• 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.

• 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.

• 의료법학
• /
• 제15권1호
• /
• pp.123-164
• /
• 2014

Under the new system of 'Separation of pharmaceutical prescription and dispensing' in Korea, which was implemented in 2000, physician could not dispense a medicine, and outpatient should have a physician's prescription filled at a drugstore. After pharmacist makes up outpatient's prescription, National Health Insurance Service(NHIS) pay for outpatient's medicine to pharmacist, except an outpatient's own medicine charge. And NHIS only pay for outpatient's prescription fee to physician and, physician doesn't derive profit from dispensing medicine in itself. Nevertheless, if physician writes out a prescription with violation of 'Criteria for the Medical Care Benefits', NHIS clawed back the payment of outpatient's prescription and medicine from the physician or the medical institution which the physician belongs to. In the past, NHIS's confiscation was in accordance with 'the National Health Care Insurance Act, Article 52, Clause 1'. But, since 2006 when the Supreme Court declared that there was no legal basis on the NHIS's confiscation of outpatient's medicine payment, NHIS had put in a claim for illegal prescriptions on the basis 'the Korean Civil law, Article 750(tort)'. So, Many medical institutions filed civil actions against NHIS. The key point of this actions was whether the issuing outpatient prescriptions with violations of Criteria for the Medical Care Benefits constitute of the law of tort. On this point, the first trial and the second trial took different position. Finally the Supreme Court acknowledged the constitution of the law of tort in 2013. In this paper, the author will review critically the decision of the Supreme Court, and consider the relativeness between the legal effect of Criteria for the Medical Care Benefits and the constitution of the issuing outpatient prescriptions with violations of Criteria for the Medical Care Benefits as the law of tort.

• 원자력산업
• /
• 제18권12호통권190호
• /
• pp.46-53
• /
• 1998

• 한국원자력학회:학술대회논문집
• /
• 한국원자력학회 2002년도 춘계공동학술발표회요약집
• /
• pp.46-46
• /
• 2002

• 한국섬유공학회:학술대회논문집
• /
• 한국섬유공학회 2003년도 The Korea-Japan Joint Symposium
• /
• pp.90-90
• /
• 2003

Living nature was appeared in the cationic polymerization of tort-butyl vinyl ether (TBVE), initiated by iodine, carried out in toluene at -78$^{\circ}C$. It was found that the number average molar mass of the resulting polymer (equation omitted) increases linearly as the conversion to polymer increase which reveals that there is no operation of chain transfer or termination process in this system. The polymers having narrow distribution and having molar mass of the resulting polymers are dependent on molar ratio of monomer and iodine.

• 수산해양교육연구
• /
• 제26권5호
• /
• pp.959-965
• /
• 2014

Transporting of live fish requires subcontract with an independent contractor. During the transporting of live fish, civil liability problems can be caused by damage of fish. Before transporting of live fish, responsibility of negligence and tort liability were arisen, after transporting of live fish, default on an obligation was arisen. To avoid this problems, it is important to put a bond on each other and live fish transporting contract can be made a legal contract. Also, transporting of live fish must be made safe, after transporting, and discharge of obligation, perfect transaction is achieved.

• 한국원자력학회:학술대회논문집
• /
• 한국원자력학회 1998년도 춘계학술발표회논문집(2)
• /
• pp.771-776
• /
• 1998

TORT is employed for fast neutron fluence calculation at the reactor pressure vessel. KORI Unit 1 reactor at cycle 1 is modeled for this calculation. Three-dimensional cycle averaged assembly power distributions for KORI Vnit 1 at cycle 1 are calculated by using the core physics code, NESTLE 5.0. The root mean square error is within 4.3% compared with NDR (Nuclear Design Report) far all burnup steps. The C/E (Calculated/Experimental) values for the in-vessel dosimeters distribute between 0.98 and 1.36. The most updated cross-section library. BUGLE-96 based on ENDF/B-VI is used for the neutron fluence calculation. The makimum fast neutron nun calculated on reactor pressure vessel for KORI Unit 1 operated for 411.41 effgctive full power days is 1.784x10$^{18}$ n/$\textrm{cm}^2$. The position of the maximum neutron fluence in RPV wall 1/4 T is nearby 60cm below the midplane at zero degree.

• 한국환경보건학회지
• /
• 제42권6호
• /
• pp.375-384
• /
• 2016

Objectives: This paper analyzes the intersection of tort law and environmental health in a recent court decision. Methods: This paper analyzes Supreme Court Decision 2011Da7437, Decided on September 4, 2014 and related lower court decisions. Results: The plaintiffs sought financial compensation from the defendants, arguing that air pollutants in gases emitted by vehicles produced by the defendants had caused them to acquire respiratory diseases. The district court highlighted the need to mitigate the burden of proof for the plaintiffs, but proceeded to review whether the plaintiffs proved the actual toxicity levels of the air pollutants, whether the defendant's vehicles were the main source of the emissions, the plaintiff's level of exposure to the pollutants, and causation between the emissions and the injury. By doing so, the district court required the plaintiffs to prove both indirect and direct facts of causation, increasing burden of proof for plaintiffs. The appellate court upheld the district court's decision, adding that the defendant's conduct did not constitute an illegal act because it did not violate the emissions standards set by environmental law. The Supreme Court upheld the appellate court's decision, reasoning that the epidemiological evidence cannot establish a direct causation for diseases that lack specificity. Conclusion: This case demonstrates that discussions in environmental health have significance in tort lawsuits. For each fact that the plaintiffs and defendants attempted to prove, environmental health research studies were offered as evidence. In addition, the courts decided the legality of the defendant's conduct based on emission standards set by environmental law.

• 의료법학
• /
• 제16권2호
• /
• pp.131-157
• /
• 2015

국민건강보험공단은 의사가 요양급여기준을 위반하여 처방을 함으로써 국민건강보험공단이 약국에 약제비를 지급하게 된 것은 의사가 국민건강보험공단에 대해 민사상 불법행위를 한 것이라고 주장하며 손해배상청구를 하였다. 대법원이 이를 인정하는 판결이 잇따르자, 국민건강보험공단은 의사들이 의료법을 위반하여 진료를 하여 약국에 지급하게 된 약제비나 해당 의료기관에 지급하게 된 요양급여비용에 대해서도 모두 국민건강보험공단에 대한 민법상 불법행위라고 주장하며 손해배상을 청구하였으며, 대법원은 이를 모두 인정하였다. 그러나 우리나라 국민건강보험제도에서 보험급여의 주체는 국민건강보험공단이며, 환자가 의료기관에 진료를 요청하여 의료기관이 행하는 요양급여 역시 보험급여이므로 이러한 요양급여를 행하는 주체 역시 국민건강보험공단이다. 그리고 국민건강보험법은 의사의 의료법위반행위를 규제하기 위해 만든 법이 아니므로 의사의 의료법 위반행위를 국민건강보험공단에 대한 민법상 불법행위책임에서의 위법성으로 포섭할 수 없다. 그렇다면 환자가 보건복지부장관으로부터 부여 받은 면허를 가진 의사에 의해 요양급여기준에 맞는 진료를 받은 경우에는 국민건강보험공단은 민법상 환자에게 요양급여를 해 줄 의무를 면하는 이득을 얻었으므로 설사 해당 의사가 진료를 하는 과정에 의료법을 위반한 행위를 하였더라도 국민건강보험공단으로서는 손해가 없다. 대법원이 의료법위반으로 진료를 한 행위를 모두 국민건강보험공단에 대한 민법상 불법행위책임으로 인정하는 것은 국민건강보험공단이 보험급여의 주체로서 보험급여를 해 줄 의무를 면하였다는 이득은 고려하지 않고, 오로지 의사에게 요양급여비용을 지급하였다는 측면만을 고려한 것으로서 민법 제750조의 법리에 어긋난다. 의사가 의료법을 위반하였다면 의료법에 따라 제재를 받을 일이지, 국민건강보험법으로 규율할 일이 아니며, 대법원이 위와 같이 판결한 것은 국민건강보험법의 법리와 민법의 법리를 혼동한 탓으로 생각된다.