• Journal of Navigation and Port Research
• /
• v.39 no.4
• /
• pp.313-318
• /
• 2015

A question has recently been raised as to whether a foreign officer needs to obtain a Korean endorsement in order to be able to serve on board a Korean flag ship. This is attributable to the fact that differences of viewpoint may arise as to the interpretation on the relation between the mutatis mutandis article 24(1) and the endorsement issuance article 10 bis. This study intends to propose an interpretative solution through conducting in-depth analysis on the article 25(1). The conclusions of this study can be given as follows. First, the jurisdiction over the bareboat charter ships with hire purchase shall be rested with the third country of which the flag the ship is flying, the endorsement to be issued to foreign officers have to be issued by the flag State under the STCW Convention as ameded. Second, the provisons of the ship officers' act shall not be made applicable, commensurate with the intention of legislating the mutatis mutandis article 25, to the BHC/HP in such a way that is in infringement with the jurisdiction of flag State of those foreign ships. Third, the mutatis mutandis article shall be made applicable to only such areas of manning standards not covered under the STCW Convention as amended and shall exclude those provisions pertaining to the issuance of various certificates of which the jurisdiction is rested with flag State under the international instrument. Fourth, the article 10 bis(1) is not a provision requiring foreign officers wishing to serve on a BBC/HP to obtain a Korean endorsement. In summation, the article 10 bis shall be used only in the cases where foreign officers wishing to serve on a Korean flag ship are required to obtain korean endorsement.

• Proceedings of KOSOMES biannual meeting
• /
• 2006.11a
• /
• pp.15-24
• /
• 2006

The hot pursuit of a foreign ship may be undertaken when the competent authorities of the coastal State have good reason to believe that the ship has vi-olated the laws and regulations of that State. Such pursuit must be commenced when the foreign ship or one of its boats is within the internal waters, the archi-pelagic waters, the territorial sea or the contiguous zone of the pursuing State, and may only be continued outside the territorial sea or the contiguous zone if the pursuit has not been interrupted. It is not necessary that, at the time when the foreign ship within the territorial sea or the contiguous zone recevies the order to stop, the ship giving the order should likewise be within the territorial sea or the contiguous zone. If the foreign ship is within a contiguous zone, as defined in article 33, the pursuit may only be undertaken if there has been a vio-lation of the rights for the protection of which the zone was established. The right of hot pursuit shall apply mutatis mutandis to violations in the ex-clusive economic zone or on the continental shelf, including safety zones around continental shelf installations, of the laws and regulations of the coastal State applicable in accordance with this Convention to the exclusive economic zone or the continental shelf, including such safety zones.

• Journal of radiological science and technology
• /
• v.45 no.1
• /
• pp.11-17
• /
• 2022

This study was purpose to quantitative assessment of the resolution characteristics by using American college of radiology(ACR) phantom for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). The MRI equipment was used (Achiva 3.0T MRI, Philips system, Netherlands) and the head/neck matrix shim SENSE head coil were 32 channels(elements) receive MR coil. And the MRI equipment was used (Discovery MR 750, 3.0T MRI, GE medical system, America) and the head/neck matrix shim MC 3003G-32R 32-CH head coil were receive MR coil. As for the modulation transfer function(MTF) comparison result by using ACR magnetic resonance imaging phantom, the MTF value of the ACR standard T2 image in GE equipment is 0.199 when the frequency is 1.0 mm^-1 and the MTF value of the hospital T2 image in Philips equipment is 0.528. It was used efficiently by using a general sequence more than the standard sequence method using the ACR phantom. In addition it is significant that the quantitative quality assurance evaluation method for resolution characteristics was applied mutatis mutandis, and the result values of the physical image characteristics of the 3.0T MRI device were presented.

• Journal of radiological science and technology
• /
• v.46 no.1
• /
• pp.15-21
• /
• 2023

This study was purpose to assessment of the resolution characteristics by using ATS 535H Basic quality assurance (QA) phantom for ultrasound. The ultrasound equipment was used Logiq P6 (Ultrasound, GE Healthcare System, Chicago, IL, USA). And the ultrasound transducer were used Convex 4C (4~5.5 MHz), Linear 11L (10~13 MHz), Sector 3SP (3~5.5 MHz) probe. As for the noise power spectrum (NPS) comparison results by using ATS 535H Basic QA ultrasound phantom and Convex 4C, Linear 11L, Sector 3SP probe. The NPS value of the Convex 4C probe image was 0.0049, Linear 11L probe image was 0.0049, Sector 3SP probe image was 0.1422 when the frequency is 1.0 mm^-1. The modulation transfer function (MTF) comparison results by using ATS 535H Basic QA ultrasound phantom and Linear 11L probe the MTF value of the 3 cm focus image was 0.7511 and 4 cm focus image was 0.9001 when the frequency is 1.0 mm^-1. This study was presented characteristics of spatial resolution a quantitative evaluation methods by using ultrasound medical images for QA of ultrasound medical QA phantom. The quality control (QC) for equipment maintenance can be efficiently used in the clinic due to the quantitative evaluation of the NPS and MTF as the standard methods. It is meaningful in that it is applied mutatis mutandis and presented the results of physical resolution characteristics of the ultrasound medical image.

• Journal of radiological science and technology
• /
• v.47 no.1
• /
• pp.21-28
• /
• 2024

This study was purpose to quantitative evaluation of comparison of the image intensity uniformity and noise power spectrum (NPS) by using American college of radiology (ACR) phantom for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). The MRI was used achiva 3.0T MRI and discovery MR 750, 3.0T, the head and neck matrix shim SENSE head coil were 32 channels receive MR coil. The MRI was used parameters of image sequence for ACR standard and general hospital. NPS value of the ACR standard T2 vertical image in GE equipment was 7.65E-06 when the frequency was 1.0 mm^-1. And the NPS value of the ACR hospital T1 region of interest (ROI) 9 over all vertical image in Philips equipment was 9E-08 when the frequency was 1.0 mm^-1 and the NPS value of the hospital T2 ROI 9 over all vertical image in Philips equipment was 1.06E-07 when the frequency was 1.0 mm^-1. NPS was used efficiently by using a general hospital vertical sequence more than the standard vertical sequence method by using the ACR phantom. Furthermore NPS was the quantitative quality assurance (QA) assessment method for noise and image intensity uniformity characteristics was applied mutatis mutandis, and the results values of the physical imaging NPS of the 3.0T MRI and ACR phantom were presented.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.30 no.2
• /
• pp.83-153
• /
• 2015

As our economy grows and the number of aircraft increase, the number of civil execution against aircraft cases are likely to increase as well in the future. The purpose of this article is to present the legal theory on the civil execution against aircrafts by drawing on the legal theory on the civil execution against vessels which constitute a relatively large number of cases thus observed. The provisions of the civil execution against immovables or vessel, shall basically apply mutatis mutandis to the civil execution against aircraft or light aircraft. The civil execution against ultra-light flying devices or a foreign aircraft shall be executed in conformity with the civil execution against movables. There are a compulsory auction, an auction to execute a security right to aircraft, and an auction under the right of retention, etc. in the civil execution against an aircraft. A compulsory execution against an aircraft means an execution carried out by a creditor against a debtor's aircraft to obtain satisfaction of claims for the purpose of payment of money. The court of execution of a compulsory execution against an aircraft shall be the district court having jurisdiction over the airport of stoppage or storage of such aircraft at the time of seizure. The forums of execution of a compulsory execution against an aircraft shall be exclusive forums. When a court has rendered an order on commencing an auction, it shall order an execution officer to receive a certificate of the aircraft's registration and other documents as required for its operation, and to submit them to the court. A court may revoke the procedures for a compulsory auction when an execution officer fails to obtain a transfer of the aircraft's registration certificate, etc. and the location of the aircraft is not evident, not later than an elapse of 2 months from the date on which an order on commencing an auction has been rendered. In the case where it is deemed that there exists a business-related need or other based on proper reasoning, the court may permit the aircraft's operation, upon the motion submitted by the debtor. In this case, there shall be a consent from the creditor, the highest bidder, the next highest bidder and successful bidder. A court may, upon a motion submitted by the creditor, make the dispositions required for observing and preserving the aircraft. When a debtor has submitted the documents under subparagraph 2 or 4 of the Article 49 of the Civil Execution Act, and furnished the guarantee equivalent to the claims of the execution creditors and the creditors demanding a distribution and to the costs for execution, before a declaration of bid, the court shall, upon request, revoke other procedures than those for distribution. The provisions of a obligatory auction against vessel or aircraft and an auction to execute a security right to real estate or vessel, shall apply mutatis mutandis to an auction to execute the security right to aircraft. In an auction to execute the security right to aircraft case, an executive title is not necessary. An executory exemplification is not necessary in an application for an auction to execute the security right to aircraft. A court should examine the existence of security right and claim secured. No order on commencing an auction procedure shall be issued with non-existence or invalidity of the security right and absence or extinguishment of the claim secured. Furthermore, these prohibitions are the reason of a decision on non-permit for sale, the court overlooked these prohibitions, and the decision on a permit for sale became final and conclusive, the successful bidder who paid the price and registered of ownership could not acquire ownership of the aircraft sold. A court may render a ruling to put plural aircrafts up for a blanket auction, only when they are in restraint and related matter (Supreme Court Order 2001Ma3688 dated on August 22, 2001). A righter of retention on aircraft may file a request for an auction against the aircraft. The provisions of an auction to execute a security right to aircraft shall apply mutatis mutandis to the formal auction. Airport facility fee and an aircraft are not in restraint and related matter, so an airport management corporation does not hold the right of retention on the aircraft (Supreme Court Decision 2011Da29291 decided on April 10, 2014). In an auction in accordance with the right of retention, all encumbrances (e.g., mortgages) on the sold aircraft shall be extinguished by a sale under the legal conditions for sale. Not only creditors who have claims for preferential payment but also general creditors could demand for distribution. The precedence of the claim of the right of retention on aircraft and that of general creditor's claims are equal.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.32 no.1
• /
• pp.201-224
• /
• 2017

The main subject of this article focused on the legal status of the military aircraft in the high seas. For this the legal status of the military aircraft, the freedom of overflight, the right of hot pursuit, the right of visit and Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) were dealt. The 1944 Chicago Convention neither explicitly nor implicitly negated the customary norms affecting the legal status of military aircraft as initially codified within the 1919 Paris Convention. So the status of military aircraft was not redefined with the Chicago Convention and remains, as stated in the 1919 Paris Convention, as a norm of customary international law. The analyses on the legal status of the military aircraft in the high seas are found as follows; According to the Article 95 of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) warships on the high seas have complete immunity from the jurisdiction of any State other than the flag State. We can suppose that the military aircraft in the high seas have also complete immunity from the jurisdiction of any State other than the flag State. According to the Article 111 (5) of the UNCLOS the right of hot pursuit may be exercised only by warships or military aircraft, or other ships or aircraft clearly marked and identifiable as being on government service and authorized to that effect. We can conclude that the right of hot pursuit may be exercised by military aircraft. According to the Article 110 of the UNCLOS a warship which encounters on the high seas a foreign ship, is not justified in boarding it unless there is reasonable ground for suspecting that: (a) the ship is engaged in piracy, (b) the ship is engaged in the slave trade, (c) the ship is engaged in an unauthorized broadcasting and the flag State of the warship has jurisdiction under article 109, (d) the ship is without nationality, or (e) though flying a foreign flag or refusing to show its flag, the ship is, in reality, of the same nationality as the warship. These provisions apply mutatis mutandis to military aircraft. As for Air Defence Identification Zone (ADIZ) it is established and declared unilaterally by the air force of a state for the national security. However, there are no articles dealing with it in the 1944 Chicago Convention and there are no international standards to recognize or prohibit the establishment of ADIZs. ADIZ is not interpreted as the expansion of territorial airspace.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.23 no.2
• /
• pp.3-29
• /
• 2008

The volume of air passengers and cargo transportation has increased rapidly in recent years. This trend will be even more noticeable as the high-tech service industry expands and the globalization progresses. In an effort to reflect and to cope with this trend, many conventions concerning international air transportation have been concluded. The Republic of Korea has also acceded to the Montreal Convention of 1999 on September 20th, 2007 which became effective on December 29th 2007. However, Korea currently does not provide any private law on the liability of domestic air carrier, leaving the regulation wholly to the general conditions of carriage of private air lines. These general conditions of carriage, however, are not sufficient to regulate the liabilities of domestic air carriers, because they cannot be fully recognized as a legitimate source of law applicable in the court. This situation is inconvenient for both air carrier and their customers. Thus, the Ministry of Justice of Korea has decided to enact a law that will regulate domestic air transportation, namely, "Domestic Carriage by Air Act", as a part of the Korean Commercial Code. So was composed a special committee for legislation of the Domestic Carriage by Air Act. This writer has led the committee as a chairman. The committee has held in total 10 meetings so far and has completed a draft bill for the part VI of the Korean Commercial Code, "Air Carriage." The essentials of the draft are as follows: First, the establishment of Part VI in the Commercial Code. The Korean Commercial Code already includes a series of provisions on road transportation in part II and carriage by sea in part V. In addition to these rules regulating different types of transportation, the Domestic Carriage by Air Act will newly establish part VI to regulate air carriages. Eventually, the Commercial Code will provide an integrated legal system on the transportation industry. Second, the acceptance of the basic liability system which major international conventions, such as Montreal Convention of 1999 and Guadalajara Convention of 1961, have adopted. This is very important, because the law of air carriage is unified worldwide through various international conventions, making it necessary and significant for the new act to achieve conformity between rules of international air carriage and that of domestic air carriage. Third, the acceptance of Rome Convention system on damage caused by foreign aircraft to third parties on the surface. Fourth, the application of rules on domestic road carriage or carriage by sea mutatis mutandis with necessary modifications. This very point is the merit of inserting domestic air transportation law into the Commercial Code. By doing so, the number of articles can be reduced and the rules on air carriage can conform to that of road transportation and carriage by sea. The bill is expected to be passed by the parliament at the end of this year and is expected to be effective by end of July 2009.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.26 no.1
• /
• pp.3-30
• /
• 2011

According to the Article 86 of the United Nations on the Law of the Sea(UNCLOS) the provisions of high seas apply to all parts of the sea that are not included in the exclusive economic zone, in the territorial sea or in the internal waters of a State, or in the archipelagic waters of an archipelagic State. Article 87 also stipulates the freedom of the high seas. International laws on the flight over the high seas are found as follows; Firstly, as far as the nationality of the aircraft is concerned, its legal status is quite different from the ship where the flags of convenience can be applied practically. There is no flags of convenience of the aircraft. Secondly, according to the Article 95 of UNCLOS warships on the high seas have complete immunity from the jurisdiction of any State other than the flag State. We can suppose that the military(or state) aircraft over the high seas have also complete immunity from the jurisdiction of any State other than the flag State. Thirdly, according to the Article 101 of UNCLOS piracy consists of any act of voluntary participation in the operation of a ship or of an aircraft with knowledge of facts making it a pirate ship or aircraft. We can conclude that piracy can de done by a pirate aircraft as well as a pirate ship. Fourthly, according to the Article 111 (5) of UNCLOS the right of hot pursuit may be exercised only by warships or military aircraft, or other ships or aircraft clearly marked and identifiable as being on government service and authorized to that effect. We can conclude that the right of hot pursuit may be exercised only military aircraft, or aircraft clearly marked and identifiable as being on government service and authorized to that effect. Fifthly, according to the Article 110 of UNCLOS a warship which encounters on the high seas a foreign ship, is not justified in boarding it unless there is reasonable ground for suspecting that: (a) the ship is engaged in piracy, (b) the ship is engaged in the slave trade, (c) the ship is engaged in an authorized broadcasting and the flag State of the warship has jurisdiction under article 109, (d) the ship is without nationality, or (e) though flying a foreign flag or refusing to show its flag, the ship is, in reality, of the same nationality as the warship. These provisions apply mutatis mutandis to military aircraft. Sixthly, according to the Article 1 (5)(dumping), 212(pollution from or through the atmosphere), 222(enforcement with respect to pollution from or through the atmosphere) of UNCLOS aircraft as well as ship is very much related to marine pollution. Seventhly, as far as the crime on board aircraft over the high seas is concerned 1963 Convention on the Offences and Certain Other Acts Committed on Board Aircraft(Tokyo Convention) will be applied, and as for the hijacking over the high seas 1970 Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft(Hague Convention) and as for the sabotage over the high seas 1971 Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Civil Aviation(Montreal Convention) will be applied respectively. These three conventions recognize the flag state jurisdiction over the crimes on board aircraft over the high seas. Eightly, as far as reconnaissance by foreign aircraft in the high seas toward the coastal States is concerned it is not illegal in terms of international law because its act is done in the high seas. Ninthly as for Air Defence Identification Zone(ADIZ) there are no articles dealing with it in the 1944 Chicago Convention. The legal status of the foreign aircraft over this sea zone might be restricted to the regulations of the coastal states whether this zone is legitimate or illegal. Lastly, the Arctic Sea is the frozen ocean. So the flight over that ocean is the same over the high seas. Because of the climate change the Arctic Sea is getting melted. If the coastal states of the Arctic Sea will proclaim the Exclusive Economic Zone(EEZ) as the ocean is getting melted, the freedom of flight over that ocean will also be restricted to the regulations of the coastal states.