• 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.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제77권
• /
• pp.145-168
• /
• 2018

The purpose of this paper is to introduce the limitation of liabilities of multimodal transport operators(MTO) in Korea. Also, this paper reviews the revised draft of Korean Commercial Code in 2015. This paper analyzes Korean multimodal transport systemand the limitation of liabilities of MTO by analyzing articles, regulations and practices of Korean Commercial Code and it's the draft in 2015. The paper, also, studies multimodal transport rules by comparing specifically international treaty, rules, or practices. In Korea, Article 816 of Commercial Code treats multimodal transportation adopting the network liability regime. The Article describes only the case of the multimodal transportation where the maritime carriage is engaged. Korea proposed the draft of multimodal transport regulation of Commercial Code in 2015 because present law could not apply for the multimodal transportation involved in the air or land carriage. This paper support the draft of Korean Commercial Code in 2015 because it is necessary to make a predictable legal system of multimodal transport and the limitation of liability reflecting practices or customs.

• 항공우주정책ㆍ법학회지
• /
• 제1권
• /
• pp.47-85
• /
• 1989

The Fundamental purpose of the Warsaw Convention was to establish uniform rules applicable to international air transportation. The emphasis on the benefits of uniformity was considered important in the beginning and continues to be important to the present. If the desire for uniformity is indeed the mortar which holds the Warsaw system together then it should be possible to agree on a worldwide liability limit. This liability limit would not be so unreasonable, that it would be impossible for nations to adhere to it. It would preclude any national supplemental compensation plan or Montreal Agreement type of requirement in any jurisdiction. The differentiation of liability limits by national requirement seems to be what is occurring. There is a plethora of mandated limits and Montreal Agreement type 'voluntary' limits. It is becoming difficult to find more than a few major States where an unmodified Warsaw Convention or Hague Protocol limitation is still in effect. If this is the real world in the 1980's, then let the treaty so reflect it. Upon reviewing the Warsaw Convention, its history and the several attempts to amend it, strengths become apparent. Hijackings of international flights have given rise to a number of lawsuits by passengers to recover damages for injuries suffered. This comment is concerned with the liability of an airline for injuries to its passengers resulting from aviation terrorism. In addition, analysis is focused on current airline security measures, particularly the pre-boarding screening system, and the duty of air carriers to prevent weapons from penetrating that system. An airline has a duty to exercise a high degree of care to protect its passengers from the threat of aviation terrorism. This duty would seemingly require the airline to exercise a high degree of care to prevent any passenger from smuggling a weapon or explosive device aboard its aircraft. In the case an unarmed hijacker who boards having no instrument in his possession with which to promote the hoax, a plaintiff-passenger would be hard-pressed to show that the airline was negligent in screening the hijacker prior to boarding. In light of the airline's duty to exercise a high degree of care to provide for the safety of all the passengers on board, an acquiescene to a hijacker's demands on the part of the air carrier could constitute a breach of duty only when it is clearly shown that the carrier's employees knew or plainly should have known that the hijacker was unarmed. A finding of willful misconduct on the part of an air carrier, which is a prerequisite to imposing unlimited liability, remains a question to be determined by a jury using the definition or standard of willful misconduct prevailing in the jurisdiction of the forum court. Through the willful misconduct provision of the Warsaw Convention, air carrier face the possibility of unlimited liability for failure to implement proper preventive precautions against terrorist. Courts, therefore, should broadly construe the willful misconduct provision of the Warsaw Convention in order to find unlimited liability for passenger injuries whenever air carrier security precautions are lacking. In this way, the courts can help ensure air carrier safety and prevention against terrorist attack. Air carriers, therefore, would have an incentive to increase, impose and maintain security precautions designed to thwart such potential terrorist attacks as in the case of Korean Air Lines Flight No.858 incident having a tremendous impact on the civil aviation community. The crash of a commercial airliner, with the attending tragic loss of life and massive destruction of property, always gives rise to shock and indignation. The general opinion is that the legal system could be sufficient, provided that the political will is there to use and apply it effectively. All agreed that the main responsibility for security has to be borne by the governments. I would like to remind all passengers that every discovery of the human spirit may be used for opposite ends; thus, aircraft can be used for air travel but also as targets of terrorism. A state that supports aviation terrorism is responsible for violation of International Aviation Law. Generally speaking, terrorism is a violation of international law. It violates the soverign rights of the states, and the human rights of the individuals. I think that aviation terrorism as becoming an ever more serious issue, has to be solved by internationally agreed and closely co-ordinated measures. We have to contribute more to the creation of a general consensus amongst all states about the need to combat the threat of aviation terrorism.

• 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.

• 항공우주정책ㆍ법학회지
• /
• 제19권2호
• /
• pp.9-53
• /
• 2004

한국(韓國)과 일본(日本)의 항공법(航空法)은 주로 공법적(公法的)및 행정규제적(行政規制的)인 규정(規定)들로 조성(構成)되어 있음으로 항공기사고가 발생하였을 때에 항공안전인(航空運送人)의 손해배상책임(損害暗慣責任)의 한계(限界), 배상가액(暗慣價額) 책임소멸시기(責任消滅時期), 재판관할지(裁判管轄地 )등을 규정하는 사법적(私法的)인 규정은 한 조문도 들어가 있지 않음으로 손해배상청구사건(損害暗慣請求事件)을 처리히는데 있어 재판의 기준이 없어 항공소송사건(航空訴認事件)의 해결은 지연되고 있어 당사자(當事者)간(원(原) 피고(被告)간)의 분쟁은 더욱 심화되고 있는 것이 오늘날의실정이다. 국제항공안전(國際航空運送)의 사법적(私法的)인 법률관계는 바르샤바조약(條約) 헤이그의정서(議定書), 과다하라조약(條約), 1966년(年)의 몬트리올 항공사(航空社)간의 협정(協定), 몬트리올3개 추가의정석(追加議定書)와 몬트리올 제(第)4의정석(議定書), 몬트리올조약(條約)및 개정(改正)로마조약(條約) 등에 의하여 어느 정도 해결될 수 있지만 국내항공안전(國內航空運送)의 사법적(私法的)인 법률관계에 대하여서는 한국(韓國)과 일본(日本)은 법률에 아무런 규정이 없음으로 항공운송약관(航空運送約款)또는 민상법(民商法)등에 의하여 처리되고 있다. 그러나 항공운송약관(航空運送約款)의 일부조항이 무효결정(無效決定)또는 무효판정(無效判決)이 선고되어 문제가 제기된바 있다. 이와 같은 문제점을 해결하기 위하여서는 항공기사건(航空機事故)에 의한 분쟁당사자 간의 책임한계(責任限界)를 정하여 재판(裁判)의 기준을 정하기 위한 법을 만들어 재판(裁判)의 공정성, 신속성, 간편성을 도모할 수 있는 항공운송인(航空運送人)의 책임에 관한 국내입법으로 "항공운송법(航空運送法)"의 제정(制定)이 무엇보다도 필요하다고 본다. 이와 같은 문제의 해결과 가해자(加害者)와 피해자(被害者)간의 책임한계(責任限界)를 명확하게 정하기 위하여 현행(現行) 상법(商法)또는 항공법(船空法)을 개정하여 항공운송인(航空運送人)의 민사책임에 관한 규정을 삽입하는 것이 오랜 시일이 소요되어 가능하지 않을 때에는 신속한 해결을 위하여 항공가사건(航空機事件)의 분쟁당사자간의 책임한계(責任限界)및 법률관계(法律關係)를 규정한 새로운 "항공운송법(航空運送法)"을 특별법의 형태로 입법하는 것이 바람직하다고 본다. 이와 같은 점을 고려하여 이 논문(論文)에서는 우리나라 항공운송(航空運送)의 현황과 항공운송인(航空運送人)의 민사책임(民事責任)에 관한 세계각국(世界各國)의 입법예(立法例) ((1)영국(英國), (2)미국(美國), (3)캐나다, (4)유럽연합(聯合)(EU), (5)독일(獨逸), (6)프랑스, (7)이탈리아, (8)스페인, (9)스위스, (10)오스트레일리아, (11)일본(日本), (12)중국(中國), (13)대만(臺灣), 북한(北韓))에 관한 내용(內容)을 분석(分析) 소개(紹介)한 후 우리나라 항공운송인(航空運送人)의 책임(責任)에 관한 운송약관(運送約款)의 문제점, 그 동안의 항공안전법계약법할안(航空運送法契約法試案)의 퇴진경위(推進經緯)와 항공운송인(航空運送人)에 대한 운송계약책임(運送契約責任)과 불법행위책임(不法行爲責任)등 둘 다 포함시킨 새로운 "항공운송법(航空運送法)"의 입법(立法)의 필요성(必要性)과 이유(理由)등 입법론(立法論)을 제시하였다. 앞으로 이 입법론(立法論)에 따라 항공안전법계약법시안(航空運送法契約法試案)을 작성할 때에 규정할 주(主)된 내용(內容)은, (1)이 법(法)의 입법목적(立法目的), (2)적용범위(適用範圍), (3)"항공수화물(航空手倚物)", "항공화물(船空貨物)", "항공운송(航空運送)", "항공운송인(航空運送人)", "항공사고(航空事故)", "계산단위(計算單位)(SDR)" 등의 개념정립, (4)여객항공권(旅客械空卷), 수화물표(手倚物票)또는 항공운송상(航空運送狀)의 기재사항, (5)항공운송인(航空運送人)의 책임원칙(責任原則)및 책임원칙(責任原則) (6)피의자(被害者)의 기여과실(寄與過失)에 기인되는 항공운송인(航空運送人)의 책임감면, (7)면책특약(免責特約)의 금지, (8)항공운송인(航空運送人)의 책임한도(責任限度)의 적용배제(wilful misconduct), (9)소(訴)의 명의(名義), (10)순차운송)(順次運送)의 법률관계, (11)운송인(運送人)의 사용인(이행보조자)에 대한 책임, (12)수화물(手倚物)및 화물(貨物)의 멸실 등의 통지의무, (13)항공운송인(航空運送人)에 대한 소(訴)를 제기(提起)하는 기한(期限), (14)계약운송인이외(契約運送人以外)의 실제운송인(實際運送人)에 의하여 행하여진 항공운송(航空運送)의 법률관계(實際運送人의 책임(責任)등), (15)항공기(航空機)의 추락 또는 파편의 낙하에 의한 지상(地上)제(第)3자(者)에게 입힌 인적(人的)또는 물적손해(物的揚害)에 대한 배상책임 불범행위책임(不法行寫責任)등), 항공운송상(航空運送狀)또는 화물손해(貨物損害)에 관한 추정적효력(prima facie evidence)의 인정, 항공화물(航空貨物)의 처분청구권의 인정, 제(第)3자(者)에 대한 청구권(구상권(求償權)), 전도금(前渡金)의 지급, 부합운송(複合運送), 중재제도(仲裁制度)의 도입, 항공보험(航空保險), 재판관할지(裁判管轄地), 항공운송인(航空運送人)에 대한 제소(提訴)의 소멸시기(消滅時期)(제척(除斥)) 등이 있다.

• 항공우주정책ㆍ법학회지
• /
• 제22권2호
• /
• pp.109-133
• /
• 2007

The legal labyrinth through which we have just walked is one in which even a highly proficient lawyer could easily become lost. Warsaw Convention's original objective of uniformity of private international aviation liability law has been eroded as the world community ha attempted again to address perceived problems. Efforts to create simplicity and certainty of recovery actually may have created less of both. In any particular case, the issue of which international convention, intercarrier agreement or national law to apply will likely be inconsistent with other decisions. The law has evolved faster for some nations, and slower for others. Under the Warsaw Convention of 1929, strict liability is imposed on the air carrier for damage, loss, or destruction of cargo, luggage, or goods sustained either: (1) during carriage in air, which is comprised of the period during which cargo is 'in charge of the carrier (a) within an aerodrome, (b) on board the aircraft, or (c) in any place if the aircraft lands outside an aerodrome; or (2) as a result of delay. By 2007, 151 nations had ratified the original Warsaw Convention, 136 nations had ratified the Hague Protocol, 84 had ratified the Guadalajara Protocol, and 53 nations had ratified Montreal Protocol No.4, all of which have entered into force. In November 2003, the Montreal Convention of 1999 entered into force. Several airlines have embraced the Montreal Agreement or the IATA Intercarrier Agreements. Only seven nations had ratified the moribund Guatemala City Protocol. Meanwhile, the highly influential U.S. Second Circuit has rendered an opinion that no treaty on the subject was in force at all unless both affected nations had ratified the identical convention, leaving some cases to fall between the cracks into the arena of common law. Moreover, in the United States, a surface transportation movement prior or subsequent to the air movement may, depending upon the facts, be subject to Warsaw, or to common law. At present, International private air law regime can be described as a "situation of utter chaos" in which "even legal advisers and judges are confused." The net result of this barnacle-like layering of international and domestic rules, standards, agreements, and criteria in the elimination of legal simplicity and the substitution in its stead of complexity and commercial uncertainty, which manifestly can not inure to the efficient and economical flow of world trade. All this makes a strong case for universal ratification of the Montreal Convention, which will supersede the Warsaw Convention and its various reformulations. Now that the Montreal Convention has entered into force, the insurance community may press the airlines to embrace it, which in turn may encourage the world's governments to ratify it. Under the Montreal Convention, the common law defence is available to the carrier even when it was not the sole cause of the loss or damage, again making way for the application of comparative fault principle. Hopefully, the recent entry into force of the Montreal Convention of 1999 will re-establish the international legal uniformity the Warsaw Convention of 1929 sought to achieve, though far a transitional period at least, the courts of different nations will be applying different legal regimes.

• 항공우주정책ㆍ법학회지
• /
• 제1권
• /
• pp.147-162
• /
• 1989

The current status of the application and interpretation of the Warsaw Convention and its subsequent Protocols in Asian countries is in its fredgling stages compared to the developed countries of Europe and North America, and there is thus little published information about the various Asian governments' treatment and courts' views of the Warsaw System. Due to that limitation, the accent of this paper will be on Korea and Japan. As one will be aware, the so-called 'Warsaw System' is made up of the Warsaw Convention of 1929, the Hague Protocol of 1955, the Guadalajara Convention of 1961, the Guatemala City Protocol of 1971 and the Montreal Additional Protocols Nos. 1,2,3 and 4 of 1975. Among these instruments, most of the countries in Asia are parties to both the Warsaw Convention and the Hague Protocol. However, the Republic of Korea and Mongolia are parties only to the Hague Protocol, while Burma, Indonesia and Sri Lanka are parties only to the Warsaw Convention. Thailand and Taiwan are not parties only to the convention or protocol. Among Asian states, Indonesia, the Phillipines and Pakistan are also parties to the Guadalajara Convention, but no country in Asia has signed the Guatemala City Protocol of 1971 or the Montreal Additional Protocols, which Protocols have not yet been put into force. The People's Republic of China has declared that the Warsaw Convention shall apply to the entire Chinese territory, including Taiwan. 'The application of the Warsaw Convention to one-way air carriage between a state which is a party only to the Warsaw Convention and a state which is a party only to the Hague Protocol' is of particular importance in Korea as it is a signatory only to the Hague Protocol, but it is involved in a great deal of air transportation to and from the united states, which in turn is a party only to the Warsaw Convention. The opinion of the Supreme Court of Korea appears to be, that parties to the Warsaw Convention were intended to be parties to the Hague Protocol, whether they actually signed it or not. The effect of this decision is that in Korea the United States and Korea will be considered by the courts to be in a treaty relationship, though neither State is a signatory to the same instrument as the other State. The first wrongful death claim in Korea related to international carriage by air under the Convention was made in Hyun-Mo Bang, et al v. Korean Air Lines Co., Ltd. case. In this case, the plaintiffs claimed for damages based upon breach of contract as well as upon tort under the Korean Civil Code. The issue in the case was whether the time limitation provisions of the Convention should be applicable to a claim based in tort as well as to a claim based in contract. The Appellate Court ruled on 29 August 1983 that 'however founded' in Article 24(1) of the Convention should be construed to mean that the Convention should be applicable to the claim regardless of whether the cause of action was based in tort or breach of contract, and that the plaintiffs' rights to damages had therefore extinguished because of the time limitation as set forth in Article 29(1) of the Convention. The difficult and often debated question of what exactly is meant by the words 'such default equivalent to wilful misconduct' in Article 25(1) of the Warsaw Convention, has also been litigated. The Supreme Court of Japan dealt with this issue in the Suzuki Shinjuten Co. v. Northwest Airlines Inc. case. The Supreme Court upheld the Appellate Court's ruling, and decided that 'such default equivalent to wilful misconduct' under Article 25(1) of the Convention was within the meaning of 'gross negligence' under the Japanese Commercial Code. The issue of the convention of the 'franc' into national currencies as provided in Article 22 of the Warsaw Convention as amended by the Hague Protocol has been raised in a court case in Korea, which is now before the District Court of Seoul. In this case, the plaintiff argues that the gold franc equivalent must be converted in Korean Won in accordance with the free market price of gold in Korea, as Korea has not enacted any law, order or regulation prescribing the proper method of calculating the equivalent in its national currency. while it is unclear if the court will accept this position, the last official price of gold of the United States as in the famous Franklin Mint case, Special Drawing Right(SDR) or the current French franc, Korean Air Lines has argued in favor of the last official price of gold of the United States by which the air lines converted such francs into us Dollars in their General Conditions of Carriage. It is my understanding that in India, an appellate court adopted the free market price valuation. There is a report as well saying that if a lawsuit concerning this issue were brought in Pakistan, the free market cost of gold would be applied there too. Speaking specifically about the future of the Warsaw System in Asia though I have been informed that Thailand is actively considering acceding to the Warsaw Convention, the attitudes of most Asian countries' governments towards the Warsaw System are still wnot ell known. There is little evidence that Asian countries are moving to deal concretely with the conversion of the franc into their own local currencies. So too it cannot be said that they are on the move to adhere to the Montreal Additional Protocols Nos. 3 & 4 which attempt to basically solve many of the current problems with the Warsaw System, by adopting the SDR as the unit of currency, by establishing the carrier's absolute liability and an unbreakable limit and by increasing the carrier's passenger limit of liability to SDR 100,000, as well as permiting the domestic introduction of supplemental compensation. To summarize my own sentiments regarding the future, I would say that given the fact that Asian air lines are now world leaders both in overall size and rate of growth, and the fact that both Asian individuals and governments are becoming more and more reliant on the global civil aviation networks as their economies become ever stronger, I am hopeful that Asian nations will henceforth play a bigger role in ensuring the orderly and hasty development of a workable unified system of rules governing international commercial air carriage.