• 산경연구논집
• /
• 제12권11호
• /
• pp.33-50
• /
• 2021

Purpose: In South Korea, two kinds of mandatory insurance, Fierce Liability Insurance and Outdoor Advertising Liability Insurance sells as of February 2021 according to relevant codes. This study analyzed third party liability and personal living liability insurance in terms of various risks not corporation side but personal side arising from normal living and life. Research design, data and methodology: Some cases of drone accident hit man and fierce dog accident were taken into analysis to verify blame ratio and insurance claim money. The former case is that on the way down the elevator, the dog, American pit bull terrier rushed in and bit the lower part of the knee against the visitor. The latter case is that while flying in the sky as usual, the drone suddenly crashed, fell, and hit the head of a young child while walking on the street. Further previous studies such as third party liabilities, liability insurance, mandatory insurance were deeply analyzed. Results: Based on some case studies and previous studies, the author suggested valuable comments in turn realization of insurer as provider, exhaustive creation and operation of mandatory insurance, realization of insured as demanded, and arrangements of laws and systems in special consideration of amendment of companion animal and exhaustive execution of mandatory insurance by the government. Conclusions: This study was about third party liability, personal living liability insurance and expansion of mandatory insurance caused by relevant laws by the government. In this study the author verified what issues were observed from two cases drone accident and fierce dog accident and then suggested some valuable comment as above both systemic plans and practical plans. First of all, the individual should get Comprehensive Property Insurance(CPI) that covers the risks of his/her own property arising from the everyday life. And then the individual should further buy Personal Living Liability Insurance(PLLI) in order to prepare 'accidents that may happen when, where, or how' and overcome the said accidents. Moreover, the individual should take a look every single insurance contract whether he/she has a special terms and conditions of Personal Living Liability Insurance(PLLI) or not.

• 항공우주정책ㆍ법학회지
• /
• 제23권1호
• /
• pp.3-32
• /
• 2008

In proportion to recent developments in aviation technology and growth of the air transport market, the risk of damages to third parties caused by aircrafts and the likelihood of unlawful interference on an aircraft in flight has grown larger. The war risk insurance market was paralyzed by the 9/11 terror event. And if another event on the scale of 9/11 occurs, compensations for third party damages will be impossible. Recognizing the need to modernize the existing legal framework and the absence of a globally accepted authority that deals with third party liability and compensation for catastrophic damage caused by acts of unlawful interference, the ICAO and various countries have discussed a liability and compensation system that can protect both third party victims and the aviation industry for the 7 years. In conclusion, in order to provide adequate protection for victims and the appropriate protection for air transport systems including air carriers, work on modernizing the Rome Convention should be continued and the new Convention should be finalized in the near future. Korea has not ratified the relevant international treaties, i.e. Rome Convention 1933, 1952 and 1978, and has no local laws which regulate the damage caused by aircraft to third parties on land. Consequently, it has to depend on the domestic civil tort laws. Most of the advanced countries in aviation such as the United States, England, Germany, France and even China, have incorporated the International Conventions to their national air law and governed carriers third party liability within their jurisdiction. The Ministry of Justice organized the Special Enactment Committee for Air Transport chapter under Commercial Law. The Air Transport chapter, which currently includes third party liability, is in the process of instituting new legislation. In conclusion, to settle such problems through local law, it is necessary to enact as soon as possible domestic legislation on the civil liability of the air carrier which has been connected with third party liability and aviation insurance.

• 항공우주정책ㆍ법학회지
• /
• 제32권1호
• /
• pp.385-417
• /
• 2017

Insurances of space activities are divided into satellite insurance, astronaut insurance and third party liability insurance. Against the background of the rapid development of space commercialization, especially the increasing participation of private entities in space affairs, the present international and domestic mechanisms of space insurance are challenged. As a space-faring state which is in the process of developing space businesses, the regulations of space insurance in China are deserved to be discussed. Satellites insurance is at present well-developed, the "pre-launch", "launch" and "in-orbit" phases of satellites are all possible to be insured by related companies. China created the CAIA in 1997 to provide insurance for Chinese satellites. However, with more private entities start to involve in space as well as satellite industry, the regime established under the framework of CAIA is necessary to be modified, and the mechanism relating to space insurance brokers should be promoted. The astronauts are recognized as the envoy of humankind, and relevant international regulations are made to provide assistance to them in emergency circumstances. From the domestic perspective, astronauts will be fully insured. China creates a particular type of insurance for astronauts. However, once space tourism becomes a business, the insurance of the tourist will be demanded to be created. In order to promote China's space tourism, it is recommended to take the "Astronaut Group Insurance" as an optional model to space tourists, if the tourists are customers of a governmental-owned space company. Once private involvement of providing orbital/suborbital tourism service becomes a reality, new rules are required. Getting a third party liability insurance is deemed as an indispensable precondition for an applicant to get a launch permission. Domestic space laws will include provisions for the third party liability insurance. China's "Interim Measures" of 2002 realizes the importance of third party liability insurance and requires the permit holder to get it before entering the launching site. This regulation is different from the practices of other states. Concerning that China is the sponsor of APSCO, for the purpose of promoting commercial space cooperation, a harmonized approach to domestic law is recommended to be found.

• 유통과학연구
• /
• 제14권3호
• /
• pp.5-10
• /
• 2016

Purpose - This paper analyzed the accident of drone and related insurance goods which can be coverable with regard to drone accident. The study range is limited in the owner's care, custody, and the control of drone in South Korea, but military area and law and regulation of the drone would be exceptional. Research design, data, and methodology - With regard to drone's flight, drone can make possible risks and can give severe damage to the people. To carry out this research, literature survey and review such as journal, thesis and publications were adopted. Results - As for the insurance coverage from drone's accident involved in the purpose of business, insurance coverage depends on 'commercial general liability insurance'. However, in case of personal hobby including leasure intention, insurance coverage depends on 'living liability insurance'. Conclusions - From a drone's accident, operator and owner of the drone may face the property damage to the drone itself, and then can give severe damage or loss to the people such as physical injuries and property damage. Peoples should be concerned about having the awareness of drone's accident with insurance coverage.

• 한국항만경제학회지
• /
• 제30권4호
• /
• pp.111-130
• /
• 2014

상법 제742조 제2항은 피해자 보호를 위해 책임보험계약의 경우 보험자에 대한 제3자의 직접청구권을 전면 허용하고 있다. 한편 선주는 선박의 운항과정에서 발생될 수 있는 각종 책임과 비용을 담보받기 위하여 선주상호보험조합과 선주상호보험계약을 체결하게 되는데, 본 계약규정에는 제3자의 직접청구권을 배제하는 소위, 선지급조항이 규정되어 있다. 최근 서울중앙지방법원은, 화주에게 보험금을 지급하고 대위권을 취득한 적하보험자가 선주상호보험조합을 상대로 직접청구권을 행사한 사안에서, 상법상 선지급조항의 효력에 대한 판단을 내렸다. 동 법원은 제3자의 직접청구권은 피보험자인 선주의 선주상호보험조합에 대한 보험금청구권이 아니라 제3자가 선주상호보험조합에 대하여 가지는 손해배상청구권이며, 상법 제742조 제2항에 규정된 직접청구권은 피해자 보호를 위해 인정된 강행규정이므로 이를 배제하는 보험계약규정상 선지급조항은 무효라고 판시하였다. 이번 판결은 하급심 판결이면서 분쟁금액도 소액이지만, 피해자이자 제3자인 화물이해관계자가 선주의 책임보험자인 선주상호보험조합에 대하여 직접청구권을 행사할 수 있는지와 선주상호보험조합이 피해자에게 책임보험계약상 각종 항변권을 주장할 수 있는지에 대한 최초의 판결로서 학계와 실무계에 시사하는 바가 크다. 따라서 본 논문의 목적은 해상보험업계에서 지도적 위치에 있는 영국법과 비교 분석을 통해 선주상호보험조합에 대한 적하보험자의 직접청구권의 법적 성질과 선지급조항의 효력이 주된 쟁점이 되었던 서울중앙법원 판결의 타당성을 평가하고, 향후 법률상 분쟁을 예방하기 위한 상법의 개정방향을 제시하는 것이다. 본 논문은 제3자의 직접청구권은 보험금청구권이므로 선지급조항이 유효하다는 입장에서 대상판결을 비판하고, 상법도 직접청구권이 보험금청구권이라는 점을 명확히 하도록 개정되어야 한다고 주장한다.

• 항공우주정책ㆍ법학회지
• /
• 제22권2호
• /
• pp.27-51
• /
• 2007

The cumulative result of the work by the ICAO Secretariat, the Secretariat Study Group and the Council Special Group on the Modernization of the Rome Convention of 1952 are two draft Conventions, namely: "Draft Convention on Compensation for Damage Caused by Aircraft to Third Parties, in case of Unlawful Interference", and "Draft Convention on Compensation for Damage Caused by Aircraft to Third Parties" The core provisions of the former draft Convention are as follows: The liability of the operator is strict, that is, without the necessity of proof of fault. It would be liable for damage sustained by third parties on condition only that the damage was caused by an aircraft in flight(Article 3). However, such liability is caped based on the weight of the aircraft(Article 4). It is envisaged to create an independent organization called the Supplementary Compensation Mechanism, with the principle purpose to pay compensation to persons suffering damage in the territory of a State Party, and to provide financial support(Article 8). Compensation shall be paid by the SCM to the extent that the total amount of damages exceeds the Article 4 limits(Article 19). The main issues on the farmer draft Convention are relating to breaking away from Montreal Convention 1999, no limits on individual claims but a global limitation on air carrier liability, insurance coverage, cap of operators' strict liability, and Supplementary Compensation Mechanism. The core provisions of the latter draft Convention are as follows: the liability of the operator is strict, up to a certain threshold tentatively set at 250,000 to 500,000 SDRs. Beyond that, the operator is liable for all damages unless it proves that such damage were not due to its negligence or that the damages were solely due to the negligence of another person(Article 3). The provisions relating to the SCM and compensation thereunder do not operate under this Convention, as the operator is potentially for the full amount of damages caused. The main issues on the latter draft Convention are relating to liability limit of operator, and definition of general risks. In conclusion, we urge ICAO to move forward expeditiously on the draft Convention to establish a third party liability and compensation system that can stand ready to protect both third party victims and the aviation industry before another 9/11-scale event occurs.

• 한국항공운항학회지
• /
• 제12권3호
• /
• pp.41-63
• /
• 2004

The area covered by product liability in broadest sense is so vast that an attempt to analyse all its impact on the aviation world risk. Every effort has been made to confine our review of subject a closely as possible to its influence on aircraft manufacturers, airlines and passengers, in spite of strong connections with other spheres of commercial. Product Liability in aviation is the liability of aircraft's manufacturer, processor or non-manufacturing seller for injury to the person or property of a buyer or third party caused by a product which has been sold. Here-in a product is aircraft, third party is passengers who suffered damage by defective design, defective construction, inadequate instructions for handling in aircraft. Whenever a product turns out to be defective after it has been sold, there are under Anglo-American law three remedies available against the aircraft's manufacturer (1) liability for negligence (2) breach of warranty (3) strict liability in tort. There are Under continental law Three remedies available against the aircraft's manufacturer (1) liability for defective warranty (2) liability for non-fulfillment of obligation (3) liability in tort. It is worth pointing out here an action for breach of warranty or for defective warranty, for non-fulfillment of obligation is available only to direct purchaser on the basis of his contract with the aircraft's manufacturer, which of course weakness its range and effectiveness. An action for tort offers the advantage of being available also to third parties who have acquired the defective product at a later stage. In tort, obligations are constituted not only by contract, but also by stature and common law. In conclusion, There in no difference in principle of law. In conclusion I would like to make few suggestions regarding the product liability for aircraft's manufacturer. Firstly, current general product liability code does not specify whether government offices(e.g. FAA) inspector conducted the inspection and auditory certificate can qualify as conclusive legal evidence. These need to be clarified. Secondly, because Korea is gaining potential of becoming aircraft's manufacturer through co-manufacturing and subcontracting-manufacturing with the US and independent production, there needs legislation that can harmonize the protection of both aircraft's manufacturers and their injured parties. Since Korea is in primary stage of aviation industry, considerate policy cannot be overlooked for its protection and promotion. Thirdly, because aircraft manufacturers are risking restitution like air-carriers whose scope of restitution have widened to strict and unlimited liability, there needs importation of mandatory liability insurance and national warranty into the product liability for aircraft's manufacturers. Fourthly, there needs domestic legislation of air transportation law that clearly regulates overall legal relationship in air transportation such as carrier & aircraft manufacturer's liability, and aviation insurance.

• 항공우주정책ㆍ법학회지
• /
• 제5권
• /
• pp.101-118
• /
• 1993

Generally there is no law and liability system which applies particulary to commercial space ventures. There are several international treaties and national statutes which deal with space ventures, but their impact on the liability of commercial space ventures has not been significant. Every state law in the United States will impose both tort and contract liability on those responsible for injuries or losses caused by defective products or by services performed negligently. As with the providers of other products and services, those who participate in commercial space ventures have exposure to liability in both tort and contract which is limited to the extent of the resulting damage The manufacturer of a small and cheap component which caused a satellite to fail to reach orbit or to operate nominally has the same exposure to liability as the provider of launch vehicle or the manufacturer of satellite into which the component was incorporaded. Considering the enormity of losses which may result from launch failure or satellite failure, those participated in commercial space ventures will do their best to limit their exposure to liability by contract to the extent permitted by law. In most states of the United States, contracts which limit or disclaim the liability are enforceable with respect to claims for losses or damage to property if they are drafted in compliance with the requirements of the applicable law. In California an attempt to disclaim the liability for one's own negligence will be enforceable only if the contract states explicitly that the parties intend to have the disclaimer apply to negligence claims. Most state laws of the United States will refuse to enforce contracts which attempt to disclaim the liability for gross negligence on public policy grounds. However, the public policy which favoured disclaiming the liability as to gross negligence for providers of launch services was pronounced by the United States Congress in the 1988 Amendments to the 1984 Commercial Space Launch Act. To extend the disclaimer of liability to remote purchasers, the contract of resale should state expressly that the disclaimer applies for the benefit of all contractors and subcontractors who participated in producing the product. This situation may occur when the purchaser of a satellite which has failed to reach orbit has not contracted directly with the provider of launch services. Contracts for launch services usually contain cross-waiver of liability clauses by which each participant in the launch agrees to be responsible for it's own loss and to waive any claims which it may have against other participants. The crosswaiver of liability clause may apply to the participants in the launch who are parties to the launch services agreement, but not apply to their subcontractors. The role of insurance in responding to many risks has been critical in assisting commercial space ventures grow. Today traditional property and liability insurance, such as pre-launch, launch and in-orbit insurance and third party liability insurance, have become mandatory parts of most space projects. The manufacture and pre-launch insurance covers direct physical loss or damage to the satellite, its apogee kick moter and including its related launch equipment from commencement of loading operations at the manufacture's plant until lift off. The launch and early orbit insurance covers the satellite for physical loss or damage from attachment of risk through to commissioning and for some period of initial operation between 180 days and 12 months after launch. The in-orbit insurance covers physical loss of or damage to the satellite occuring during or caused by an event during the policy period. The third party liability insurance covers the satellite owner' s liability exposure at the launch site and liability arising out of the launch and operation in orbit. In conclusion, the liability in commercial space ventures extends to any organization which participates in providing products and services used in the venture. Accordingly, it is essential for any organization participating in commercial space ventures to contractually disclaim its liability to the extent permitted by law. To achieve the effective disclaimers, it is necessary to determine the applicable law and to understand the requirements of the law which will govern the terms of the contract. A great deal of funds have been used in R&D for commercial space ventures to increase reliability, safety and success. However, the historical reliability of launches and success for commercial space ventures have proved to be slightly lower than we would have wished for. Space insurance has played an important role in reducing the high risks present in commercial space ventures.

• 한국항만경제학회지
• /
• 제31권2호
• /
• pp.41-53
• /
• 2015

Paracomon Inc. v. Telus Communication사건('Realice호 사건')에서 Realice호의 닻이 항해과정에서 해저광섬유케이블에 얽히는 사고가 발생하자, 선주사의 대표이사이자 선장은 사용 중인 케이블을 절단해 버렸다. 케이블 소유회사는 선주에게 수리비를 청구하였고, 선주는 케이블 소유회사의 청구액을 책임보험자에게 청구하였다. 그런데 캐나다 대법원은, 선주는 1976년 해사채권에 대한 책임제한에 관한 조약('1976년 책임제한조약')에 따라 케이블 소유회사에 대한 손해배상책임을 일정 한도로 제한할 수 있으나, 케이블을 절단한 선주의 비행은 1993년 캐나다 해상보험법(Canada Marine Insurance Act)상 보험자의 면책사유인 피보험자의 고의적 불법행위(wilful misconduct)에 해당되어 책임보험자에게 보험금을 청구할 수 없다고 판결하였다. 결국 이번 판결로 선주는, 케이블소유회사에 대한 책임제한권은 인정받았으나, 책임보험자에 대한 보험금청구권은 상실하게 되었다. Realice호 사건은 국제조약상 선주에게 인정되는 책임제한과 그에 대한 책임보험의 보상 간의 상호 관계를 최초로 다루고 있다는 점에서 우리에게 시사하는 바가 크다. 따라서 본 논문의 목적은 Realice호 사건에서 대법원의 판결 이유를 분석하고, 해운 보험업계 이해와 지금까지 확립된 해상법에 기초하여 판결의 정당성을 평가하는데 있다. 본 논문은 1976년 책임제한조약의 입법 연혁을 고려할 때 선주가 책임제한권을 갖는다는 대법원의 판결은 타당하지만, 해운 및 보험업계의 이해, 제3자의 직접청구권의 도입취지, 책임제한 배제사유의 입법 과정 등을 고려할 때 책임보험자가 면책된다는 대법원의 판결은 적절하지 않다는 결론을 내린다. 끝으로, 본 논문은 이번 대법원 판결에 기초하여 2014년 세월호 사건에서 선주의 책임제한과 책임보험자의 보상 문제를 검토한다.

• 항공우주정책ㆍ법학회지
• /
• 제29권2호
• /
• pp.3-54
• /
• 2014

오랜 논의와 노력 끝에 우리나라 상법 제6편 항공운송편이 신설되어 2011년 11월부터 시행되었다. 상법 항공운송편은 국내항공운송으로 인해 발생한 항공 운송인의 손해배상책임 문제와 항공기 운항으로 인해 발생한 지상 제3자에 대한 항공기운항자의 손해배상책임 문제 등을 규율하기 위해 제정되었다. 상법 항공운송편은 관련 국제 조약들과 항공선진국들의 국내입법을 충분히 비교 검토하여 우리 법으로 수용하였기 때문에 국제 기준에 부합한다는 장점도 있지만, 항공기운항자의 지상 제3자에 대한 손해배상책임 규정을 중심으로 다음과 같이 개선해야 할 내용들도 포함하고 있다. 첫째, 상법 항공운송편상 항공기운항자의 지상 제3자 손해에 대한 배상책임 한도액은 피해자에 대한 적절한 배상을 하기에는 너무 낮은 수준으로 규정되어 있어 상향될 필요성이 있다. 따라서 독일과 같이 2009년 체결된 일반위험협약 및 불법방해배상협약의 관련 내용을 수용하여 항공기의 중량에 따른 분류기준을 10단계로 세분화하고 총 책임한도액을 최대 7억 SDR까지 상향시키면서, 인적 손해에 대한 배상책임한도액은 기존의 법무부 검토안처럼 최근의 물가상승률을 반영하여 현 규정의 5배 수준인 1인당 62만5천SDR까지 상향 조정하는 방안을 생각해 볼 수 있다. 이 방안이 한 사고당 항공사에게 일반적으로 보험으로서 보장되는 단일배상책임한도액이나 다양화 된 항공기 제원을 반영하면서도 지상 제3자에게 현실에 맞는 적절한 손해배상을 할 수 있다는 점에서 가장 바람직하다고 본다. 둘째, 항공기운항자는 현 상법 항공운송편상 항공기 납치 공격이나 9 11 테러와 같은 항공기를 이용한 공격행위 등과 같은 항공기테러에 의한 지상 제3자의 손해에 대하여도 무과실책임을 부담한다. 이에 관하여는 항공기운항자에게 지나치게 가혹하고 불합리한 입법이라는 견해가 있지만, 항공기운항자에게도 일정 부분 테러를 방지할 법적 의무가 있고 피해를 입은 제3자 구제 측면에서 그것이 항공기운항자에게 지나치게 가혹하거나 불합리하다고 생각되지는 않는다. 그러나 9 11테러와 같이 조직화 된 테러단체에 의해 항공기가 테러에 이용되어 지상 제3자 피해가 발생한 경우에도 항공기운항자가 피해자들에게 무과실책임을 지도록 하는 것은 불합리하며, 이러한 경우에는 항공기운항자의 책임이 면제되는 방향으로 상법 항공운송편 규정은 개정되어야 할 것이다. 셋째, 항공기사고와 같은 항공기 운항으로 인한 피해의 엄청난 규모를 고려해 볼 때, 다수의 피해자들이 경제적 어려움에 직면할 수 있으므로 항공여객의 인적 손해에 대한 항공운송인의 배상책임 발생 시 적용되는 선급금 지급 규정을 항공기운항자의 책임 발생 사례에도 준용할 필요가 있다고 본다. 넷째, 현행 상법 항공운송편상 항공기운항자의 손해배상책임 규정은 항공기 운항으로 인한 피해가 지상 또는 수면 및 수중에서 발생된 경우에만 적용되고 공중에서 발생한 피해에는 적용되지 않는다. 하지만 다른 항공기의 운항으로 인한 공중에서 발생된 항공기 등의 손해가 지상이나 수면 및 수중에서 발생한 손해와 차이가 있다고 볼 수 없다. 그러므로 상법 항공운송편상 '지상 제3자'라는 용어에서 '지상'이란 용어를 삭제하여 다른 항공기 운항으로 인한 공중에서의 항공기 등의 손해에도 상법 항공운송편상 항공기운항자의 지상 제3자 손해 배상책임 관련 규정이 적용될 수 있게 하는 것이 바람직하다고 본다. 위에서 제시된 상법 항공운송편상 항공기운항자의 지상 제3자 손해에 대한 배상책임 관련 규정의 개선방안 검토와 동 규정의 보완을 위한 지속적인 관심과 노력을 통하여, 상법 항공운송편이 피해를 입은 지상 등의 제3자에게 현실에 맞는 적절한 배상을 할 수 있게 하면서도 항공기운항자에게 과도한 부담을 지우지 않는 상호 간의 이익 균형상 더욱 바람직한 방향으로 발전되기를 희망한다.