• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.13 no.1
• /
• pp.199-247
• /
• 2012

According to the review and analysis of medical cases that are assigned to the Supreme Court and all local High Court in 2011 and that are presented in the media, it was found that the following categories were taken seriously, medical and pharmaceutical product liability, the third principle of trust between medical institutions, negligence and causation estimation, responsibility limit, the meaning of medical records and related judgment of disturbed substantiation, Oriental doctors' duties to explain the procedures, IMS events, whether one can claim for each medical care operated by non-physician health care institutions to the nonmedical domain in the National Health Insurance Corporation, and the basis of norms for each claim. In the cases related to medical pharmaceutical product liability, Supreme Court alleviated burden of proof for accidents with medical and pharmaceutical products prior to the practice of Product Liability Law and onset the point of negative prescription as the time of damage strikes to condition feasibility of the specific situation. In the cases related to the 3rd principle of trust between medical institutions, the Supreme Court refused to sentence the doctor who has trusted the judgment of the same third-party doctors the violations of the care duty. With respect to proof of a causal relationship and damages in a medical negligence case, the Supreme Court decided that it is unjust to deny negligence by the materials of causal relationship rejecting the original verdict and clarified that the causal relationship shall not deny the reasons to limit doctors' responsibilities. In order not put burden on patients with disadvantages in which medical records and the description of the practice or the most fundamental and important evidence to prove negligence and causation are being neglected, the Supreme Court admitted in the hospital's responsibility for the case of the neonate death of suffocation without properly listed fetal heart rate and uterine contraction monitor. On the other hand, the Seoul Western District Court has admitted alimony for altering and forging medical records. With respect to doctors' obligations to description, the Supreme Court decided that it is necessary to explain the foreseen risks by the combination of oriental and western medicines emphasizing the right of patient's self-determination. However, questions have arisen whether it is realistically feasible or not. In a case of an unlicensed doctor performing intramuscular stimulation treatment (IMS), the Supreme Court put off its decision if it was an unlicensed medical practice as to put limitation of eastern and western medical practices, but it declared that IMS practice was an acupuncture treatment therefore the plaintiff's conduct being an illegal act. In the future, clear judgment on this matter should be made. With respect to the claim of bills from non-physical health care institutions, the Supreme Court decided to void it for the implementation of the arrangement is contrary to the commitments made in the medical law and therefore, it is invalid to claim. In addition, contrast to the private healthcare professionals, who are subject to redemption according to the National Healthcare Insurance Law, the Seoul High Court explicitly confirmed that the non-professionals who receive the tort operating profit must return the unjust enrichment and have the liability for damages. As mentioned above, a relatively wide range of topics were discussed in medical field of 2011. In Korea's health care environment undergoing complex changes day by day, it is expected to see more diverse and in-depth discussions striding out to the development in the field of health care.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.30 no.2
• /
• pp.37-81
• /
• 2015

AirAsia QZ8501 Jet departed from Juanda International Airport in, Surabaya, Indonesia at 05:35 on Dec. 28, 2014 and was scheduled to arrive at Changi International Airport in Singapore at 08:30 the same day. The aircraft, an Airbus A320-200 crashed into the Java Sea on Dec. 28, 2014 carrying 162 passengers and crew off the coast of Indonesia's second largest city Surabaya on its way to Singapore. Indonesia's AirAsia jet carrying 162 people lost contact with ground control on Dec. 28, 2014. The aircraft's debris was found about 66 miles from the plane's last detected position. The 155 passengers and seven crew members aboard Flight QZ 8501, which vanished from radar 42 minutes after having departed Indonesia's second largest city of Surabaya bound for Singapore early Dec. 28, 2014. AirAsia QZ8501 had on board 137 adult passengers, 17 children and one infant, along with two pilots and five crew members in the aircraft, a majority of them Indonesian nationals. On board Flight QZ8501 were 155 Indonesian, three South Koreans, and one person each from Singapore, Malaysia and the UK. The Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 departed from Kuala Lumpur International Airport on March 8, 2014 at 00:41 local time and was scheduled to land at Beijing's Capital International Airport at 06:30 local time. Malaysia Airlines also marketed as China Southern Airlines Flight 748 (CZ748) through a code-share agreement, was a scheduled international passenger flight that disappeared on 8 March 2014 en route from Kuala Lumpur International Airport to Beijing's Capital International Airport (a distance of 2,743 miles: 4,414 km). The aircraft, a Boeing 777-200ER, last made contact with air traffic control less than an hour after takeoff. Operated by Malaysia Airlines (MAS), the aircraft carried 12 crew members and 227 passengers from 15 nations. There were 227 passengers, including 153 Chinese and 38 Malaysians, according to records. Nearly two-thirds of the passengers on Flight 370 were from China. On April 5, 2014 what could be the wreckage of the ill-fated Malaysia Airlines was found. What appeared to be the remnants of flight MH370 have been spotted drifting in a remote section of the Indian Ocean. Compensation for loss of life is vastly different between US. passengers and non-U.S. passengers. "If the claim is brought in the US. court, it's of significantly more value than if it's brought into any other court." Some victims and survivors of the Indonesian and Malaysia airline's air crash case would like to sue the lawsuit to the United States court in order to receive a larger compensation package for damage caused by an accident that occurred in the sea of Java sea and the Indian ocean and rather than taking it to the Indonesian or Malaysian court. Though each victim and survivor of the Indonesian and Malaysia airline's air crash case will receive an unconditional 113,100 Unit of Account (SDR) as an amount of compensation for damage from Indonesia's AirAsia and Malaysia Airlines in accordance with Article 21, 1 (absolute, strict, no-fault liability system) of the 1999 Montreal Convention. But if Indonesia AirAsia airlines and Malaysia Airlines cannot prove as to the following two points without fault based on Article 21, 2 (presumed faulty system) of the 1999 Montreal Convention, AirAsia of Indonesiaand Malaysia Airlines will be burdened the unlimited liability to the each victim and survivor of the Indonesian and Malaysia airline's air crash case such as (1) such damage was not due to the negligence or other wrongful act or omission of the air carrier or its servants or agents, or (2) such damage was solely due to the negligence or other wrongful act or omission of a third party. In this researcher's view for the aforementioned reasons, and under the laws of China, Indonesia, Malaysia and Korea the Chinese, Indonesian, Malaysia and Korean, some victims and survivors of the crash of the two flights are entitled to receive possibly from more than 113,100 SDR to 5 million US$ from the two airlines or from the Aviation Insurance Company based on decision of the American court. It could also be argued that it is reasonable and necessary to revise the clause referring to bodily injury to a clause mentioning personal injury based on Article 17 of the 1999 Montreal Convention so as to be included the mental injury and condolence in the near future.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.1
• /
• pp.193-222
• /
• 1989

The purpose of this study is to review the rights and duties of cargo owners, the party to the contract of international carriage of goods by air under the Warsaw Convention System and the IATA conditions. It is generally known that air freight is the most-cost mode of transportation. However, should there be considerations of total distribution cost, the use of air freight leads exporters to be advantageous in physical distribution. The Warsaw Convention System defined and limited the rights and duties of cargo owners and air carriers paticipating in the international carriage of goods, but it does not regulate every aspect of air transportation. Therefore, the unregulated parts are governed by national laws and by individual contracts of carriage. The International Air Transport Association(lATA), a worldwide organization of airlines, has formulated model conditions of contract for the carriage of cargo. These models are not uniformly followed but they serve as a basis for many of the individual standard form of contracts prepared by air carriers. The contract of air carriage of goods is a contract of adhesion, 'the consignor recognizing and accepting the conditions laid down by the carrier'. There are consignors and carriers as the parties to the contract of international carriage of goods. In addition to his basic right, implied in Warsaw Convention Article 18 and 19, to require devery of the goods in good condition and at the date agreed upon, the consignor has the right to dispose the goods in the course of the journey up to the moment when the consignee is entitled to require delivery. If it is impossible to carry out the orders of the consignor, the carrier must so inform him forthwith. The right conferred on the consignor ceases at the moment when that of the consignee begins in accordance with Warsaw Convention Article 13. Nevertheless, if the consignee declines to accept the air waybill or the goods, or if he cannot be communicated with, the consignor resumes his right of disposition. Unless it is otherwise agreed, it is the duty of the carrier to give notice to the consignee as soon as the goods arrive. The consignee is entitled, on arrival of the goods at the place of destination, to require the carrier to hand over to him the air waybill and to deliver the goods to him, on payment of the charges due and on complying with the conditions of carriage set out in the air waybill. The air waybill is supposed to be made out by the consignor. If the carrier makes it out, he is deemed, subject to proof to the contrary, to have done so on behalf of the consignor, whether there is one air waybill or several, each must be made out in three original parts. The first is for the carrier, the second is for the consignee, and the the third is handed to the consignor when the shipment has been accepted. The consignor is responsible for the correctness of the particulars and statement concerning the cargo appearing in the air waybill. Each of the original parts of the air waybill has evidential value and possession of his part is a condition for the exercise by the consignor or consignee of his rights under the contract of carriage. Hague Protocol set forth in Article 9 that nothing in this. Convention prevents the issue of a negotiable air waybill, but Montreal Additional Protocol No. 4 deleted this article. All charges applicable to a shipment are payable in cash at the time of acceptance thereof by the carrier in case of a prepaid shipment or at the time of delivery thereof by the carrier in case of a collect shipment. The carrier shall have lien the cargo for unpaid charges and, in the event of non-payment thereof, shall have the right to dispose of the cargo at public or private sale and pay itself out of the proceeds of such sale any and all such amounts. In conclusion, the Warsaw Convention System has the character of ambiguity in various respects, not only in the part of the forms of documents but also in conditions of contract. Accordingly, the following propositions might be considered: (1) If the carrier does not obey the orders of the consignor for the disposition of the goods without proper reasons, he will be liable strictly for any damage which may be caused thereby to the cargo owner. The special agreement and carrier's conditions of carriage which limit unreasonably the consignor's right of disposition of the goods will be nullified. (2) The instrument of the Warsaw Convention System which is not yet in force(Montreal Additional Protocol No. 4) would considerably simplfy the processing and keeping of computerized records of the carriage. Until this instrument enters into force, the airlines will be faced with practical problems preventing them to substitute computerized data processing techniques for the formal issuance of the documents. Accordingly, Montreal Additional Protocol No. 4 should become effective as soon as posisble. From a practical point of view in the international trade, the issuance of negotiable air waybill should be permitted for the security of the bank.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.21 no.1
• /
• pp.169-189
• /
• 2006

In 2007, KSLV(Korea Small Launching Vehicle) that we made at Goheung National Space Center is going to launch and promotes of our space exploration systematically and 'Space Exploration Promotion Act' was enter into force. 'Space Exploration Promotion Act' article 3, section 1, as is prescribing "Korean government keeps the space treaties contracted with other countries and international organizations and pursues after peaceful uses of outer space." The representative international treaties are Outer Space Treaty (1967) and Liability Convention (1972) etc. In Liability convention article 2, "A launching State shall be absolutely liable to pay compensation for damage caused by its space object on the surface of the earth or to aircraft in flight. The important content of the art. 2 is the responsible entity is the 'State' not the 'Company'. According by Korean Space Exploration Act art. 14, person who launches space objects according to art. 8 and art. 11 must bear the liability for damages owing to space accidents of the space objects. Could Korean government apply the Products Liability Act which is enter into force from July 1, 2002 to space launching person? And what is the contact type between Korea Aerospace Research Institute(KARl) and Russia manufacturer. Is that a Co-Development contract or Licence Product contract? And there is no exemption clause to waive the Russia manufacturer's liability which we could find it from other similar contract condition. If there is no exemption clause to the Russia manufacturer, could we apply the Korean Products Liability Act to Russia one? The most important legal point is whether we could apply the Korean Products Liability Act to the main component company. According by the art. 17 of the contract between KARl and the company, KARl already apply the Products Liability Act to the main component company. For reference, we need to examine the Appalachian Insurance co. v. McDonnell Douglas case, this case is that long distance electricity communication satellite of Western Union Telegraph company possessions fails on track entry. In Western Union's insurance company supplied to Western Union with insurance of $ 105 millions, which has the satellite regard as entirely damage. Five insurance companies -Appalachian insurance company, Commonwealth insurance company, Industrial Indemnity, Mutual Marine Office, Northbrook Excess & Surplus insurance company- went to court against McDonnell Douglases, Morton Thiokol and Hitco company to inquire for fault and strict liability of product. By the Appalachian Insurance co. v. McDonnell Douglas case, KARl should waiver the main component's product liability burden. And we could study the possibility of the adapt 'Government Contractor Defense' theory to the main component company.

• 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.