Journal of Advanced Navigation Technology (한국항행학회논문지)

The Korean Navigation Institute (한국항행학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Historical Review for the Government Contractor Defense

Government Contractor Defense(정부계약자항변)에 대한 연혁적 고찰

  • 신성환 (법무법인 KS & Partners 첨단기술법연구소)
  • Received : 2017.05.29
  • Accepted : 2017.06.27
  • Published : 2017.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

A significant rise in product-liability cost is expected due to the newly passed product liability amendment Bill approved during the assembly plenary session on March 30, 2017. Korean government legal service(KGLS) filed a damage suit against Korea aerospace industries, Ltd.(KAI) and Hanwha Techwin Co., Ltd., the manufactures of the KUH-1 Surion helicopter crashed. KGLS alleged claims under the product liability Act, the warrant liability Act and the non-performance of contract act. The accountability limits of military aircraft manufacturers was a highly divisive issue among related scholars and legal practitioners. The bottom line was that military aircraft manufacturers had no product-liability insurance available. The United States courts have, therefore, developed the government contractor defense(GCD) and it was recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court in Boyle v. United Technologies corporation(1988). product liability insurances for military aircraft manufacturers are excessively expensive and it cannot be added onto the military procurement cost accounting. However, having an aircraft accident without one can be ruinously expensive. Therefore, the manufacturers should promptly set up appropriate risk management measures. This thesis will first review the advance GCD theory, and then find a way to either reform government contract related regulations.

국회는 2017년 3월 30일 제조물책임법 일부개정법률안을 국회본회의에서 통과로 인해 제조물 소송비용의 부담이 대폭 증가할 것으로 예상된다. 정부법무공단은 2017년 3월 14일자로 수리온 헬기 4호기 추락사고에 대하여 군용항공기제작사인 한국항공우주산업(주)와 한화테크윈에게 하자담보책임과 채무불이행, 제조물책임법으로 손해배상 청구소송을 제기하였다. 미국은 1970년대 중반에 제조물책임보험이 적용되지 않는 군용항공기제작사의 책임한계에 대하여 학계와 법조계에서 많은 논란이 있었으며, 이러한 문제를 해결하기 위하여 도입된 법리가 정부계약자항변(GCD; government contractor defense)이라는 법 이론이며, GCD가 확립된 대표적인 사례는 Boyle v. United Technologies Corporation이다. 군용항공기 제작사가 높은 제조물책임보험을 들 수 없고, 방산원가에도 제조물책임보험료를 반영시키지 않는 현실에서 우리나라의 군용항공기제작사는 사고 시 손해배상으로 인한 위기에 직면하고 있는 것이 현실이다. 우리나라도 미국의 정부계약자 법리를 연구하여, '국가를 당사자로 하는 계약에 관한 법률'을 개정하는 방안을 찾아야 할 것이다.

Keywords

References

  1. National Assembly Information System : Product Liability Act Partly Revised Draft, National Assembly : No. 350 [2006505], 2017.
  2. Korean government legal service : Claim for damages for the Surion Helicopter accident , Seoul District Court : 2017KaHap517214, 2017.
  3. Murray's Lessee v. Hoboken Land & Improvement Co. 59 U.S. 272, 283, 1856.
  4. Gonzalez, Eric M., "The Government contractor defense: Defending boyle's analysis and extending it beyond the realm of military procurement contracts," Law School Student Scholarship, p. 2, 2014.
  5. Kateryna Rakowsky, "The Government Contractor Defense & Its Impact on Litigation Against Military Contractors," The Military Law Taskforce . p. 3, 2005.
  6. Yearsley v. W.A. Ross Construction Co., 309 U.S. 18, 19-20, 1940.
  7. 28 United States Code, $\S$ 2680(a), US Code of Federal Regulations.
  8. Dolphin Gardens, Inc. v. United States, 243 F. Supp. 824, 827 (D. Conn.), 1965.
  9. Littlehale, v. EI Du Pont De Nemours & Co., 268 F. Supp. 791 (S.D.N.Y. Southern District of New York), 1966.
  10. 28 United States Code Annotated, § 1346(b)(1), US Code of Federal Regulations.
  11. Feres v. United States, 340 U.S. 137, 142-4, 1950.
  12. Stencel Aero Eng'g Corp v. United States, 431 U.S. 666, 672-3, 1977.
  13. R. Todd Johnson, "Comment, In Defense of the Government Contractor Defense", 36 Cath. U.L. Rev., p. 227, 1987.
  14. In re "Agent Orange" Product Liability Litigation, 506 F. Supp. 750, 820-2, 828-33, 843, 868 (E.D.N.Y., Eastern District of New York, United States District Court, 1980.
  15. In re "Agent Orange" Product Liability Litigation 534 F. Supp. (Federal Supplement) at 1055.
  16. American Law Institute, Restatement (Second) of Tort $\S$ 338 (1965).
  17. American Law Institute, Restatement (Second) of Tort $\S$ 339 (1965).
  18. American Law Institute, Restatement (Second) of Tort $\S$ 402A (1965).
  19. McKay v. Rockwell Intern. Corp., 704 F.2d 444, 446 (9th Cir.), 1983.
  20. Boyle v. United Technologies Corp., 487 US 500, 503 ,1988.
  21. Geier v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 529 U.S. 861, 894, 2000.
  22. Tozer v. LTV Corp., 792 F.2d at 408, 1986.
  23. Sanner v. Ford Motor Co. 144 N.J. Super.1, 6, 9 , 1976.
  24. Richard C. Ausness, "Danger Is My Business: The Right to Manufacture Unsafe Products," 67 Ark. L. Rev. p. 846, 2014.
  25. Boyle, 487 US at 512, 1988.
  26. Trevino v. General Dynamics Corp. 865 F.2d 1418, 1474 ,1989.
  27. Charles E. Cantu & Randy W. Young, "The Government Contractor Defense: Breaking the Boyle Barrier," 62 ALB. L. Rev., p.435, 1998.
  28. Lewis v. Babcock Indus., Inc., 985 F.2d 83, 87 (2nd Cir.), 1993.
  29. Getz v. Boeing Co., 654 F.3d 852 (9th Cir.), 2011.
  30. Gary Kase, et al. v. Metalclad Insulation Corp., No. A143590, 855, 861-2 (Calif. App., 1st Dist.), 2016.
  31. Snell v. Bell Helicopter Textron, 107 F.3d 744, 746 (9th Cir.), 1997.
  32. Mary Carley v. Wheeled Coach, 991 F.2d 1117 (3rd Cir. ), 1993.
  33. Glassco v. Miller Equipment Co., Inc., 966 F.2d 641, 643-44 (11th Cir. ), 1992.
  34. Hanover Insurance Group, "Government Contractor Defense," Hanover Risk Solutions, p. 3, 2014.
  35. Harduvel v. General Dynamics Corp., 878 F.2d 1311, 1317-18 (11th Cir.), 1989.
  36. McGonigal v. Gearhart Industries, Inc., 851 F.2d 774, 777 (5th Cir.), 1988.
  37. Tate v. Boeing Helicopters, 921 F. Supp. 1562 (W.D. Ky.) , 1996.
  38. In Re Joint E. S. Dist. N.Y. Asbestos Lit.: 897 F.2d 626-30 (2d Cir.), 1990.
  39. Crawford v. National Lead Co., 784 F. Supp. 439, 445-46, n. 7 (S.D. Oh), 1989.
  40. Lamb v. Martin Marietta Energy Systems, Inc. 835 F. Supp. 959 (W.D. Ky.), 1993.
  41. Gray v. Lockheed Aeronautical Systems Co. 880 F. Supp. 1559, 1566-7 (N.D. Ga.), 1995.
  42. Spaulding v. Monsanto Co., 2011 WL 4482917 (S.d.n.y.), 2011.
  43. The Amiable Nancy, 16 U.S. 3 Wheat. 546, 1818.
  44. Defense Acquisition Program Administration, Established Rule No.345, 2016.12.8.
  45. Korean Civil Law Act.575 para.1 [Seller's Liability]
  46. Seoul High Court, Sentence 2002Na32662, 2006.