quarantine policies and urgent judgment in public health crises. Specifically, the speed and degree of transmission of infectious diseases in a crisis, whether the purpose can be achieved without processing sensitive information, whether it unfairly violates the interests of third parties or information subjects, and the effectiveness of introducing quarantine policies through processing sensitive information can be used as major evaluation factors. On the other hand, the collection, provision, and use of infectious disease data for research purposes will be used through pseudonym processing under the Personal Information Protection Act, consent under the Bioethics Act and deliberation by the Institutional Bioethics Committee, and data provision deliberation committee. Therefore, the use of research purposes is recognized as long as procedural validity is secured as it is reviewed by the pseudonym processing and data review committee, the consent of the information subject, and the institutional bioethics review committee. However, the burden on research managers should be reduced by clarifying the pseudonymization or anonymization procedures, the introduction or consent procedures of the comprehensive consent system and the opt-out system should be clearly prepared, and the procedure for re-identifying or securing security that may arise from technological development should be clearly defined.