• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.20 no.2
• /
• 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.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.26 no.1
• /
• pp.177-213
• /
• 2011

The purpose of this paper is to research on the liability and cases for space damage with reference to the space activity under the international space treaty and national space law of major countries. The United Nations has adopted two treaties relating to the liability for space damage as follows: the Outer Space Treaty of 1967 and the Liability Convention of 1972. Korea has enacted the Outer Space Damage Compensation Act of 2008 relating to the liability for space damages. The Outer Space Treaty of 1967 regulates the international responsibility for national activities in outer space, and the national tort liability for damage by space launching object. 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, and 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, and the exercise period of the claim right of compensation for damage. There are several cases with reference to the liability for damage caused by space accidents as follows: the Collision between Iridium 33 and Cosmos 2251, the Disintegration of Cosmos 954 over Canadian Territory, the Failure of Satellite Launching by Martin Marietta, and the Malfunctioning of Westar VI Satellite. In the disputes and lawsuits due to such space accidents, the problems relating to the liability for space damage have been settled by the application of absolute(strict) liability principle or faulty liability principle. The Liability Convention of 1972 should be improved as follows: the clear definition in respect of the claimer of compensation for damage, the measure in respect of the enforcement 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 the 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, and the establishment of the Space Damage Compensation Review Commission. 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 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.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.18 no.3
• /
• pp.139-163
• /
• 2008

The Collective Dispute Mediation was introduced to Korea with complement the Verbandsklage which was said to be poor at monetary compensation for consumers' damages. and The Collective Dispute Mediation also seems very likely to the class action, but one can resolve the dispute before filing a law suit under the Collective Dispute Mediation. The validity of the Collective Dispute Mediation is the same as the "settlement in court". After reaching the Collective Dispute Mediation, one may have a right to ask the compulsory execution. Under the Collective Dispute Mediation the damaged party must take part directly in the dispute, because the Collective Dispute Mediation is also included in the dispute resolution. Therefore a problem that how can the damaged consumer, who do not directly take part in the dispute process, get the remedy alternatively may arise. However, this problem is solved by Compensation Plan Letter which is described in the "Framework Act on Consumer". By the Compensation Plan Letter, the person who do not directly take part in the dispute process can be remedied ex post facto(Article 68). This thesis is study on The Function and Task of Collective Dispute Mediation in the Framework Act on Consumer in our state.

• Fire Science and Engineering
• /
• v.33 no.5
• /
• pp.109-117
• /
• 2019

When those who have caused a fire have no ability to compensate fire victims, the victims tend to charge fire agencies for state compensation to receive damage relief. This study analyzed two state compensation cases related to fires. The findings suggest that if there is a causal relationship between fire damage and mistakes committed by fire officials that are associated with fire prevention or special fire inspections, courts usually decide that fire agencies should compensate fire victims. Despite the introduction of a new article in the Framework Act on Fire-Fighting Services on December 26, 2017, titled "Exemption from Responsibility for Fire-Fighting Activities", exemptions are only available if inevitability of the activity has been proven. However, unlike rescue or first aid activity, inevitability is difficult to prove when it comes to fire inspection activity. Therefore, it is expected that state compensation suits related to fires will not decrease.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.21 no.1
• /
• pp.153-185
• /
• 2020

In principle, even if serious consequences such as death or serious injury of a patient occur as a result of a medical accident, if the medical malpractice of a health care worker is not recognized, the health care worker is not held liable for said consequences. However, with the opening of the Korea Medical Dispute Mediation and Arbitration Agency on April 7, 2012, a system was established to compensate health care personnel for their medical malpractices only in the case of "injuries caused by medical accidents in the course of childbirth" (hereinafter referred to as "program for compensation of medical accidents"). Article 46 paragraph 1 of the current Medical Dispute Mediation Act, which is the basis of the Force Majeure Medical Accident Compensation System, stipulates that "medical accidents under delivery" claims are to be determined by the Medical Accident Compensation Review Committee are subject to the compensation project. And the details of the compensation, ratio of sharing financial resources for compensation, scope of compensation, and the guidelines and procedure for the payment of compensations are prescribed by Presidential Decree. In other words, the Presidential Decree requires the state to pay 70 percent of the compensation funds, and 30 percent of the above funds among health care providers. The Constitutional Court has decided on the 2015Hun-Ga13 that the scope of the health care institution's founders and the share of the compensation funds cannot be directly determined by the law, and that the portion delegated by the Presidential decree does not violate the Principle of Legal Protection nor Comprehensive Nondelegation Doctrine. However, this can be seen as an exclusion of accountability for force-induced delivery accidents even if there is no negligence of the medical staff. If the nature of the system is a type of social security system with a social compensatory nature, it could consider eliminating the health care innovator's cost-sharing provisions, leaving the full cost to the state. However, it is also necessary to review institutional protocols that strengthen the efforts of medical institutions in areas such as analysis of the causes of medical accidents and measures to prevent their recurrence. In addition, I think that the conclusion of the Act is in line with the purpose of the Comprehensive Wage Support Regulations that at minimum the law sets an upper limit of the compensation funds that are to be paid by health and medical institutions. Moreover, it is reasonable for the Medical Accident Compensation Review Committee to specify gestational age and weight of births, which are the criteria for compensation, under the Enforcement Decree of the Medical Dispute Mediation Act, in relation to the criteria for payment of contributions by the Medical Accident Compensation Review Committee, and to set the detailed criteria.

• The Korean Journal of Emergency Medical Services
• /
• v.26 no.1
• /
• pp.119-127
• /
• 2022

Purpose: This study aimed to examine the necessity of administrative compensation insurance and claims cases during the emergency medical service process among administrative compensation insurance cases and suggests problems and improvement measures. Methods: We compared the details of administrative compensation insurance claims of 15 cities and provinces, excluding Seoul and Kwangju, from 2017 to 2020 by requesting details disclosure of the comprehensive deduction for administrative compensation in 17 cities and provinces across the country. Results: A total of 69 cases were compensated through the administrative comprehensive compensation deductions. There were 53 cases of damage that occurred at the field stage, 14 cases at the transfer and hospital stage, and two other cases. Conclusion: The 119 paramedics, which are the perpetrators, should be active in field activities and free from the psychological pressure caused by increased workload and litigation. Active compensation administration is required for damage cases occurring in the firefighting activities context.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.19 no.2
• /
• pp.139-171
• /
• 2018

The 「Act on Remedies for Injuries from Medical Malpractice and Mediation of Medical Disputes」(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act on Mediation of Medical Disputes') provides that the state should compensate the victims of medical accidents occurred irresistibly in childbirth despite that health and medical service personnel fulfilled their duty of care for their damage within the range of its budget(Article 46 of the Act on Mediation of Medical Disputes). Given that victims of medical accidents could expect demage recovery only through lawsuits thus far, this act can be said to be a groundbreaking act. However, However, as 30% of the costs for such medical accident compensation projects are borne by those who have records of childbirth among the founders of health and medical institutions (Article 21 of the Act on Mediation of Medical Disputes), there has been a question about whether doctors are held responsible despite that the accidents such as the deaths of mothers and newborn babies occurred irresistibly without doctors' fault. However, recently, the Constitutional Court ruled that 'the range of founders of health and medical institutions' and 'share ratios of finances for compensation' in Article 46 (3) of the Act on Mediation of Medical Disputes' related to the imposition of the share of costs are institutional (Constitutional Court ruling dated April 26, 2018, 2015Heonga13, hereinafter referred to as 'the ruling in the case'). Although the ruling in the case was made based on only the principle of statutory reservation and the principle of ban on comprehensive authorization, this paper added a practical judgment. This paper proved that the share of costs in this case has the nature of burden charges in pursuit of study and does not infringe on the property rights of the founders of health medical institutions even in light of the principle of proportionality because there is a legitimate reason for imposing the burden charge. The imposition of the share of costs in the system for compensation for medical accidents occurred irresistibly is against the principle of liability with fault in part. However, the medical accident compensation projects are rational a national policy for the victims of medical accidents and the medical world clearly gains some benefits from the effect to terminate medical disputes. The expansion of finances for compensation through the payments of the share of costs will reduce the suffering and misunderstanding of victims of medical accidents occurred in the process of childbirth and will be very helpful to the construction of stable treatment environments of medical workers by quickly establishing the medical accident compensation projects as such.

• Journal of Digital Convergence
• /
• v.14 no.6
• /
• pp.51-60
• /
• 2016

The modern state has always followed a variety of risks in the industrialization and informatization trends in the development of science and technology. Under such an environment, A matter of State compensation should take into consideration a variety of values such as harmony relief victims' rights in accordance with the principles of the rule of law, suppression of illegal acts of public servants, ensuring stable performance of official duties, the national treasury stability. As the state takes responsibility for an act of a public servant in a modern constitutional state, there may be a doubt on that the state takes responsibility only when there is a deliberation or a mistake. According to the theory of the self-responsibility, which suits the Constitution, the principle of liability with mistake on the State Compensation Law shall be excluded. I agree to the opinion that a subjective responsibility prerequisite such as a deliberation or a mistake is not required in relation to the liability of reparation on the State Compensation Law. Therefore, it is needed to convert the principle of state liability of reparation from the principle of liability with mistake to the principle of liability without mistake through a fundamental revision of the State Compensation Law.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.35 no.1
• /
• pp.63-101
• /
• 2020

'Flight safety zone' means a zone that the Minister of National Defense designates under Articles 4 and 6 of the Protection of Military Bases and Installations Act (hereinafter 'PMBIA') for the safety of flight during takeoff and landing of military aircrafts. The purpose of flight safety zone is to contribute to the national security by providing necessary measures for the protection of military bases and installations and smooth conduct of military operations. In this case, when the state set and used the flight safety zone, the landowner claimed restitution of unjust enrichment against the country. This article is an analysis based on the existing legal theory regarding the legitimacy of plaintiff's claim, and the summary of the discussion is as follows. A person who without any legal ground derives a benefit from the property or services of another and thereby causes loss to the latter shall be bound to return such benefit (Article 741 of the Civil Act). Since the subject matter is an infringing profit, the defendant must prove that he has a legitimate right to retain the profit. The State reserves the right to use over the land designated as a flight safety zone in accordance with legitimate procedures established by the PMBIA for the safe takeoff and landing of military aircrafts. Therefore, it cannot be said that the State gained an unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent over the land without legal cause. Expropriation, use or restriction of private property from public necessity and compensation therefor shall be governed by Act: provided, that in such a case, just compensation shall be paid (Article 23 (1) of the Constitution of The Republic of KOREA). Since there is not any provision in the PMBIA for loss compensation for the case where a flight safety zone is set over land as in this case, next question would be whether or not it is unconstitutional. Even if it is designated as a flight safety zone and the use and profits of the land are limited, the justification of the purpose of the flight safety zone system, the appropriateness of the means, the minimization of infringement, and the balance of legal interests are still recognized; thus just not having any loss compensation clause does not make the act unconstitutional. In conclusion, plaintiff's claim for loss compensation based on the 'Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for land, etc. for Public Works Projects', which has no provision for loss compensation due to public limits, is unjust.

• 한국사회정책
• /
• v.25 no.2
• /
• pp.165-189
• /
• 2018

Under the principle of subsidiarity, the German family policy formed in the 1950s and 1960s minimized the role of the state while maximizing the role of the parents. The German Constitutional Court, however, ruled that the level of compensation for the financial burden of child support costs must follow the basic rights, not the principle of subsidiarity. The Federal Constitutional Court has taken the duty of protecting the human dignity of the state under Article 1 of the Constitution as the starting point of the judgment. The Federal Constitutional Court held that the dignity of a child is guaranteed only if the level of the child's allowance or deduction is equal to or higher than the level of the child standard benefit under the Social Assistance Act established by Congress. The Federal Constitutional Court also regarded the state to compensate parents for child support costs as much as the level of child standard benefit under the Social Assistance Act as a family protection obligation of the state under Article 6, Section 1 of the Constitution. In addition, the Federal Constitutional Court ruled that the right to equality declared by Article 3 of the Constitution can be realized by compensating all parents for child support costs at the level of child standard benefit under the Social Assistance Act.