• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.23 no.1
• /
• 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.

• Journal of Korean Society for Quality Management
• /
• v.30 no.4
• /
• pp.164-173
• /
• 2002

The first product liability laws went into effect in Korea in July 2002. A person who suffers personal injury or damage to property due to defects in a product may sue both the manufacturer and the seller of the product under the principles of Korea tort law. This paper presents an integrated methodology which is called the QDRD(Quality deployment and reliability deployment) for hazards analysis in new product designs. QDRD applies QFD, FMEA and FTA to identify the hazards component, hazardous situations and hazardous events which could lead to an accident. An example is provided to demonstrate hazards analysis on a product using the QDRD method.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.32 no.2
• /
• pp.67-100
• /
• 2017

Throughout the history of the aviation industry, from its origins in the $20^{th}$century to the present, accidents have always occurred. This paper deals with the legal liability of air traffic controllers, who represent one of the human factors causing these accidents. Though controller negligence turns out to be a main cause of the accident, Korea does not have additional judical case, since it was firstly declared that controller negligence was accountable for the air traffic accident in 1971. As such, we examine the liability of air traffic controllers as public officers. This paper looks not only at the role of air traffic controllers and pilots in accidents, but also at the applicability of controller liability in the context of Korean law. We determine that despite the high-stress environment, air traffic controllers must share in the responsibility to provide safe air navigation. Therefore, they cannot avoid legal liability.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.23 no.4
• /
• pp.133-170
• /
• 2022

Supreme Court 2018Da228486, on July 29, 2021, ruled Article 750 of the Civil Act as the basis for liability for damages due to the violation of the supervisory duty of the responsible mental patient. This judgment recognizes that the legal guardian is liable for tort due to neglect of the responsibility of supervision under Article 750 of the Civil Act because the duty of protection bears the duty of supervision over the mental patient under the law. However, unlike the case of Article 755 Paragraph 1, which explicitly requires a legal obligation to supervise, Article 750 only stipulates general tort liability. Thus, to admit tort liability under Article 750, it is not necessary that the basis of the supervisory duty by the law. In this case, the supervisory duty may also be acknowledged according to customary law or sound reasoning. The duty of supervision of a legal guardian is not a general duty to prevent all consequences of the behavior of a mental patient but a duty within a reasonably limited scope. Therefore, the responsibility of the burden of care should be acknowledged only when the objective circumstances in which it is appropriate to hold the legal guardian for the acts of the mental patient are admitted. Under the Act on the improvement of mental health and the support for welfare services for mental patients, a legal guardian cannot even be granted the supervisory duty to prevent the mental patient from harming others.

• Journal of Environmental Health Sciences
• /
• v.42 no.6
• /
• 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.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.15 no.2
• /
• pp.63-89
• /
• 2014

In 1976, the Dalkon Shield-intrauterine device injured several thousand women in U.S.A. which caused the changes of medical deivce regulation. The Medical Device Regulation Act or Medical Device Amendments of 1976 (MDA) was introduce. As part of the process of regulating medical devices, the MDA divides medical devices into three categories. The class II, and III devices which have moderate harm or more can use the section 510 (k), premarket notification process if the manufacturer can establish that its device is "substantially equivalent" to a device that was marketed before 1976. In 21 U.S.C. ${\S}$ 360k(a), MDA introduced a provision which expressly preempts competing state laws or regulations. After that, the judicial debates had began over the proper interpretation and application of Section 360(k) In February 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Riegel v. Medtronic that manufacturer approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)'s pre-market approval process are preempted from liability, even when the devices have defective design or lack of labeling. But the Supreme Court ruled in Medtronic Inc. v. Lora Lohr that the manufactures which use the section 510 (k) process cannot be preempted and in Bausch v. Stryker Corp. that manufactures which violated the CGMP standard are also liable to the damage of patient at the state courts. In 2009, the Supreme Court ruled in Wyeth v. Levine that patients harmed by prescription drugs can claim damages in state courts. This may cause a double standard between prescription drugs and medical devices. FDA Preemption is the legal theory in the United States that exempts product manufacturers from tort claims regarding Food and Drug Administration approved products. FDA Preemption has been a highly contentious issue. In general, consumer groups are against it while the FDA and pharmaceutical manufacturers are in favor of it. This issues also influences the theory of product liability of U.S.A. Complete immunity preemption is an issue need to be more declared.

• Journal of Advanced Marine Engineering and Technology
• /
• v.40 no.9
• /
• pp.859-867
• /
• 2016

Bunker oil is an essential expense, and it is a high cost in ships' operations. Therefore, it forms an important part of the work shipowners do to minimize losses during operations. With bunkering disputes consistently occurring, bunker surveyors could be employed by shipowners through them and bunker survey companies signing a contract for a bunker surveyor service. Bunker surveyors could play the role of independent contractors and issue statements of fact in relation to bunkering. However, it would be impossible for bunker surveyors to immediately resolve a bunkering dispute since their role and the legal status is not clear while bunker surveys are being conducted on ships. Thus, this study sets out to define the legal status and liability of bunker surveyors and to seek an additional role for them when bunkering disputes occur.

• 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.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.27 no.1
• /
• pp.75-101
• /
• 2012

As the Reublic of Korea revised the Commercial Code including 40 articles of air transport enacted newly on May 23, 2011, so Korea became first legislative examples in the Commercial Code of the developed and developing countries. I would like to explain briefly the main contents of my paper such as (1) history of enacting newly Part VI (air transport) in the Korea's revised commercial law, (2) legal background enacting newly Part VI (air transport) in the Korea's revised commercial law and the problems on the conditions of air transport, (3) every countries' legislative examples on the civil liability of aircraft's operator, (4) unlawful Interference Convention and general risk convention of 2009, (5) main contents and prospects of the revised Commercial Code for the liability of aircraft's operator etc as the followings. Meanwhile as the Aviation Act, Commercial Code and Civil Code in Korea and Japan did not regulated at all the legal basis of solution on the disputes between victims and offender for the amount of compensation for damage due to personal or property damage caused by aircraft accidents in Korea and Japan, so it has been raised many legal problems such as protection of victims, standard of decision in trial in the event of aircraft accident's lawsuit case. But the Korean Revised Commercial Code including Part VI, air transport regulations was passed by the majority resolution of the Korean National Assembly on April 29, 2011 and then the South Korean government proclaimed it on May 23 same year. The Revised Commercial Code enforced into tothe territory of the South Korea from November 24, 2011 after six month of the proclaimed date by the Korean Government. Thus, though Korean Commercial Code regulated concretely and respectively the legal relations on the liability of compensation for damage in the contract of transport by land in it's Part II (commercial activities) and in the contract of transport by sea in its Part V (marine commerce), but the Amended Commercial Act regulated newly 40 articles in it's Part VI (air transport) relating to the air carrier's contract liability on the compensation for damage caused by aircraft accidents in the air passengers and goods transport and aircraft operator's tort liability on compensation for damage caused by the sudden falling or collision of aircraft to third parties on the surface and so it was equipped with reasonable and unified system among the transport by land, marine and air. The ICAO adopted two new air law conventions setting out international compensation and liability rules for damage caused by aircraft to third parties at a diplomatic conference hosted by it from April 20 to May 2, 2009. The fight against the effects of terrorism and the improvement of the status of victims in the event of damage to third parties that may result either from acts of unlawful interference involving aircraft or caused by ordinary operation of aircraft, forms the cornerstone of the two conventions. One legal instrument adopted by the Conference is "the Convention on Compensation for Damage to Third Parties, Resulting from Acts of Unlawful Interference Involving Aircraft" (Unlawful Interference Convention). The other instrument, "the Convention on Compensation for Damage Caused by Aircraft to Third Parties" (General Risk Convention), modernizes the current legal framework provided for under the 1952 Rome Convention and related Protocol of 1978. It is desirable for us to ratify quickly the abovementioned two conventions such as Unlawful Interference Convention and General Risk Convention in order to settle reasonably and justly as well as the protection of the South Korean peoples.