• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.32 no.1
• /
• pp.327-353
• /
• 2017

The issue submitted to the Court of Justice on the merits of case C---573/13 originated from a claim brought in the context of a dispute between Air Berlin and the German Federal Union of Consumer Organisations and Associations. The challenge concerned the way in which air fares were displayed in Air Berlin's computerised booking system. The system was organised in such a way that, after selecting a date and a departure airport, one would find all possible flight connections in a summary table. However, the final price of the ticket was displayed only for the clicked connection, and not for all connections, thus preventing customers from being able to compare such price with the prices of other connections. The German Federal Union took the view that this practice did not meet the requirements laid down by Article 23 of Regulation (EC) No. 1008/2008, which requires transparency in the prices set for air services. This led the German State to bring an injunctive action to cause Air Berlin to discontinue said practice. The claim was upheld at both the application and appeal stage of the relevant proceedings. Subsequently, Air Berlin submitted the matter to the German Federal High Court, which decided to stay the proceedings and ask for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Justice as to 1. whether Article 23 of Regulation (EC) No. 1008/2008 must be interpreted as meaning that, during the computerised booking process, the final price to be paid must be indicated at all times when prices of air services are shown, including when they are shown for the first time; and 2. whether, during the computerised booking process, the final price must be indicated only for the air service specifically selected by the customer or for each air service shown. In a nutshell, the Court, by the here---discussed judgment determined that Article 23 of Regulation (EC) No. 1008/2008 must be interpreted as meaning that, in the context of a computerised air ticket booking system, the final price to be paid must be indicated not only for the air service specifically selected by the customer, but also for each air service in respect of which the fare is shown. Clearly the above judgment will place air companies under an obligation to update and adjust (when needed) their computerised ticket booking and payment systems, in consideration of the primary need for consumers to be aware at all times of the actual price payable for a ticket and be able to compare the price of the service selected with the prices for other air services in respect of which the fare is shown.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.28 no.1
• /
• pp.3-54
• /
• 2013

Nowadays, major advanced countries in aviation technology are putting their effort to develop commercial and civil Unmanned Aircraft System(UAS) due to its highly promising market demand in the future. The market scale of commercial and civil UAS is expected to increase up to approximately 8.8 billon U.S. dollars by the year 2020. The usage of commercial and civil UAS covers various areas such as remote sensing, relaying communications, pollution monitoring, fire detection, aerial reconnaissance and photography, coastline monitoring, traffic monitoring and control, disaster control, search and rescue, etc. With the introduction of UAS, changes need to be made on current Air Traffic Management Systems which are focused mainly manned aircrafts to support the operation of UAS. Accordingly, the legislation for the UAS operation should be followed. Currently, ICAO's Unmanned Aircraft System Study Group(UASSG) is leading the standardization process of legislation for UAS operation internationally. However, some advanced countries such as United States, United Kingdom, Australia have adopted its own legislation. Among these countries, United States is most forth going with President Obama signing a bill to integrate UAS into U.S. national airspace by 2015. In case of Korea, legislation for the unmanned aircraft system is just in the beginning stage. There are no regulations regarding the operation of unmanned aircraft in Korea's domestic aviation law except some clauses regarding definition and permission of the unmanned aircraft flight. However, the unmanned aircrafts are currently being used in military and under development for commercial use. In addition, the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport has a ambitious plan to develop commercial and civil UAS as Korea's most competitive area in aircraft production and export. Thus, Korea is in need of the legislation for the UAS operation domestically. In this regards, I personally think that Korea's domestic legislation for UAS operation will be enacted focusing on following 12 areas : (1)use of airspace, (2)licenses of personnel, (3)certification of airworthiness, (4)definition, (5)classification, (6)equipments and documents, (7)communication, (8)rules of air, (9)training, (10)security, (11)insurance, (12)others. Im parallel with enacting domestic legislation, korea should contribute to the development of international standards for UAS operation by actively participating ICAO's UASSG.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.31 no.1
• /
• pp.37-62
• /
• 2016

Two controversial issues exist in interpretation of "Force Majeure" set forth in the Article 931 (4) of the Korean Commercial Code. Firstly, its scope of application is ambiguous. Secondly, there is a concern that the "immunity" under paragraph 1 and "Force Majeure" may overlap each other. "Force Majeure" refers an event resulted from either natural disaster or 3rd-party. Meanwhile, the latter implies relatively extensive and comprehensive meaning and its interpretation may vary depends on law enforcement. In general, the aircraft accident hardly results in damage or loss to the 3rd-party. Additionally, it is worth to review newly enacted clause and to define its applicability. When the 3rd party is suffered from damage or loss incurred by any external act, it is necessary to explicit the concept of the non-contractual liabilities with respect to 3rd party. From the perspective of protecting aviation industries, the commercial aviation operator may be entitled to immunity in respect of claim for damage incurred by the event of Force Majeure. However, this approach is directly opposite to the victim's benefit and protection by the law. Therefore, the priority of the legal protection should be considered. Although the interest of the commercial aviation operator is not negligible, the protection of the law should be favorable to the 3rd party. Otherwise, the innocent party has no right to claim for damage incurred by aviation accident. Another issue is about the possibility of overlapping of the provision set forth in the paragraph 1 and 4. The former states that the liabilities shall be exempted on account of either the unsettled political or economic situation but this clause is inconsistent with the interpretation on Force Majeure under the latter. As argued above, this may include any event resulted from either political or economic account by the external influence of the 3rd party, thus these two provisions are overlapped. Consequently, in order to develop ordinances and guidelines and to ensure an equal protection to both parties, above two issues must remain open for further discussions.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.35 no.2
• /
• pp.75-111
• /
• 2020

The civilian drone world has evolved in recent years from one dominated by hobbyists to growing involvement by companies seeking to profit from unmanned flight in everything from infrastructure inspections to drone deliveries that are already subject to regulations. Drone flight under the property right relation with the land owner would be deemed legal on the condition that expeditious and innocent passage of drone flight over the land be assured. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) enshrines the concept of innocent passage through a coastal state's territorial sea. Passage is innocent so long as it is not prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal state. A vessel in innocent passage may traverse the coastal state's territorial sea continuously and expeditiously, not stopping or anchoring except in force majeure situations. However, the disturbances caused by drone flight may be removed, which is defined as infringement against the constitutional interest of personal rights. For example, aggressive infringement against privacy and personal freedom may be committed by drone more easily than ever before, and than other means. The cost-benefit analysis, however, has been recognjzed as effective criteria regarding the removal of disturbances or injunction decision. Applying that analysis, the civil action against such infringement may not find suitable basis for making a good case. Because the removal of such infringement through civil actions may result in only the deletion of journal article. The injunction of drone flight before taking the information would not be obtainable through civil action, Therefore, more detailed and meticulous regulation and criteria in public law domain may be preferable than civil action, at present time. It may be suitable for legal stability and drone industry to set up the detailed public regulations restricting the free flight of drone capable of acquiring visual information amounting to the infrigement against the right of personal information security.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.30 no.2
• /
• pp.249-277
• /
• 2015

Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 ("Regulation") is a common rule on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights. In some recent cases of European nations, passengers sued the air carrier in order to obtain monetary compensation under Article 7(1) of the Regulation. Some courts dismissed the actions on the grounds that, unlike denied boarding or cancellation of the flight, the Regulation provides no compensation in relation to delayed flights. However, Court of Justice of the European Union(CJEU) ruled that Regulation 261/2004 must be interpreted to mean that passengers whose flights are delayed have a right to compensation in cases when the loss of time is equivalent to, or is in excess of three hours - where the passengers eventually reached their final destination three hours or more later than the originally scheduled arrival time. It is true that a strict interpretation of the regulation would suggest that passengers whose flight has merely been delayed are not entitled to compensation. They should only be offered assistance in accordance with the Articles 6 and 9. Nevertheless, the Court recognized the same right to the same compensation for passengers of flights delayed by more than three hours as that explicitly provided for passengers of cancelled flights. On the one hand, the Court bases this ruling on the recitals of the Regulation, in which the legislature links the question of compensation to that of a long delay, while indicating that the Regulations seek to ensure a high level of protection for passengers regardless of whether they are denied boarding or their flight is cancelled or delayed. On the other hand, the Court interprets the relevant provisions of the Regulation in light of the general principle of equal treatment. Furthermore, the Court delivered a ruling that the loss of time inherent in a flight delay, which constitutes an inconvenience within the intention of Regulation No 261/2004 and which cannot be categorized as 'damage occasioned by delay' within the meaning of Article 19 of the Montreal Convention, cannot come within the scope of Article 29 of that convention. Consequently, under this view, the obligation under Regulation No 261/2004 intended to compensate passengers whose flights are subject to a long delay is in line with Article 29 of the Montreal Convention. Although the above interpretation of the Court can be a analogical interpretation, the progressive attitude of the Regulation and the view of Court forward to protect passengers' interest is a leading role in the area of international air passenger transportation. Hopefully, after the model of the positive support in Europe, Korea can establish a concrete rule for protecting passengers' right and interest.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.23 no.2
• /
• pp.67-92
• /
• 2008

The purpose of this paper is to research the requirements and effect of the document of carriage in respect of the carriage of cargo by air under the Montreal Convention of 1999, IATA Conditions of Carriage for Cargo, and the judicial precedents of Korea and foreign countries. Under the Article 4 of Montreal Convention, in respect of the carriage of cargo, an air waybill shall be delivered. If any other means which preserves a record of the carriage are used, the carrier shall, if so requested by the consignor, deliver to the consignor a cargo receipt. Under the Article 7 of Montreal convention, 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 original parts. The first part shall be marked "for the carrier", and shall be signed by the consignor. The second part shall be marked "for the consignee", and shall be signed by the consignor and by the carrier. The third part shall be signed by the carrier who shall hand it to the consignor after the goods have been accepted. Under the Article 5 of Montreal Convention, the air waybill or the cargo receipt shall include (a) an indication of the places of departure and destination, (b) an indication of at least one agreed stopping place, (c) an indication of the weight of the consignment. Under the Article 10 of 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. Under the Article 9 of Montreal Convention, non-compliance with the Article 4 to 8 of Montreal Convention shall not affect the existence of the validity of the contract, which shall be subject to the rules of Montreal Convention including those relating to limitation of liability. The air waybill is not a document of title or negotiable instrument. Under the Article 11 of Montreal Convention, the air waybill or cargo receipt is prima facie evidence of the conclusion of the contract, of the acceptance of the cargo and of the conditions of carriage. Under the Article 12 of Montreal Convention, 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 or the cargo receipt, the carrier will be liable, for any damage which may be accused thereby to any person who is lawfully in possession of that part of the air waybill or the cargo receipt. According to the precedent of Korea Supreme Court sentenced on 22 July 2004, the freight forwarder as carrier was not liable for the illegal delivery of cargo to the notify party (actual importer) on the air waybill by the operator of the bonded warehouse because the freighter did not designate the boned warehouse and did not hold the position of employer to the operator of the bonded warehouse. In conclusion, as the Korea Customs Authorities will drive the e-Freight project for the carriage of cargo by air, the carrier and freight forwarder should pay attention to the requirements and legal effect of the electronic documentation of the carriage of cargo by air.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.35 no.1
• /
• pp.63-101
• /
• 2020

'Flight safety zone' means a zone that the Minister of National Defense designates under Articles 4 and 6 of the Protection of Military Bases and Installations Act (hereinafter 'PMBIA') for the safety of flight during takeoff and landing of military aircrafts. The purpose of flight safety zone is to contribute to the national security by providing necessary measures for the protection of military bases and installations and smooth conduct of military operations. In this case, when the state set and used the flight safety zone, the landowner claimed restitution of unjust enrichment against the country. This article is an analysis based on the existing legal theory regarding the legitimacy of plaintiff's claim, and the summary of the discussion is as follows. A person who without any legal ground derives a benefit from the property or services of another and thereby causes loss to the latter shall be bound to return such benefit (Article 741 of the Civil Act). Since the subject matter is an infringing profit, the defendant must prove that he has a legitimate right to retain the profit. The State reserves the right to use over the land designated as a flight safety zone in accordance with legitimate procedures established by the PMBIA for the safe takeoff and landing of military aircrafts. Therefore, it cannot be said that the State gained an unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent over the land without legal cause. Expropriation, use or restriction of private property from public necessity and compensation therefor shall be governed by Act: provided, that in such a case, just compensation shall be paid (Article 23 (1) of the Constitution of The Republic of KOREA). Since there is not any provision in the PMBIA for loss compensation for the case where a flight safety zone is set over land as in this case, next question would be whether or not it is unconstitutional. Even if it is designated as a flight safety zone and the use and profits of the land are limited, the justification of the purpose of the flight safety zone system, the appropriateness of the means, the minimization of infringement, and the balance of legal interests are still recognized; thus just not having any loss compensation clause does not make the act unconstitutional. In conclusion, plaintiff's claim for loss compensation based on the 'Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for land, etc. for Public Works Projects', which has no provision for loss compensation due to public limits, is unjust.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.30 no.1
• /
• pp.31-64
• /
• 2015

The Chicago Convention and Annexes have become the basis of aviation safety regulations for every contracting state. Generally, aviation safety regulations refer to the SARPs provided in the Annexes of the Chicago Convention. In order to properly reflect international aviation safety regulations, constant studies of the aviation fields are of paramount importance. Treaties duly concluded and promulgated under the Constitution and the generally recognized rules of international law shall have the same effect as the domestic laws of the Republic of Korea. Each contracting state to the Chicago Convention should meet ICAO SARPs about AOC and FAOC. According to ICAO SARPs, Civil Aviation Authorities shall issue AOC to air carriers of the state, but don't require to issue for foreign air carrier. However some contracting states of the Chicago Convention issue FAOC and/or Operations Specifications for the foreign operators. This FAOC is being expanded from USA to the other contracting states. Foreign operators have doubly burden to implement AOC of the ICAO SARPs because FAOC is an additional requirement other than that prescribed by the ICAO SARPs In Article 33, the Chicago Convention stipulates that each contracting state shall recognize the validity of the certificates of airworthiness and licenses issued by other contracting states as long as they are equal to or above the minimum standards of the ICAO. In ICAO Annex 6, each contracting state shall recognize as valid an air operator certificate issued by another contracting state, provided that the requirements under which the certificate was issued are at least equal to the applicable Standards specified in this Annex. States shall establish a programme with procedures for the surveillance of operations in their territory by a foreign operator and for taking appropriate action when necessary to preserve safety. Consequently, it is submitted that the unilateral action of the states issuing the FAOC to the foreign air carriers of other states is against the Convention. Hence, I make some proposals on the FAOC as an example of comprehensive problem solving after comparative study with ICAO SARPs and the contracting state's regulations. Some issues must be improved and I have made amendment proposals to meet ICAO SARPs and to strengthen aviation development. Operators should be approved by FAOC at most 190 if all states require FAOC. Hence, it is highly recommended to eliminate the FAOC or reduce the restrictions it imposes. In certain compliance-related issues, delayed process shall not be permitted to flight operations. In addition, it is necessary for the ICAO to provide more unified and standardized guidelines in order to avoid confusion or bias regarding the arbitrary expansion of the FAOC. For all the issue mentioned above, I have studied the ICAO SARPs and some state's regulation regarding FAOC, and suggested some proposals on the FAOC as an example of comprehensive problem solving. I hope that this paper is 1) to help understanding about the international issue, 2) to help the improvement of korean aviation regulations, 3) to help compliance with international standards and to contribute to the promotion of aviation safety, in addition.

• Journal of Advanced Navigation Technology
• /
• v.19 no.2
• /
• pp.116-122
• /
• 2015

Motivated by continuous increase in flight demand, awareness of the importance in developing ways to increase aircraft operational efficiency on the airport movement area has been raised. This paper proposes a new routing algorithm for providing the shortest path in a right time, enhancing the aircraft movement efficiency. Many researches on developing algorithms have been performed, for example, Dijkstra algorithm and $A^*$ algorithm. The Dijkstra algorithm provide optimal solution but could possibly provide it with a cost of relatively longer computation time. On the other hand, $A^*$ algorithm does not guarantee the optimality of a solution. In this paper, we suggest a Hybrid $A^*$ algorithm, incorporating both algorithms to eliminate the weaknesses. Rigorous test shows the proposed Hybrid $A^*$ algorithm may achieve shorter computing time and optimality in searching the shortest path.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.34 no.1
• /
• pp.203-234
• /
• 2019

The concept of denied boarding is defined in Article 2(j) of Regulation 261/2004 thus: "denied boarding means a refusal to carry passengers on a flight, although they have presented themselves for boarding under the conditions laid down in Article 3(2), except where there are reasonable grounds to deny them boarding, such as reasons of health, safety or security, or inadequate travel documentation." So far as relevant to this case, to be entitled to compensation, if denied boarding, Article 3(2) provides a passenger must first come within the scope of the protection of the Regulation, which applies under the following conditions: "${\cdots}$.that passengers (a) have a confirmed reservation on the flight concerned and, except in the case of cancellation referred to in Article 5, present themselves for check-in, as stipulated and at the time indicated in advance and in writing (including by electronic means) by the air carrier, the tour operator or an authorised travel agent, or, if no time is indicated, not later than 45 minutes before the published departure time." This paper reviews the EU Cases such as Rodríguez Cachafeiro v. Iberia [2012] Case C-321/11; Finnair Oyj v. Timy Lassooy [2012] Case C-22/11; Caldwell v. easyJet Airline Co. Ltd. [2015] ScotSC 64. ECJ and Sheriff court of Scotland held that the concept of denied boarding, within the meaning of Articles 2(j) and 4 of Regulation No 261/2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation No 295/91, must be interpreted as relating not only to cases where boarding is denied because of overbooking but also to those where boarding is denied on other grounds, such as operational reasons. Also, ECJ ruled that Articles 2(j) and 4(3) must be interpreted as meaning that the occurrence of extraordinary circumstances resulting in an air carrier rescheduling flights after those circumstances arose cannot give grounds for denying boarding on those later flights or for exempting that carrier from its obligation, under Article 4(3) of that regulation, to compensate a passenger to whom it denies boarding on such a flight.