• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제20권
• /
• pp.213-239
• /
• 2003

This paper intends to describe the liability regime of the air carrier under the Montreal Convention of 1999 for the international cargo, comparing to those of the existing Warsaw Convention system. Also this paper deals with main issues of the Montreal Convention which are relevant for the carrier's liability in the carriage by air of cargo. The Warsaw Convention 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. International air carrier is liable by application of principle of strict liability as stated in the Montreal Convention : The carrier is liable for the destruction or loss of, or damage to cargo and delay during the carriage by air, and the carrier's liability is limited to a sum of 17 Special Drawing Rights per kilogramme. However, the Montreal Convention has main outstanding issues with respect to the liability of the air carrier : potential conflicts between the Montreal Convention and the Warsaw Convention, the amounts of limits of the carrier's liability, the duration of the carrier's liability, the exessive litigation, and the aviation insurance. Therefore, the conditions and limits of the carrier's liability under the Montreal Convention should be readjusted and regulated in detail.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제40권
• /
• pp.97-144
• /
• 2008

The purpose of this paper is to review the text of national legislation relating to the carrier's liability in respect of the carriage of passengers, baggage and cargo by air in major states such as United Kingdom, Germany, France, Canada, Russia and China, and to compare the air carrier's liability under the national legislations of above states with them under the Warsaw System relating to the international carriage by air. Also this paper reviews the text of the draft legislation relating to the carrier's liability in respect of the carriage by air in Korea. The Warsaw Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to International Carriage was adopted in 1929. In 1999, the ICAO adopted the Montreal Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air vastly modernizing the unification of private air law. The Montreal Convention replaced the instruments of the “Warsaw System”, and came into force on 4 November 2003. The Montreal Convention is not only an international convention. It has also exercised a considerable influence on national legislation. A the Convention, or certain of its principles, with the object of regulating their national air transport. The main feature of the liability regime of the air carrier under the Montreal Convention is the two-tier liability system for death or injury of the passenger with strict liability up to 100,000 SDR and presumptive liability with a reversed burden of proof without any limit above that threshold. The principles of the liability of the air carrier under the Montreal Convention have been adopted into national legislations by the United Kingdom, Germany, France, Canada, Russia and China. Now the Ministry of Justice of Korea is proceeding to make a new national legislation relating to the liability of the air carrier in respect of the carriage by air. The draft legislation of the Part VI the Carriage by Air of the Commercial Code of Korea has adopted the main principles of the liability of the air carrier under the Montreal Convention. In conclusion, the national legislation relating to the liability of the air carrier in Korea will contribute to settle efficiently the dispute on the carrier's liability in respect of the carriage of passengers, baggage and cargo by air.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제49권
• /
• 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.

• 통상정보연구
• /
• 제12권2호
• /
• pp.385-405
• /
• 2010

The purpose of this study is to investigate liability risk of air cargo carrier and suggests ideas for solving problems which could be happen to air transporters on the future. because of Air transport remains one of the world's fastest growing and most important industries. And important treaties and contracts specifying transporters' responsibility regarding big scale aircraft accidents are such as Warsaw Convention in 1929, Hague Protocol in 1955, Montreal Convention in 1999. The Montreal Convention, formally the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage, is a treaty adopted by Diplomatic meeting of ICAO member states in 1999. It amended important provisions of the Warsaw Convention's concerning compensation for the victims of air disasters. In conclusion, suggests to the method of air cargo security and cargo legal liability insurance which is for air cargo carrier's risk management.

• 항공우주정책ㆍ법학회지
• /
• 제26권1호
• /
• pp.147-176
• /
• 2011

급속히 성장하고 있는 민용항공운송업의 발전과는 달리 중국의 현행 항공운송법은 상당히 원칙적이고 추상적으로 규정되어 있어 항공운송과 관련하여 일어나는 분쟁에 적용하는데 있어서 많은 어려움을 겪고 있다. 또한 여러 부문규장에 산재하는 운송관련 규정들은 항공운송법 체계의 혼란과 비통일성을 가져다주었다. 이는 중국항공운송업의 진일보의 발전을 저애한다. 이와 같은 점을 고려하여 이 논문에서는 항공운송인의 책임 제도를 중심으로 중국 항공운송법의 법체계와 주요내용들을 살펴보았다. 중국민항법과 국무원 산하의 민용항공총국에서 제정 및 반포한 부문규장에 산재되어 있는데 법체계는 운송인 책임기간, 책임부담의 범위, 책임배상한도액 및 예외, 책임부담의 원칙, 운송인의 면책사유, 이의제출기한, 법의 적용, 관할법원, 소송시효에 관한 중국 법규정을 분석 소개하였다. 이어서 중국법원에서 다룬 실제사건과 결부하여 중국항공운송법 상의 문제점들을 구체적으로 점검하고 법 개정의 필요성과 앞으로의 전망을 제시하였다. 앞으로 중국 항공운송법을 개정함에 있어서 운송인책임과 관련하여 우선 먼저 운송인의 배상책임한도액을 상향조정해야 한다. 둘째로 국내항공운송과 국제항공운송 구분이 없이 운송인의 배상책임한도액을 제정함이 바람직하다. 셋째로 항공기연착에 관한 법 규정을 보완해야 한다. 넷째로, 민항법과 관련 부문규장에서 여객에 대한 운송인의 정신적 손해배상 내용을 명확히 할 필요가 있으며 법원은 향후 항공운송분쟁에 관한 분쟁에서 정신적 손해배상청구가 있는 경우 고려요소, 배상금 금액의 산정 등 기준을 판결문에서 명확하고 자세하게 밝히는 것이 바람직하다.

• 항공우주정책ㆍ법학회지
• /
• 제22권2호
• /
• pp.53-83
• /
• 2007

The purpose of this paper is to study precedent cases of the Air carrier liability for passengers. The article 17 of Warsaw Convention (also in Montreal Convention article 17-1) provides the Air carrier liability for passengers which is the most essential part of the Air carrier liability. According to these Conventions, 1) the carrier is liable for damage sustained in case of death or bodily injury of a passenger. Precedents and theories have disagreements on whether the damage covers the mental injury as well. 2) The carrier is liable for damage sustained from aviation accident. The definition of 'aviation accident' is becoming problematic. 3) The carrier is liable for damage sustained in case of death or bodily injury of a passenger upon condition only that the accident which caused the death or injury took place on board the aircraft or in the course of any of the operations of embarking or disembarking. The question at issue is the range of the operations of embarking or disembarking. This paper introduces the precedents (also, the model precedents) about the carriers liability for passengers and related cases, so as to help understand the trend of judicial decisions. Furthermore, the cases, once took all of the attention of the international air carriers, concerned with the 'Economy class syndrome' (DVT : Deep Vein Thrombosis) are also presented. Under the new Montreal Convention, the carriers liability for passengers will continue to be the main issue. Thus it is required that academics as well as practical businesses may keep up their studies about this issue.

• 항공우주정책ㆍ법학회지
• /
• 제27권2호
• /
• pp.107-142
• /
• 2012

현대 사회에서 항공기는 중요한 운송수단으로 자리매김 하였고 항공 여객운송에 있어서 항공기 연착 손해로 인한 분쟁은 항공운송 관련 분쟁 중 가장 많이 발생하는 일이다. 항공운송에 관한 국제조약이 적용되지 못하는 국내운송 등과 같은 영역을 규율하기 위하여 2011년 상법 항공운송편이 제정 발효되었고 여기에 여객 및 수하물의 연착으로 인한 항공운송인의 손해배상책임제도도 마련되었다. 몇 개 안되는 조문이지만 항공운송 중 가장 빈번히 일어나는 항공기 연착으로 인한 손해배상 문제를 규율하기 때문에 그 중요성은 매우 크다고 할 수 있다. 기존의 바르샤바협약 체제의 문제점을 개선한 1999년 몬트리올협약의 관련 내용을 대부분 수용하여 제정된 우리 상법 항공운송편 규정들은 널리 통용되고 있는 국제적 기준에 부합한다는 장점은 있지만, 1999년 몬트리올협약의 문제점들을 거의 그대로 지니고 있다는 단점이 있다. 상법 항공운송편상 여객 및 수하물의 연착 손해로 인한 배상책임제도 관련 규정들의 문제점 및 개선방안은 다음과 같다. 첫째, 연착으로 인한 항공운송인의 손해배상책임이 성립되기 위한 '연착'의 개념 정의가 없으므로 '연착'에 관한 정의 규정을 두는 것을 생각해 볼 필요가 있다. 둘째, 여객에 대한 연착 손해 발생 시 국내운송의 경우 국제운송의 1/8 수준으로 항공운송인의 배상책임한도액을 차등하여 규정한 것은 항공사보호에 별로 도움이 되지 않는 반면 소비자 피해의 구제 측면에서는 바람직하지 않으므로 국내운송의 여객 연착 손해 관련 배상책임한도액을 국제운송의 1/4~1/2 수준으로 상향 조정하는 것이 바람직하다고 본다. 셋째, 수하물의 멸실 훼손의 경우와 연착의 경우를 구분 없이 수하물의 손해로 인한 항공운송인의 배상책임한도액을 모두 동일하게 규정하고 있는 것은 일반적으로 손해의 정도가 다른 대상들을 구분하지 않았기 때문에 문제가 있다고 생각되며, 수하물의 멸실 훼손의 경우와 연착의 경우를 구분하여 별도로 배상책임한도액을 규정하는 것이 바람직하다고 생각된다. 위에서 언급된 상법 항공운송편의 여객 및 수하물의 연착 손해 관련 배상책임 규정의 문제점 등을 비롯한 동 법률의 개선요구들에 대한 많은 연구와 논의를 통해 오랜 노력과 기다림 끝에 제정된 국내 항공운송법제를 더욱 발전시켜 나가야 할 것이다.

• 항공우주정책ㆍ법학회지
• /
• 제18권
• /
• pp.41-64
• /
• 2003

본고는 새로 발효된 1999년의 몬트리올 조약상 국제항공화물에 관한 항공운송인의 책임제도를 종전의 바르샤바 조약과 비교하여 고찰하고 있으며, 또한 항공화물은송인의 책임에 관련된 몬트리올 조약 규정의 주요 문제점들을 다루고 있다. 바르샤바 조약은 1929년에 채택되어 1955년, 1961년, 1971년, 1975년, 1999년에 계속적으로 개정되어 왔으며, 1999년의 몬트리올 조약은 바르샤바 조약 및 관련조약들을 통합하고 현대화한 것이다. 항공운송인은 몬트리올 조약에 규정된 바와 같이 엄격책임주의에 따라 책임을 지며, 항공운송중의 화물의 파괴, 멸실, 손상 및 지연에 대하여 책임을 지되, 운송인의 책임은 1킬로그램당 17특별인출권(SDR)으로 제한된다. 결론적으로 몬트라올 조약은 화물에 관한 항공운송인의 책임과 관련하여 몇가지 현존하는 문제점들이 있는데, 몬트리올 조약과 바르샤바 조약간의 충돌 가능성, 낮은 운송인의 책임한도액, 운송인의 책임기간의 불명확, 과도한 소송제기, 항공보험의 가입 등의 문제들이 그것이다. 따라서 몬트리올 조약상 운송인의 책임조건 및 한도는 재조정되고 보다 구체적으로 규정되어야 한다.

• 항공우주정책ㆍ법학회지
• /
• 제7권
• /
• pp.101-134
• /
• 1995

Article 3 Paragraph 1 of the Warsaw Convention regulates the requirements of passenger tickets, Article 4 Paragraph 3, the requirements of baggage tickets, Article 8, the requirements of airway bills. In this article the writer has discussed the legal nature of the documents of air carriage, such as air waybills, passenger tickets and baggage checks. Further, the writer has also discussed several issues relating to the use of the documents of air carriage under the Warsaw Convention. Article 3 Paragraph 2, as well as Article 4 Paragraph 4 and 9 provides that the carrier shall not be entitled to avail himself of the provisions of the Convention which evade or limit his liability. In particular, the Montreal Agreement of 1966 provides that the notification on the carrier's liability in passenger ticket should be printed in more than 10 point type size with contrasting ink colors. However, another question is whether the carrier shall not be entitled to avail himself of the liability limit under the Convention in case the type size is below 10 points. The Convention does not specify the type size of certain parts in passenger tickets and only provides that the carrier shall not be entitled to avail himself of liability limit, when a carrier fails to deliver the ticket to passenger. However, since the delivery of passenger tickets is to provide an opportunity for passengers to recognize the liability limit under the Convention and to map out a subsequent measures, the carrier who fails to give this opportunity shall not be entitled to avail himself of the liability limit under the Convention. But some decisions argue that when the notice on the carrier's liability limit is presented in a fine print in a hardly noticeable place, the carrier shall not be entitled to avail himself under the Convention. Meanwhile, most decisions declare that regardless of the type size, the carrier is entitled to avail himself of liability limit of the provisions of the Convention. The reason is that neither the Warsaw Convention nor the Montreal Agreement stipulate that the carrier is deprived from the right to avail himself of liability limit of the provisions of the Convention when violating the notice requirement. In particular, the main objective of the Montreal Agreement is not on the notice of liability limit but on the increase of it. The latest decisons also maintain the same view. This issue seems to have beeen settled on the occasion of Elisa Chan, et al. vs. Korean Airlines Ltd. The U.S. Supreme Court held that the type size of passenger ticket can not be a target of controversy since it is not required by law, after a cautious interpretation of the Warsaw Convention and the Montreal Agreement highlighting the fact that no grounds for that are found both in the Warsaw Convention and the Montreal Agreement. Now the issue of type size can hardly become any grounds for the carrier not to exclude himself from the liability limit. In this regard, any challenge to raise issue on type size seems to be defeated. The same issue can be raised in both airway bills and baggage tickets. But this argument can be raised only to the tranportation where the original Convention is applied. This creates no problem under the Convention revised by the Hague Protocol, because the Hague Protocol does not require any information on weight, bulk, size, and number of cargo or baggage. The problem here is whether the carrier is entitled to avail himself of the liability limit of the provisions of the Convention when no information on number or weight of the consigned packages is available in accordance with Article 4 of the Convention. Currently the majority of decisions show positive stance on this. The carrier is entitled to avail himself of the liability limit of the provisions of the Convention when the requirement of information on number and weight of consigned packages is skipped, because these requirements are too technical and insubstancial. However some decisions declare just the opposite. They hold that the provisions of the Convention Article 4 is clear, and their meaning and effect should be imposed on it literally and that it is neither unjust nor too technical for a carrier to meet the minimum requirement prescribed in the Convention. Up to now, no decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court on this issue is available.

• 항공우주정책ㆍ법학회지
• /
• 제24권2호
• /
• pp.19-45
• /
• 2009

우리나라는 항공운송에 관한 사법적 법률관계를 규율하는 법률이 제정되어 있지 아니하므로 항공화물운송을 둘러싼 분쟁을 오로지 항공사의 항공운송약관에 의해 해결을 시도하여 왔다. 그러나 국내항공운송에서 화주의 권익을 보호하고 운송계약당사자의 권리의무를 명확히 하기 위해 항공운송에 관한 법률을 제정할 필요가 있는 것이다. 국제항공운송에 있어서는 1999년에 채택된 몬트리올 협약을 우리나라가 가입하여 2007년 12월 29일 발효되어 있으므로 국제항공운송에 관련된 분쟁에는 몬트리올 협약이 적용된다. 법무부는 2008년에 상법 제6편 항공운송편 제정안을 마련하여 공청회를 거쳐 2008년 12월 31일 국회 제출되어 현재 심의 중에 있다. 상법 항공운송편 제정안은 기본적으로 몬트리올 협약을 근간으로 하고 있으며, 상법의 육상운송 및 해상운송의 제 규정과 위배됨이 없도록 제정목표를 두어 총 3개장 45개 조문 및 부칙으로 구성되어 있다. 상법 항공운송편 제정안가운데 특히 항공화물운송인의 책임에 관한 규정으로 운송인의 책임원인, 비계약적 청구에 적용, 운송인의 책임한도, 운송인의 책임감면, 운송인의 책임소멸, 운송물의 멸실 훼손 등의 통지, 운송인의 사용인.대리인의 책임, 실제 운송인의 책임, 순차운송인의 책임 등에 관한 규정이 있다. 이와 같은 항공화물운송인의 책임에 관한 규정가운데 쟁점사항으로는, 항공운송편 제정안 제913조제1항 단서의 운송인의 면책사유로 몬트리올 협약 제18조제2항에 규정되어 있지 아니한 폭동, 내란, 검역 등이 추가되어 있다는 점, 상법 제121조 및 제147조는 육상운송 및 육상운송주선의 경우 운송인의 책임에 관하여 악의의 경우를 제외하고 1년의 단기 제척기간을 규정하고 있는 반면에 항공운송편 제정안 제902조는 항공운송인의 악의가 있든 없든 2년의 제척기간을 규정하고 있는 점, 항공운송편 제정안 제899조 제3항은 화물운송의 경우 항공운송인의 사용인이나 대리인에게 고의 또는 인식있는 무모한 작위 또는 부작위가 있는 경우에도 사용인이나 대리인인 운송인이 주장할 수 있는 항변과 책임제한을 원용할 수 있다는 점들을 들수 있다. 결론적으로, 상법 항공운송편 제정안에는 당사자 간의 분쟁해결 및 운송인의 책임분산에 관한 규정이 있지 아니한 바 몬트리올 협약 제34조의 중재 및 제50조의 보험에 관한 규정을 수용하여 포함시키는 것이 바람직할 것이다. 또한 상법 항공운송편 제정안이 조속히 국회에서 통과되어 시행될 경우 운송인 등과 화주 간에 화물의 멸실, 훼손 또는 연착으로 인한 손해배상책임에 관한 분쟁을 원활하고 공평하게 해결하는데 기여할 것이다.