• 한국원자력학회:학술대회논문집
• /
• 한국원자력학회 2004년도 요약집 춘계학술발표대회
• /
• pp.497-497
• /
• 2004

• 한국항해항만학회지
• /
• 제37권6호
• /
• pp.689-697
• /
• 2013

체선료는 운임의 일종으로서 항만에서 선박의 체항에 따른 시간적 손실에 대한 보상이다. 통상적인 항해용선계약에 따르면 체선료의 책임은 반대의 문언이 없는 한 용선자에게 있는 것으로 추정된다. 그러나 실무에서는 용선자의 책임이 제한되거나 송하인 또는 수하인 등 제3자에게 이전되어 선주가 체선료 확보에 어려운 상황에 직면하게 되는 경우가 빈번하게 발생되고 있다. 본 연구에서는 용선자, 송하인, 수하인, 선하증권의 배서인, 기타 이해당사자 간의 체선료지불 책임에 관한 문제를 영미법의 사례를 중심으로 살펴보고, 그 결과에 따른 시사점을 도출하여 선주나 용선자의 실무에 도움이 되는 방안을 제시한다.

• 유통과학연구
• /
• 제14권3호
• /
• pp.5-10
• /
• 2016

Purpose - This paper analyzed the accident of drone and related insurance goods which can be coverable with regard to drone accident. The study range is limited in the owner's care, custody, and the control of drone in South Korea, but military area and law and regulation of the drone would be exceptional. Research design, data, and methodology - With regard to drone's flight, drone can make possible risks and can give severe damage to the people. To carry out this research, literature survey and review such as journal, thesis and publications were adopted. Results - As for the insurance coverage from drone's accident involved in the purpose of business, insurance coverage depends on 'commercial general liability insurance'. However, in case of personal hobby including leasure intention, insurance coverage depends on 'living liability insurance'. Conclusions - From a drone's accident, operator and owner of the drone may face the property damage to the drone itself, and then can give severe damage or loss to the people such as physical injuries and property damage. Peoples should be concerned about having the awareness of drone's accident with insurance coverage.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제24권4호
• /
• pp.147-175
• /
• 2014

In contracts for the international sale of goods, a seller must deliver appropriate goods and hand over relevant documents according to a contract, which will transfer the ownership of the goods to a buyer. In this case, if there are defects in the contracted goods, the warranty liability will occur. However, in the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG), a term-the conformity of the goods to the contract-is used universally instead of the warranty. According to the CISG, a seller must deliver goods in conformance with the relevant contract in terms of quantity, quality, and specifications, and they must be contained in vessels or in packages according to the specifications in the contract. In addition, a certain set of requirements for conformity will be applied implicitly except when there is a separate agreement between parties. Further, the base period of conformity concerning the defects of goods is the point when the risk is transferred to the buyer. A seller shall be obliged to deliver goods that do not belong to a third party or subject to a claim then, and such obligations shall affect the right or claim of a third party to some extent based on intellectual property rights clauses. If the goods delivered by the seller lack conformity, or incur right infringement or claim of a third party, then it shall be regarded as a default item per the obligation of the seller. Thus, the buyer can exercise diverse means of relief as specified in Chapter 2, Section 3 (Article 45-Article 52) of the CISG. However, such means of relief have been utilized in various ways for individual cases as shown in judicial precedents made until now. Contracting parties shall thus keep in mind that it is best for them to make every contract airtight and they should implement each contract thoroughly and faithfully to cope with any possible occurrence of a commercial dispute.

• 항공우주정책ㆍ법학회지
• /
• 제24권2호
• /
• pp.3-17
• /
• 2009

항공기에 의한 지상 제3자 피해 보상에관한 조약체제로서 1933년의 로마조약, 1952년 로마조약, 1978년의 로마조약등 소위 로마조약체제가 발효되어 있으나 주요 민간항공국가들을 포함한 대다수의 국가들이 가입 당사국이 되지않아 실효를 보지 못한 것이 현실이다. 본 논문에서는 로마조약체제의 발전경과와 실패원인을 분석하고, 2009년 4월20일부터 5월2일까지 몬트리올 ICAO본부에서 개최된 외교회의에서 체결된 2009몬트리올협약들 즉 일반위험협약 과 불법간섭(방해)협약의 주요 내용과 문제점들에 관하여 종전의 로마협약들과 비교 검토하였다. 특히 불법간섭협약의 국제민간항공기금은 운영상 예상되는 제반 문제들로 가까운 장래에 발효가 어려울것으로 예상된다.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제64권
• /
• pp.155-185
• /
• 2014

Liability for the manufacture or supply of defective products can arise in two principle ways, in tort and in contract. English law has long regarded shipbuilding contract as agreement for the sale and purchase of goods. The consequence of which is that unless the Buyer and Builder agree otherwise, terms will automatically be implied into the contract between them as to the quality and performance of the completed vessel. The same principle applies to sub-contracts allied to the shipbuilding contract. On the other hand, one case decisions established that ".... a contract to build a ship, though a contract of sale of goods, has also some characteristics of a building contract", Recently the liability of a manufacturer in tort for physical damage i.e. personal injury and damage to property other than alleged to be defective is now well settled in most countries. Accordingly the Builder may face third party claims in tort more regularly than they have in the past, if the statutory implied terms have not been expressly excluded in contract. In such circumstances, it is necessary for the Builder to be prepared with counter measures to secure the stability of the vessel from its design development, building process, delivery and operation etc. The purpose of this paper is, from the case of "MSC Carla", to review product liability, jurisdiction and the initial date of extinctive prescription, then to suggest counter measures to the Builder.

• 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.

• 한국항만경제학회지
• /
• 제31권2호
• /
• pp.41-53
• /
• 2015

Paracomon Inc. v. Telus Communication사건('Realice호 사건')에서 Realice호의 닻이 항해과정에서 해저광섬유케이블에 얽히는 사고가 발생하자, 선주사의 대표이사이자 선장은 사용 중인 케이블을 절단해 버렸다. 케이블 소유회사는 선주에게 수리비를 청구하였고, 선주는 케이블 소유회사의 청구액을 책임보험자에게 청구하였다. 그런데 캐나다 대법원은, 선주는 1976년 해사채권에 대한 책임제한에 관한 조약('1976년 책임제한조약')에 따라 케이블 소유회사에 대한 손해배상책임을 일정 한도로 제한할 수 있으나, 케이블을 절단한 선주의 비행은 1993년 캐나다 해상보험법(Canada Marine Insurance Act)상 보험자의 면책사유인 피보험자의 고의적 불법행위(wilful misconduct)에 해당되어 책임보험자에게 보험금을 청구할 수 없다고 판결하였다. 결국 이번 판결로 선주는, 케이블소유회사에 대한 책임제한권은 인정받았으나, 책임보험자에 대한 보험금청구권은 상실하게 되었다. Realice호 사건은 국제조약상 선주에게 인정되는 책임제한과 그에 대한 책임보험의 보상 간의 상호 관계를 최초로 다루고 있다는 점에서 우리에게 시사하는 바가 크다. 따라서 본 논문의 목적은 Realice호 사건에서 대법원의 판결 이유를 분석하고, 해운 보험업계 이해와 지금까지 확립된 해상법에 기초하여 판결의 정당성을 평가하는데 있다. 본 논문은 1976년 책임제한조약의 입법 연혁을 고려할 때 선주가 책임제한권을 갖는다는 대법원의 판결은 타당하지만, 해운 및 보험업계의 이해, 제3자의 직접청구권의 도입취지, 책임제한 배제사유의 입법 과정 등을 고려할 때 책임보험자가 면책된다는 대법원의 판결은 적절하지 않다는 결론을 내린다. 끝으로, 본 논문은 이번 대법원 판결에 기초하여 2014년 세월호 사건에서 선주의 책임제한과 책임보험자의 보상 문제를 검토한다.

• Journal of Multimedia Information System
• /
• 제7권2호
• /
• pp.147-156
• /
• 2020

The author Nakajima was involved in the field of disaster communications and emergency medical care as guest research scientist at the Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission established by the National Diet of Japan and reviewer of the Commission's report, and Kurokawa was the chairman of this Commission. Looking back over a decade, we are on the liability issue of bureaucrats and telecom operators, so it's becoming clear what was hidden at the time. The battery of NTT DoCoMo's mobile phone repeaters had a capacity of only about 24 hours, and communication failures increased after one day. The Government also failed to issue an announcement of "Vent from reactor" under the Telecommunications Act Article No. 129. This mistake lost the opportunity to use the third-party telecommunications (e.g. taxi radios). Furthermore, as a result of LASCOM (telecommunications satellite network for local governments via GEO) and a variety of unexpected communication failures, the evacuation order "Escape!" could not be notified to the general public well. As a result, the general public was exposed to unnecessary radiation exposure. Such bureaucratic slow action in emergencies is common in the response to the 2020 coronavirus.

• 항공우주정책ㆍ법학회지
• /
• 제22권2호
• /
• pp.3-25
• /
• 2007

In 2002 Republic of Korea successfully launched a self-made mined proportion rocket and it is expected that she will be able to have own space launching system by 2010. According to Article 14 of the Space Exploration Promotion Act, a new law should be established to impose the limit of compensation for the damage by space accident. Therefore, The Space Accident Liability Act was passed in Korean Congress on Nov. 22, 2007 and it will be enforced in six months. The purpose of this Act is to provide reparation for the damage of the third parties that a launch causes; and the Commonwealth should be insured against any possible space accidents to pay for such a damage. Here space accident means the damages to our life, body, and properties from the launching of space objects. There should be an actual loss to establish the compensation of Liability Act. Article 2 in Liability Act defines "damage" as follows: the term "damage" means loss of life, personal injury or loss of or damage to property of persons. Physical and material damages are included in the conception of damage. The meaning of a launching includes any test launch and launch for a real arrangement which will ultimately provides a wide range of compensation. Article 4 indicates that absolute liability should be imposed in compensating for damage by space accidents. Article 4 also indicates that a launching party should be absolutely liable to compensate for the damage caused by its space object on the surface of the Earth. In general, liability stands where fault is. But if the activity is ultra-hazardous and causes serious harm, the individual needs to compensate for the damage unlimitedly. Because of the many launchings for the Seattleite launching, a launching organization is obligated to the liability insurance in preparation for the space accidents. According to the Article 6 of Space Accident Liability Act, to be insured for the compensation for damage is obligatory. It says: "In accordance with Article 11 in the Space Exploration Promotion Act, the person who wants to receive an approval f3r launching needs to be insured in compensation for the possible damage by space accidents.