• 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.1
• /
• pp.163-191
• /
• 1989

The accident of the midair collision, passengers' falling or goods' dropping occurs or supersonic aircraft make a sonic boom during their conveying passengers or goods to the destination. The accident in transmit damages the their parties on the surface or their properties. In these cases, the third parties who were harmed to their lives or properties have the right to claim damages against the air carrier who caused them. These matters have become one of the important things since aircraft conveyed passengers and goods. Therefore, it is a great concern to settle these matters by law. But the Safety of the present aircraft has been much increased and the aircraft have become larger in size. Its flight altitude became higher than before. So the relationship of the aircraft to the third parties is much different from that of the earlier aircraft. The air transport is now indispensable to our life. It is not so easy to control these matters. In the early part of 20th century, when the third parties suffered the damage, many European countries made laws on the basis of the principle of liability without fault. But each country had a variety of its own law, and different kinds of difficulties have been brought about. Accordingly, the Rome Convention on Surface Damage (1933, 1952, 1978) has been made and revised. In spite of being revised, it contains many problems, and is not carried into effect world-wide. On the other hand, there are no regulations about the compensation of the third parties damaged in Korean existing laws. In case the damage is brought about to them, it is obviously true that the settlement of the liability of compensation for damage should be made by the general principle on the tort in domestic laws. At this point, it is urgent that we make a special law though the domestic legislation as a preliminary measure before we sign the international convention to save third damaged. It is desirable that we should, for the responsibility of the air carriage for the demage of the third parties on the surface, bring in the theory of the absolute liability in view of the legislation of many conutries. As the aircraft fly in the sky, their flight always contains some danger. It is very difficult to prove the fault, and the operator should suffer the principle of liability without fault or the similiar one. In case the liability without fault will be imposed upon the operator for the damage of the third parties, it is necessary to bring in the liability protection system for the protection and up upbringing of the air carriage. The Burden of danger of the air carriage will be reduced by introducing the system. A domestic legislation measure should be necessarily taken as soon as possible as a legal security measure on these matters.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.21 no.2
• /
• pp.9-53
• /
• 2006

오늘날 항공기사고는 우리나라뿐만 아니라 세계도처에서 때때로 발생되고 있다. 특히 외국항공기의 돌연한 추락 또는 물건의 낙하로 인해 지상에 있는 제3자에게 손해를 입히는 경우가 간혹 발생되고 있다. 이와 같은 사건에 있어 가해자(항공기운항자)는 피해자(지상 제3자)에 대하여 불법행위책임을 부담하게 되는데 이 사건해결을 위하여 1952년 및 1978년의 개정로마조약 등이 있음으로 본 논문에서는 이들 조약의 성립경위 및 주요내용과 개정이유 등을 설명하였다. 현재 국제민간항공기관(ICAO)에서는 2001년도 미국의 9,11테러사건 이후 이와 같은 사건의 법적조치와 대응을 위하여 1952년 개정로마조약의 현대화에 관한 새로운 조약초안이 발표되었다. 본 논문에서는 이 새로운 조약초안의 현대화를 위한 ICAO의 활동과 이 조약 초안에 대한 주된 내용과 필자의 논평(견해)을 밝히었다. 한편 본 논문에서는 항공운송인의 책임에 관계된 국제조약과 세계 각국(미국, 영국, 독일, 프랑스, 러시아, 오스트레일리아, 중국 등)의 입법례 등을 참작한 후 우리나라의 현실에 적합한 항공운송법 시안에 관한 국내입법의 추진방향과 항공운송약관의 효력문제, 동법시안을 제정하여야만 되는 이유, 입법경위, 입법방안, "항공운송법 시안"의 주요항목 등 작성하여 제시하였다.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.49
• /
• pp.283-324
• /
• 2011

The purpose of this paper is to research the air waybill and the carrier's liability in respect of the carriage of cargo by air under the Montreal Convention of 1999. The Warsaw Convention for the unification of certain rules for international carriage by air was adopted in 1929 and modified successively in 1955, 1961, 1971, 1975 and 1999. The Montreal Convention of 1999 modernized and consolidated the Warsaw Convention and related instruments. Under the Montreal Convention, in respect of the carriage of cargo, the air waybill shall be made out by the consignor. If, at the request of the consignor, the carrier makes it out, the carrier shall be deemed to have done so on behalf of the consignor. The air waybill shall be made out in three orignal parts. Under the Montreal Convention, the consignor shall indemnify the carrier against all damages suffered by the carrier or any other person to whom the carrier is liable, by reason of the irregularity, incorrectness or incompleteness of the particulars and statement furnished by the consignor or on its behalf. The air waybill is not a document of title or negotiable instrument. Under the Montreal Convention, the air waybill is prima facie evidence of the conclusion of the contract, of the acceptance of the cargo and of the conditions of carriage. If the carrier carries out the instructions of the consignor for the disposition of the cargo without requiring the production of the part of the air waybill, the carrier will be liable, for any damage which may be accused thereby to any person who is lawfully in possession of the part of the air waybill. Under the Montreal Convention, the carrier is liable by application of principle of strict liability for the damage sustained during the carriage of cargo by air. The carrier is liable for the destruction or loss of, or damage to cargo and delay during the carriage by air. The period of the carriage by air does not extend to any carriage by land, by sea or by inland waterway performed outside an airport. Under the Montreal Convention, the carrier's liability is limited to a sum of 17 Special Drawing Rights per kilogramme. Any provision tending to relieve the carrier of liability or to fix a lower limit than that which is laid down in this Convention shall be and void. Under the Montreal Convention, if the carrier proves that the damage was caused by the negligence or other wrongful act or omission of the person claiming compensation, or the person from whom he derives his rights, the carrier shall be wholly or partly exonerated from ist liability to the claimant to the extent that such negligence or wrongful act or omission caused the damage. Under the Montreal Convention, any action for damages, however founded, whether under this Convention or in contract or in tort or otherwise, can only be brought subject to the conditions and such limits of liability as are set out in this Convention. Under the Montreal Convention, in the case of damage the person entitled to delivery must complain to the carrier forthwith after the discovery of the damage, and at the latest, within fourteen days from the date of receipt of cargo. In the case of delay, the complaint must be made at the latest within twenty-one days from the date on which the cargo has been placed at his disposal. if no complaint is made within the times aforesaid, no action shall lie against the carrier, save in the case of fraud on its part. Under the Montreal Convention, the right to damage shall be extinguished if an action is not brought within a period of two years, reckoned from the date of arrival at the destination, or from the date on which the aircraft ought to have arrived, or from the date on which the carriage stopped. In conclusion, the Montreal Convention has main outstanding issues with respect to the carrier's liability in respect of the carriage of cargo by air as follows : The amounts of limits of the carrier's liability, the duration of the carrier's liability, and the aviation liability insurance. Therefore, the conditions and limits of the carrier's liability under the Montreal Convention should be readjusted and regulated in detail.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.12 no.2
• /
• pp.219-263
• /
• 2011

"Wrongful conception" is a medical malpractice claim in which the plaintiff is the parent of a normal, healthy infant whose conception was unplanned and unwanted. Medical malpractice in wrongful conception can be the result of a failure to provide informed consent to a patient, failure to properly perform a surgery, or a physician's negligent handling of a patient's problems. In the concrete, wrongful conception cases fall into two categories; those involving pre-conception negligence, such as a failed contraceptive, sterilization or failing of the controlling of embryo-number on the IVF, and those involving post-conception negligence, such as a failure to diagnose a pregnancy or to perform an abortion procedure. In addition, Medical malpractice can be the result of a failure to provide informed consent to a patient. When bad results occur by medical malpractice or failure to provide informed consent to a patient, the range of recovery of damages is decided by a traditional civil liability law. However the calculation of damages for wrongful conception is not easy because the high value of life is included in that case. So many courts opinions in foreign country and Seoul High Court decision in 1996 allow damages for the pregnancy, birthing process and sterilization costs, but refuses to allow damages for child rearing expenses. As to the range of recovery of damages for wrongful conception, one approach says that to allow damages in a suit such as this would mean that the physician would have to pay for the fun, joy and affection which plaintiff will have in the rearing and educating of the plaintiff's baby. To allow such damages would be against the dignity of the baby based on article 10 of the Constitution. However another approach says that damages are recoverable for all expenses related to child birth as well as for child rearing costs. Because the damages that the parents should bear a burden to the tort damage done is not a baby itself but child rearing costs. In other words, although the baby is healthy or not, economic burden of the parents can not be disregard. And denial of compensation for costs of child rearing may invalidate the role of liability law, grant the physician with a exemption certificate of liability. As a result, the medical field of procreation can be easily isolated from a liability of reparation. Therefore, on the liability law like the other medical malpractice action, parents who became pregnant or gave a birth by physician, wrongfully performed sterilization operation, etc. should be compensated for all damages relevant to unplanned and unwanted conception or birth as well as costs of child rearing.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.12 no.1
• /
• pp.43-67
• /
• 2011

Humankind history is faced with one gigantic turning point due to development of Living genetically Modified Organisms. Food production by means of LMO is on the acceleration in an effort to solve the shortage of food problems. Food is also used as alternative energy source. Use of LMO product is not only limited to food and energy, but is actively utilized in various fields of medicines. This paper is first to check out the state of biomedicine developed and associated problems from industries that use LMO, after which we made an attempt on legislative approach to find out means of relief, through examples of such laws legislated for the sufferer from the adverse effect of the biomedicine. As for the liable subject to bear the responsibility for compensatory damage in a way of relieving the victim owing to adverse effect of biomedicine, those who manufactured and sold biomedicine and who are related to the damage to the victim due to the accident and medical doctors and pharmacists who prescribe and administer the medicine in question have been looked into. Accidents involving medicines and medical supplies could take place without reason for imputation on part of the liable subjects or fault of the victim, in which case the victim can't receive damage compensation from any of both parties. When such accidents happened turn out to be no fault accidents, introduction of damage relief measures might have to be reviewed against side effects of medicine and medical supplies as no fault compensation in order for actual relief to be possible. Talking about technicality of legislation, we can suggest a method of strengthening the accountability of manufacturer for stereotypical agenda on biomedicines by newly legislating special regulation with an issue that resists claim on risks associated with the development of medicine and incorporating the same into Manufactured Product Liability Law. After all, when an accident happens associated with biomedicine, the damage will be done to the consumer. And the consumer will be exposed to fatal danger even without the time to cope with potential risks associated with medicine and medical supplies they take. Therefore, it is necessary to protect the potential victim by having the manufacturer of biomedicines bear the liability of medical risks.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.22 no.1
• /
• pp.89-110
• /
• 2012

No-fault automobile insurance system is a statutory scheme to provide automobile accident victims with compensation for certain expenses arising from personal injuries occurring in car accidents. New York State has enacted No-Fault Law to ensure that the injured in automobile accidents be paid rapidly by their own insurance company for medical expenses, lost earnings regardless of fault, replacing common law system of reparation for personal injuries under tort law. Its primary purpose is to facilitate compensation without the need to exhaust time-consuming litigation over establishing the existence of fault and the extent of damages. No-Fault Law allows arbitration as a method for settling the no-fault insurance disputes. No-fault arbitration, however, differs in a significant way from general arbitration system. First, No-Fault Law provides the parties with the option to submit any dispute involving no-fault automobile insurance to arbitration. Second, no-fault arbitration attempts to speed its procedure incorporating various methods. Third, the parties are required to seek review of arbitral awards by master arbitrator prior to seeking court's review. Fourth, the parties have right to bring de novo action in court if master arbitrator's award exceeds $5,000. Given the current state of law in Korea, it may not be easy to introduce no-fault arbitration system into Korea in the context of automobile insurance disputes settlement as its law has a long-established reparation system based on tort liability and no-fault arbitration system has its own features that differ from general arbitration system. Nonetheless, it could be suggested that no-fault arbitration be introduced in other fields which require speedy dispute resolution and a third party's decision to settle the disputes. The optional right of submitting disputes to arbitration as provided by No-Fault Law of New York State may offer a ground to supprot the effectiveness of an optional arbitration agreement.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.20 no.1
• /
• pp.211-253
• /
• 2005

Recently, the Korean Supreme Court released two important decisions concerning damages for the pain and suffering from Aircraft noise. The local people who are living near the Air Force practice site at Maehyang-ri and the Kimpo International Airport brought lawsuits against the Korean government requesting damages for their financial loss from the severe noise and the damages for their pain and suffering. Plaintiffs alleged that they suffered physical malfunctions, extreme disturbances and the reduction of property values from the extreme noises which were daily repeated. District Court of Seoul Province did not allow plaintiffs all but the damages for pain and suffering. Plaintiffs could not prove the causation between their financial loss and the noise. The Supreme Court confirmed the lower court's decision. Article V of the National Compensation Act (analogous to the Federal Tort Claims Act of the USA) reads, "the government shall be liable for any loss caused by the defect on establishment or maintenance of public facilities." In the two cases, the major issue was whether the government's establishment or maintenance of Air Force practice site and the airport was defective because they caused serious noise to surrounding neighbors. Previously, the Supreme Court interpreted the clause "defect on establishment or maintenance of public facilities" as failure of duty to provide safety measures to the degree generally required to ordinary manager. However the Court at this time interpreted differently that the defect could be found if the facility caused to any person loss to the degree intolerable. In the two cases the Court confirmed the lower court's finding that noise level at the site was severe enough to be intolerable. This standard is based on the severity of the loss rather than the failure of duty. It became easier for plaintiffs to prove the cause of action under this interpretation. The consequence of the ruling of these two cases is 'rush to the courtroom' by the local people at similar situations. The ruling of these two cases was not appropriate both in theory and in consequence. The Korean tort system is basically based on the theory of negligence. Strict liability is exceptional only when there is special legislation. The Court created strict liability rule by interpreting the Art. V of the National Compensation Act. This is against the proper role of the court. The result of the cases is also dismal. The government was already sued by a number of local people for damages. Especially the Department of Defense which is operating many airports nationwide has financial hardship, which will cause downsizing military practice by the Air Force in the long run, This is no good to anyone. Tens of millions of dollars which might be used for compensation might be better used to prevent further noise problem surrounding airports.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.16 no.2
• /
• pp.131-157
• /
• 2015

NHIS claimed for damages to doctors that by doing the treatment breaching medical insurance criteria caused by doctors, NHIS paid for medicine cost to pharmacy; as a result, the doctors caused the tort to NHIS. Following consecutive rulings afterwards, NHIS also argued that the medicine cost violating medical law or medical treatment expense paid to medical organizations are both the tort in civil law. NHIS claimed for all the damages, and the Supreme Court confirmed this judgment. However, within our national health insurance system, the subject of insurance payment is NHIS and the subject of medical treatment expense are also NHIS since the treatment expense is also insurance payment by asking the treatment to medical organizations. Further, national health insurance law is not made to control the violation of medical treatment cases; therefore, the breach of medical law cannot be covered by illegality of tort in civil law regarding NHIS. If that is the case, in the case that if the patients are treated according to treatment criteria via the doctors delegated the doctors' permission by Health and Welfare minister, NHIS acquired the benefits to remove the duty to give treatment payment to doctors in civil law; thus, even though the doctors have breached the medical law, NHIS does not have any damages. The fact that supreme court confirmed the ruling that the treatment is the tort in civil law towards NHIS is the judgment not counting the benefits of insurance payment as the subject but only considering the fact that NHIS paid to the doctors and this ruling have gone against the principle under civil code section 750. If the doctors have breached the medical law, the case should be sanctioned by medical law not national health insurance law, and the ruling of supreme court is assumed that they have confused both with the principle of national health insurance law and civil law.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.25 no.2
• /
• pp.3-42
• /
• 2010

This study shows that the Warsaw Convention in Article 1 is not an international transport, origin, destination and all the Contracting Parties is not a purely domestic shipping does not apply to this Treaty. Therefore, in this case, liability and damages for the governing law is selected according to international law should be. In addition, in the case of international shipping and passenger air carrier of this treaty to govern the relationship, not all of which aim is the unification of certain rules. Product liability is the most important thing of all. As for the aircraft manufacturer's responsibility according to international law also does not select the applicable law is not. The Warsaw Convention Article 17 apply for the passenger's personal damages Article 2 Section 2 leads to the most prestigious type of damages, and subjective and objective with regard to the scope of international law are being committed. In this regard, Governing Law-related aircraft accidents leading to serious accidents in China of an aircraft crash in Nagoya, Japan, the airport can be. China Airlines accident of the aircraft are operated for the unification of the rules for international air transport on the Warsaw Convention as amended by Article 17, Article 18 of damages by the tort claims and claims based on damages caused by, or this cause of aircraft accidents air bus maker by the Corporation for damages in tort claims for damages claimed on the basis of solidarity is the case. In the case of these grand scale claim responsibility for the airline, air transport agreements to determine the applicable law of the contract is very complex. There for the contracts based on individual circumstances or origin, and by considering because each must be determined.