• 항공우주정책ㆍ법학회지
• /
• 제23권1호
• /
• pp.3-32
• /
• 2008

In proportion to recent developments in aviation technology and growth of the air transport market, the risk of damages to third parties caused by aircrafts and the likelihood of unlawful interference on an aircraft in flight has grown larger. The war risk insurance market was paralyzed by the 9/11 terror event. And if another event on the scale of 9/11 occurs, compensations for third party damages will be impossible. Recognizing the need to modernize the existing legal framework and the absence of a globally accepted authority that deals with third party liability and compensation for catastrophic damage caused by acts of unlawful interference, the ICAO and various countries have discussed a liability and compensation system that can protect both third party victims and the aviation industry for the 7 years. In conclusion, in order to provide adequate protection for victims and the appropriate protection for air transport systems including air carriers, work on modernizing the Rome Convention should be continued and the new Convention should be finalized in the near future. Korea has not ratified the relevant international treaties, i.e. Rome Convention 1933, 1952 and 1978, and has no local laws which regulate the damage caused by aircraft to third parties on land. Consequently, it has to depend on the domestic civil tort laws. Most of the advanced countries in aviation such as the United States, England, Germany, France and even China, have incorporated the International Conventions to their national air law and governed carriers third party liability within their jurisdiction. The Ministry of Justice organized the Special Enactment Committee for Air Transport chapter under Commercial Law. The Air Transport chapter, which currently includes third party liability, is in the process of instituting new legislation. In conclusion, to settle such problems through local law, it is necessary to enact as soon as possible domestic legislation on the civil liability of the air carrier which has been connected with third party liability and aviation insurance.

• 산경연구논집
• /
• 제12권11호
• /
• pp.33-50
• /
• 2021

Purpose: In South Korea, two kinds of mandatory insurance, Fierce Liability Insurance and Outdoor Advertising Liability Insurance sells as of February 2021 according to relevant codes. This study analyzed third party liability and personal living liability insurance in terms of various risks not corporation side but personal side arising from normal living and life. Research design, data and methodology: Some cases of drone accident hit man and fierce dog accident were taken into analysis to verify blame ratio and insurance claim money. The former case is that on the way down the elevator, the dog, American pit bull terrier rushed in and bit the lower part of the knee against the visitor. The latter case is that while flying in the sky as usual, the drone suddenly crashed, fell, and hit the head of a young child while walking on the street. Further previous studies such as third party liabilities, liability insurance, mandatory insurance were deeply analyzed. Results: Based on some case studies and previous studies, the author suggested valuable comments in turn realization of insurer as provider, exhaustive creation and operation of mandatory insurance, realization of insured as demanded, and arrangements of laws and systems in special consideration of amendment of companion animal and exhaustive execution of mandatory insurance by the government. Conclusions: This study was about third party liability, personal living liability insurance and expansion of mandatory insurance caused by relevant laws by the government. In this study the author verified what issues were observed from two cases drone accident and fierce dog accident and then suggested some valuable comment as above both systemic plans and practical plans. First of all, the individual should get Comprehensive Property Insurance(CPI) that covers the risks of his/her own property arising from the everyday life. And then the individual should further buy Personal Living Liability Insurance(PLLI) in order to prepare 'accidents that may happen when, where, or how' and overcome the said accidents. Moreover, the individual should take a look every single insurance contract whether he/she has a special terms and conditions of Personal Living Liability Insurance(PLLI) or not.

• 항공우주정책ㆍ법학회지
• /
• 제22권2호
• /
• pp.27-51
• /
• 2007

The cumulative result of the work by the ICAO Secretariat, the Secretariat Study Group and the Council Special Group on the Modernization of the Rome Convention of 1952 are two draft Conventions, namely: "Draft Convention on Compensation for Damage Caused by Aircraft to Third Parties, in case of Unlawful Interference", and "Draft Convention on Compensation for Damage Caused by Aircraft to Third Parties" The core provisions of the former draft Convention are as follows: The liability of the operator is strict, that is, without the necessity of proof of fault. It would be liable for damage sustained by third parties on condition only that the damage was caused by an aircraft in flight(Article 3). However, such liability is caped based on the weight of the aircraft(Article 4). It is envisaged to create an independent organization called the Supplementary Compensation Mechanism, with the principle purpose to pay compensation to persons suffering damage in the territory of a State Party, and to provide financial support(Article 8). Compensation shall be paid by the SCM to the extent that the total amount of damages exceeds the Article 4 limits(Article 19). The main issues on the farmer draft Convention are relating to breaking away from Montreal Convention 1999, no limits on individual claims but a global limitation on air carrier liability, insurance coverage, cap of operators' strict liability, and Supplementary Compensation Mechanism. The core provisions of the latter draft Convention are as follows: the liability of the operator is strict, up to a certain threshold tentatively set at 250,000 to 500,000 SDRs. Beyond that, the operator is liable for all damages unless it proves that such damage were not due to its negligence or that the damages were solely due to the negligence of another person(Article 3). The provisions relating to the SCM and compensation thereunder do not operate under this Convention, as the operator is potentially for the full amount of damages caused. The main issues on the latter draft Convention are relating to liability limit of operator, and definition of general risks. In conclusion, we urge ICAO to move forward expeditiously on the draft Convention to establish a third party liability and compensation system that can stand ready to protect both third party victims and the aviation industry before another 9/11-scale event occurs.

• 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.

• 항공우주정책ㆍ법학회지
• /
• 제29권2호
• /
• pp.3-54
• /
• 2014

오랜 논의와 노력 끝에 우리나라 상법 제6편 항공운송편이 신설되어 2011년 11월부터 시행되었다. 상법 항공운송편은 국내항공운송으로 인해 발생한 항공 운송인의 손해배상책임 문제와 항공기 운항으로 인해 발생한 지상 제3자에 대한 항공기운항자의 손해배상책임 문제 등을 규율하기 위해 제정되었다. 상법 항공운송편은 관련 국제 조약들과 항공선진국들의 국내입법을 충분히 비교 검토하여 우리 법으로 수용하였기 때문에 국제 기준에 부합한다는 장점도 있지만, 항공기운항자의 지상 제3자에 대한 손해배상책임 규정을 중심으로 다음과 같이 개선해야 할 내용들도 포함하고 있다. 첫째, 상법 항공운송편상 항공기운항자의 지상 제3자 손해에 대한 배상책임 한도액은 피해자에 대한 적절한 배상을 하기에는 너무 낮은 수준으로 규정되어 있어 상향될 필요성이 있다. 따라서 독일과 같이 2009년 체결된 일반위험협약 및 불법방해배상협약의 관련 내용을 수용하여 항공기의 중량에 따른 분류기준을 10단계로 세분화하고 총 책임한도액을 최대 7억 SDR까지 상향시키면서, 인적 손해에 대한 배상책임한도액은 기존의 법무부 검토안처럼 최근의 물가상승률을 반영하여 현 규정의 5배 수준인 1인당 62만5천SDR까지 상향 조정하는 방안을 생각해 볼 수 있다. 이 방안이 한 사고당 항공사에게 일반적으로 보험으로서 보장되는 단일배상책임한도액이나 다양화 된 항공기 제원을 반영하면서도 지상 제3자에게 현실에 맞는 적절한 손해배상을 할 수 있다는 점에서 가장 바람직하다고 본다. 둘째, 항공기운항자는 현 상법 항공운송편상 항공기 납치 공격이나 9 11 테러와 같은 항공기를 이용한 공격행위 등과 같은 항공기테러에 의한 지상 제3자의 손해에 대하여도 무과실책임을 부담한다. 이에 관하여는 항공기운항자에게 지나치게 가혹하고 불합리한 입법이라는 견해가 있지만, 항공기운항자에게도 일정 부분 테러를 방지할 법적 의무가 있고 피해를 입은 제3자 구제 측면에서 그것이 항공기운항자에게 지나치게 가혹하거나 불합리하다고 생각되지는 않는다. 그러나 9 11테러와 같이 조직화 된 테러단체에 의해 항공기가 테러에 이용되어 지상 제3자 피해가 발생한 경우에도 항공기운항자가 피해자들에게 무과실책임을 지도록 하는 것은 불합리하며, 이러한 경우에는 항공기운항자의 책임이 면제되는 방향으로 상법 항공운송편 규정은 개정되어야 할 것이다. 셋째, 항공기사고와 같은 항공기 운항으로 인한 피해의 엄청난 규모를 고려해 볼 때, 다수의 피해자들이 경제적 어려움에 직면할 수 있으므로 항공여객의 인적 손해에 대한 항공운송인의 배상책임 발생 시 적용되는 선급금 지급 규정을 항공기운항자의 책임 발생 사례에도 준용할 필요가 있다고 본다. 넷째, 현행 상법 항공운송편상 항공기운항자의 손해배상책임 규정은 항공기 운항으로 인한 피해가 지상 또는 수면 및 수중에서 발생된 경우에만 적용되고 공중에서 발생한 피해에는 적용되지 않는다. 하지만 다른 항공기의 운항으로 인한 공중에서 발생된 항공기 등의 손해가 지상이나 수면 및 수중에서 발생한 손해와 차이가 있다고 볼 수 없다. 그러므로 상법 항공운송편상 '지상 제3자'라는 용어에서 '지상'이란 용어를 삭제하여 다른 항공기 운항으로 인한 공중에서의 항공기 등의 손해에도 상법 항공운송편상 항공기운항자의 지상 제3자 손해 배상책임 관련 규정이 적용될 수 있게 하는 것이 바람직하다고 본다. 위에서 제시된 상법 항공운송편상 항공기운항자의 지상 제3자 손해에 대한 배상책임 관련 규정의 개선방안 검토와 동 규정의 보완을 위한 지속적인 관심과 노력을 통하여, 상법 항공운송편이 피해를 입은 지상 등의 제3자에게 현실에 맞는 적절한 배상을 할 수 있게 하면서도 항공기운항자에게 과도한 부담을 지우지 않는 상호 간의 이익 균형상 더욱 바람직한 방향으로 발전되기를 희망한다.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제52권
• /
• pp.3-22
• /
• 2011

This study examines the seller's liability to transfer the property to the buyer. Even though contracting parties choose CISG as the governing law regulating their obligations and rights by means of their contract, CISG does not concern with the effect generated by the transfer of property. Thus, the issues of the property is settled in conformity with the domestic law applicable by virtue of the rules of private international law. By considering the general rules of the transfer of property in goods under SGA and KCC as the lex rei sitae, the difference of requirements to pass the property between them is analyzed and then the reasons why the transfer of property is importantly considered are discussed. In addition, as CISG does not exclude completely the matters concerning the property and provides the provision like Art 41, the seller's liability to deliver goods free from the third party right or claim is examined under Art 41. Lastly, the practical advice is suggested.

• 항공우주정책ㆍ법학회지
• /
• 제32권1호
• /
• pp.385-417
• /
• 2017

Insurances of space activities are divided into satellite insurance, astronaut insurance and third party liability insurance. Against the background of the rapid development of space commercialization, especially the increasing participation of private entities in space affairs, the present international and domestic mechanisms of space insurance are challenged. As a space-faring state which is in the process of developing space businesses, the regulations of space insurance in China are deserved to be discussed. Satellites insurance is at present well-developed, the "pre-launch", "launch" and "in-orbit" phases of satellites are all possible to be insured by related companies. China created the CAIA in 1997 to provide insurance for Chinese satellites. However, with more private entities start to involve in space as well as satellite industry, the regime established under the framework of CAIA is necessary to be modified, and the mechanism relating to space insurance brokers should be promoted. The astronauts are recognized as the envoy of humankind, and relevant international regulations are made to provide assistance to them in emergency circumstances. From the domestic perspective, astronauts will be fully insured. China creates a particular type of insurance for astronauts. However, once space tourism becomes a business, the insurance of the tourist will be demanded to be created. In order to promote China's space tourism, it is recommended to take the "Astronaut Group Insurance" as an optional model to space tourists, if the tourists are customers of a governmental-owned space company. Once private involvement of providing orbital/suborbital tourism service becomes a reality, new rules are required. Getting a third party liability insurance is deemed as an indispensable precondition for an applicant to get a launch permission. Domestic space laws will include provisions for the third party liability insurance. China's "Interim Measures" of 2002 realizes the importance of third party liability insurance and requires the permit holder to get it before entering the launching site. This regulation is different from the practices of other states. Concerning that China is the sponsor of APSCO, for the purpose of promoting commercial space cooperation, a harmonized approach to domestic law is recommended to be found.

• 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.

• 한국항만경제학회지
• /
• 제30권4호
• /
• pp.111-130
• /
• 2014

상법 제742조 제2항은 피해자 보호를 위해 책임보험계약의 경우 보험자에 대한 제3자의 직접청구권을 전면 허용하고 있다. 한편 선주는 선박의 운항과정에서 발생될 수 있는 각종 책임과 비용을 담보받기 위하여 선주상호보험조합과 선주상호보험계약을 체결하게 되는데, 본 계약규정에는 제3자의 직접청구권을 배제하는 소위, 선지급조항이 규정되어 있다. 최근 서울중앙지방법원은, 화주에게 보험금을 지급하고 대위권을 취득한 적하보험자가 선주상호보험조합을 상대로 직접청구권을 행사한 사안에서, 상법상 선지급조항의 효력에 대한 판단을 내렸다. 동 법원은 제3자의 직접청구권은 피보험자인 선주의 선주상호보험조합에 대한 보험금청구권이 아니라 제3자가 선주상호보험조합에 대하여 가지는 손해배상청구권이며, 상법 제742조 제2항에 규정된 직접청구권은 피해자 보호를 위해 인정된 강행규정이므로 이를 배제하는 보험계약규정상 선지급조항은 무효라고 판시하였다. 이번 판결은 하급심 판결이면서 분쟁금액도 소액이지만, 피해자이자 제3자인 화물이해관계자가 선주의 책임보험자인 선주상호보험조합에 대하여 직접청구권을 행사할 수 있는지와 선주상호보험조합이 피해자에게 책임보험계약상 각종 항변권을 주장할 수 있는지에 대한 최초의 판결로서 학계와 실무계에 시사하는 바가 크다. 따라서 본 논문의 목적은 해상보험업계에서 지도적 위치에 있는 영국법과 비교 분석을 통해 선주상호보험조합에 대한 적하보험자의 직접청구권의 법적 성질과 선지급조항의 효력이 주된 쟁점이 되었던 서울중앙법원 판결의 타당성을 평가하고, 향후 법률상 분쟁을 예방하기 위한 상법의 개정방향을 제시하는 것이다. 본 논문은 제3자의 직접청구권은 보험금청구권이므로 선지급조항이 유효하다는 입장에서 대상판결을 비판하고, 상법도 직접청구권이 보험금청구권이라는 점을 명확히 하도록 개정되어야 한다고 주장한다.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제60권
• /
• pp.47-77
• /
• 2013

The way for seller to procure the goods for selling is to produce the goods at his own factory and to buy the manufactured goods from the other company. In order to produce the goods for selling the seller have to obtain the resource from the domestic company or overseas. In the middle of producing the goods to sell, seller may breach the right of a third party based on intellectual property rights. That is to say, seller may use the machine that has not itself been patented and use a process which has been patented by a third party. Seller may manufacture the goods which themselves are subject to the third party industrial property rights. Nowadays it is stressed the importance of intellectual property rights such as a patent, brand, and design. These factors consist of the core elements of the competitiveness of the goods. Many embedded software have been used in the various sector. So the disputes regarding to the intellectual property rights is gradually increasing in number. Article 42 of CISG defines the seller's delivery obligations and liabilities in respect to third party intellectual property rights and claims. It contains a special rule for this similar kind of defective in title, which tries to provide an proper solution to the complex problems caused by such rights and claims in international transactions. When seller will apply this clause to the business fields, there are several points to which seller should give attention. First, Intellectual property is general terms in intangible property rights, encompassing both copyright and industrial property. Which matter fall within the scope of intellectual property? The scope of intellectual property can be inferred from the relevant international conventions, which are based on broad international consensus. Second, Article 42 of CISG governs the relationship between the seller and the buyer, that is to say, questions of who has to bear the risk of third party intellectual property rights. The existence of such intellectual property rights, the remedies available and the question of acquiring goods free of an encumbrances in good faith are outside the scope of the CISG. The governing law regarding to the abovementioned matters is needed.