• 항공우주정책ㆍ법학회지
• /
• 제7권
• /
• pp.205-263
• /
• 1995

• 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.

• 항공우주정책ㆍ법학회지
• /
• 제26권1호
• /
• pp.177-213
• /
• 2011

현재 우주활동에 의하여 발생된 손해에 대한 배상책임과 관련된 국제조약으로 1967년 우주조약과 1972년 우주손해배상책임조약이 있으며, 또한 우리나라 국내법으로 2008년 우주손해배상법이 있다. 우주조약은 우주활동에 대한 국가의 국제적 책임과 우주물체에 의한 손해에 대한 국가의 불법행위 책임에 관하여 규정하고 있다. 우주손해책임조약은 발사국의 절대적 책임, 과실책임, 연대책임, 배상청구권자, 배상청구방법, 배상청구기한, 배상청구와 국내적 구제, 손해배상액, 청구위원회 설치 등에 관하여 규정하고 있다. 우리나라 우주손해배상법은 우주손해의 정의, 우주손해책임조약과의 관계, 발사자의 무과실책임 및 책임의 집중, 발사자의 손해배상책임한도액, 발사자의 책임보험 가입, 정부의 피해자 구조 및 발사자 지원 등에 관하여 규정하고 있다. 우주사고로 인한 손해배상책임 관련 사례들로 Iridium33과 Cosmos 2251 위성충돌 사건, Cosmos 954 위성추락 사건, Martin Marietta의 위성발사 실패 사건, Westar VI 위성 작동불량 사고 등이 있으며, 이러한 우주사건에 관한 분쟁 또는 소송에 있어서 위성의 발사국, 발사자 및 제조자의 손해배상책임 부담문제에 관련하여 절대책임(엄격책임)원칙 또는 과실책임원칙이 적용되어 해결되고 있다. 우주손해책임조약의 개선방안으로 손해배상청구권자의 명확한 규정, 청구위원회의 결정의 구속력 확보 등을 들 수 있고, 우리나라 우주손해배상법의 개선방안으로 손해배상범위에 간접손해 포함, 손해배상책임 한도액의 통화단위 변경, 공동발사자의 연대책임 및 구상권 신설, 우주손해배상심의위원회의 설치 등을 들 수 있다. 우리나라는 2009년 6월 전남 고흥군 외나로도에 우주센터가 준공되어 동년 8월 및 2010년 6월 우리나라 최초 소형 우주발사체 나로호(KSLV-1)를 두차례 발사하였다. 향후 우리나라는 우주활동 과정에서 우주관련 국제조약 및 국내법상의 국제적 책임 및 우주손해에 대한 배상책임 등 문제들이 발생할 가능성이 있으므로 우리정부 및 우주물체 발사기관은 이러한 문제들에 대한 법적 제도적 대응책을 마련해야 할 것이다.

• 의료법학
• /
• 제7권2호
• /
• pp.9-74
• /
• 2006

Due to the awareness of their rights for medical liability and the advancement of legal principles, it becomes also not hard to find those who seek damages against hospitals, doctors and nurses for the suicide committed under the protection of psychiatric institute in Korea these days. Judgements on these kinds of cases are not enough yet, so that it may be too early to try to find principles used in these cases, however it is hardly wrong to read following things from above cases. That is, to gain the case, plaintiffs should show (1) there exists an obligation of "due care"(there is a special relation between patients and hospitals), (2) the duty is violated on the basis of the applicable standard of care, (3) whatever injures or damages are sustained are proximately caused by the breach of duty and (4) the plaintiff suffers compensable damages. To specific, whether a psychiatric institute was liable for wrong death or not depends upon the patients conditions, circumstances and the extent of the danger the patients poses to himself or herself; in short, the foreseeability of self-inflicted harm(the doctor should have or could reasonably have foreseen the patient's suicide and the doctor's negligence actually caused the suicide). In this context if a patient exhibit strong suicidal tendencies, constant observation should be required. Negligence has been found not exist, however, when a patient abruptly and unexpectedly dashes from an attendant and jumps out a window or otherwise attempts to injure himself or herself. And the standard of conduct that is required to meet the obligation of "due care" is based on what the "reasonable practitioner" would do in like circumstances. The standard is not one of excellence or superior practice; it only re quires that the physician exercise that degree of skill and care that would be expected of the average qualified practitioner practicing under like circumstances. Most of these principles have been established at cases of the U.S.A and Japan. In this article you can also find the legal organizations of medical liability and medical contacts on the suicide of patients who have psychiatric diseases under Korean negligence law.

• 국제학술발표논문집
• /
• The 6th International Conference on Construction Engineering and Project Management
• /
• pp.718-719
• /
• 2015

As a recent global trend, the majority of plant projects are delivered through EPC or EPC-turnkey contracts, where a contractor's liability is more complicated because of the mega size scale and financing method. Previous researches have been lacking a practical usability for project members for liabilities of contracts. Those were focused on solving the claims or schedule calculation issues only. The objective of the present study was to develop a validation process for LDs (liquidated damages) in contractor's liabilities with various case studies and expert judgments. As summarized in this paper, the processes and tools were developed with project life cycle process. The project preparation phase includes 3 step check lists to determine the Go or No-go for projects. In progress phase, contractors should focus on the response strategies for claims with liabilities. The study concludes that those developed processes and tools will help to manage risk of LDs for the contractors in the overseas projects.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제63권
• /
• pp.63-88
• /
• 2014

The culpa in contrahendo is a doctrine that "damages should be recoverable against the party whose blameworthy conduct during negotiations for a contract brought about its invalidity or prevented its perfection". In China, Chinese Civil law gradually adopted Culpa in Contrahendo under the former 'economic contract law' and the 'general rules of the civil law', then the legal system of culpa in contrahendo was formally established under Contract Law of the People's Republic of China(CLPRC) in 1999. To put it concretely, Art. 42, 43, 58 of the Chinese Civil Law expressly establishes a culpa in contrahendo liability derived from a principle of good faith governing pre-contractual negotiations. however, in general, culpa in contrahendo has been recognized a independent legal liability as distinct from contractual default liability and torts liability. This article provides a general description of the characteristics of culpa in contrahendo under Chinese Contract Law, and both theoretical issues that have arisen in Chinese academics and relevant important precedent in Chinese Courts. This article also analyzed trend of judgment on precedents that the Supreme Peoples's Court of the PRC applied culpa in contrahendo.

• 의료법학
• /
• 제15권2호
• /
• pp.317-343
• /
• 2014

In order to account for whether a doctor should indemnify damages resulted from violation of duty of care, the fact that a doctor violated duty of care, that damages were incurred, and the link between violation of duty of care and damages incurred, respectively, should be verified. So even though a doctor violated duty of care to patients, he or she will not bear the responsibility to indemnify damages unless it is not verified. If a doctor's negligence in medical practices is assessed that obviously unfaithful medical practice far exceeds the limit of admission of a patient, it will not go against people's general perception of justice or law and order to constitute a medical malpractice itself as an illegal action that will require liabiliy for damage. However, when the limit of admission is set too low, a patient's benefit and expectation of proper medical treatment can be violated. In contrast, if the limit of admission is set high, it can leave too little room for doctors' discretion for treatments due to a bigger risk of indemnification for damages. Thus, a reasonable balance that can satisfy both benefit and expectation of patients and doctors' right to treatment is needed.

• 한국지하수토양환경학회지:지하수토양환경
• /
• 제10권6호
• /
• pp.1-9
• /
• 2005

토양오염으로 인해 피해가 발생하면 그 피해배상과 토양오염정화에 대한 책임을 진다. 이러한 책임은 민사상의 일반적 책임과는 다르다. 토양환경보전법상으로는 피해에 대하여 과실책임이 아닌 무과실책임을 지우고 있으며, 공동의 책임인 경우에는 연대책임(부진정연대책임)을 지우고 있다. 이것은 피해자의 구제를 용이하게 하기 위한 것이다. 그리고 토양정화책임과 그에 따른 비용책임에 대하여도 소급책임, 엄격책임, 연대책임을 지게하고 있다. 다만 천재지변과 전쟁으로 인한 경우에는 면책하고 있다. 책임당사자는 오염유발자와 토양오염시설의 소유 또는 점유자 및 운영자, 그리고 그 시설을 양수한 자 및 인수자로 규정하고 있다. 이와 관련하여 책임당사자가 불명하거나 무자력 등으로 인하여 책임을 질 수 없는 경구에 결국 국가가 책임을 짐으로써 국민의 조세부담을 가중시킬 염려가 있다 따라서 책임당사자의 범위를 확대시키거나 정화비용에 대한 기금제도의 활용이 요청된다

• 항공우주정책ㆍ법학회지
• /
• 제5권
• /
• pp.119-169
• /
• 1993

In this article the present writers have surveyed recent cases on Warsaw Convention especially on the cases emerged in the years between 1986 to 1993. The cases before 1986 were discussed already in the book titled "Liability of International Air Carrier," written by Professor Choi, published in Seoul 1986. In this article the writers have reviewed most of the American cases and some cases from the courts of Germany, France and England. Main subjects which were discussed herein were as follows: Liability of air carriers in Warsaw Convention carriage 1. Exclusivity of the Warsaw Convention as a remedy 2. Warsaw Jurisdiction 3. The scope of the Warsaw Convention's definition of "Accident" under Article 17 of the Warsaw Convention (1) Mental anguish (2) Unusual or unexpected events 4. Adequacy of notice of the limitation of liability to passengers for injuries and death 5. Damages recoverable, punitive damages and burden of proof 6. The wilful misconduct exception; definition of wilful misconduct 7. Cargo and passenger baggage 8. Time limitation of actions After examining articles published world-wide, this article compiles and analyses recent cases involving the Warsaw Convention system. As Warsaw System is based on international convention, maintaining uniformity in interpretation is of utmost importance. Therefore, this type of study is essential for resolving air-transportation disputes in Korea. This article examines the current state and recommends the desired course for the Warsaw Convention. The writers hope that this article is helpful to the Korean courts and those in the air-transportation industry in interpreting the Warsaw Convention.

• 대한방사선기술학회지:방사선기술과학
• /
• 제30권4호
• /
• pp.305-311
• /
• 2007

조영제는 영상검사를 위해 유용한 의약품이며 점차 그 사용량이 늘어나고 있지만, 불가항력적인 부작용이 발생한다. 부작용에 대비해서 작성하게 되는 조영제 사용 동의서는 의료기관에게는 유리하고 피검자에는 불리한 내용이 담겨져 있어, 동의서에 부작용이 발생할 수 있다는 것에 동의하였다고 하여 그에 대한 손해배상책임까지 면제된다고 볼 수는 없다. 또한 조영제를 사용하는 검사 시 검사자와 조영제제조자는 선량한 관리자의 주의의무, 예견의무, 결과회피의무를 다하여야 하며, 의무를 소홀히 하게 되면 민사상의 책임이 있다. 조영제는 생산, 제조, 유통과정에 결함이 생길 수 있기 때문에 조영제제조자는 의약품 결함으로 인해 손해가 발생된다면 제조물책임을 지게 된다. 결함은 제조물의 제조 설계 또는 표시 상의 결함이나 기타 통상적으로 기대할 수 있는 안전성이 결여되어 있는 것으로 정의하고 있다. 제조물책임이란 제조물의 결함으로 말미암아 그 제조물의 이용자 또는 제 3자가 생명 신체 또는 재산상 손해를 입었을 때 그 제조물의 제조자나 판매자에게 그 결함제조물로 인하여 입은 손해를 배상하도록 책임을 묻는 것을 말한다. 조영제 사용의 증가 추세에 따른 부작용 발생빈도가 높아질 개연성과 함께 피검자들의 건강권에 대한 권리 의식이 점차 강조되고 있는 현실을 감안한다면 이제는 그에 대한 법적 책임이 정리되어야 하고, 조영제제조자는 조영제 사고에 대비하여 자구적인 대처방안을 수립하거나, 조영제 제조단체 공동으로 제조물책임보험을 들도록 하는 방안이 마련되어야 할 것이다. 의료기관과 조영제 회사 간의 거래 계약 체결 시 조영제 부작용에 대한 내용을 포함함으로써 의료기관이나 검사 당사자의 조영제 부작용 법적 책임을 경감할 수 있을 것이다.