• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.31 no.2
• /
• pp.73-98
• /
• 2016

This is a case review of the Korean Supreme Court about international jurisdiction over a foreign-related case. This case is a guideline to other following cases how Korean court has international jurisdiction over the foreign elements cases. This case was an air crash accident in Busan, Korea. And the applicant was a chinese who was parents of flight attendant. The defendant was Air China. The applicant suid the defendant in Korea court, requesting for compensation for damages based on the contract of employment between died employee and the defendant and tort. The trial court rejected jurisdiction. But Supreme court granted jurisdiction on Korean court. The court determined the jurisdiction by the Korean Private International Law Act(KPILA). The KPILA has a concept of 'substantial connection', it is a main legal analysis to determine the jurisdiction. In the act, Article 2 Paragraph 1 says "In case a party or a case in dispute is substantively related to the Republic of Korea, a court shall have the international jurisdiction. In this case, the court shall obey reasonable principles, compatible to the ideology of the allocation of international jurisdiction, in judging the existence of the substantive relations." And Article 2 Paragraph 2 declares "A court shall judge whether or not it has the international jurisdiction in the light of jurisdictional provisions of domestic laws and shall take a full consideration of the unique nature of international jurisdiction in the light of the purport of the provision of paragraph (1)." In this case review find concepts, theories and cases out to clarify the meaning about Article 2 of the KPILA. Also it quoted from the concept of "the base rule" in Rome I (Regulation (EC) 593/2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations) to apply the contract of employment between flight attendant and Air carrier.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.35 no.2
• /
• pp.137-168
• /
• 2020

Air passengers may be compensated for damages based on the above agreement when the passenger suffers an accident to the extent that they are recognized as an accident under Article 17 of the Montreal Convention in 1999. If a flight or cabin crew and passengers both undergo an accident, passengers are subjected to compensation under the Montreal Convention however flight cabin crews will be compensated by the Labor Law, which is the governing law in the labor contract with the airline. The flight or cabin crew boarding the aircraft work is on a work contract, not a passenger transport contract. Therefore, if the flight or cabin crew on the aircraft is injured due to an accident, and the air carrier is liable for default due to a labor contract, the Labor Law, workers or survivors claim damages due to illegal acts against the employer. In which case, civil law will apply. In this regard, if a Chinese cabin crew working for a Chinese airline dies due to an accident in the Republic of Korea, whether the family of the deceased claims damages against the Chinese airline or not has international court jurisdiction in the Republic of Korea, which is the place of tort. We examined whether it is the law of the Republic of Korea or whether it's the Chinese law, the law applicable to the work contract, is applied. Also, Seoul District Court 1995.5.18. The sentence 94A 14144 was found that if the injured crew during the flight work was not satisfied with the insurance compensation under the Labor Standards Act and the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, he could claime to damage under the civil law against an air carrier or third parties responsible for the accident. This law case shows that you can claim a civil damage as a cause. In case of death due to an existing illness while on the way to work, the Korea Workers'Compensation and Welfare Service did not recognize the death of the deceased as an occupational accident, and the trial was canceled by the parents of the deceased for the survivor's benefit and funeral expenses. (Seoul Administrative Court 2017.8. 31. Although the sentence was judged as an occupational disaster in 2016, the 2016 8816 Decision), it was defeated in the appeals court (Seoul High Court 2018.7.19.Sentence 2017 No. 74186) and I criticized the judgment of the appeal by analyzing the deceased's disease and related the cause of it to workload. Sometimes, a flight or cabin crew is on board not for the flight duty such as transferring to another flight or returning to the home base or lay-over place after their scheduled flight, this is called "Deadheading". If the crew who is not considered the same as a passenger, but is not on duty, is injured in an accident, does the crew claim compensation for damages under the labor contract or whether the Montreal Convention is applied to the passenger. In conjunction with the discussion, there was a similar case, In re Mexico City Aircrash of October 31, 1979, 708 F.2d 400 (9th Cir. 1983), Demanes v. United Airlines, 348 F.Supp. 13 (C.D.Cal. 1972), Sulewski v. Federal Express Corp., 749 F.Supp. 506 (S.D.N.Y. 1990) and reviewed by the European Court of Justice (CJEU) at Wucher Helicopter GmbH and Euro-Aviation Versicherungs AG v. After examining several acts in several countries it's undeniably crucial to clearly understand the definition of "passenger" as stated in the Fridolin Santer case.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.34 no.1
• /
• pp.39-77
• /
• 2019

Crew members engaged in international air transportation provide work in many countries due to the nature of their work. According to the Private International Act, the place where the employee habitually carries out his/her work plays an important role in the determination of the governing law of the international labor contract (Article 28, Paragraph 2) and in the decision of international jurisdiction (Article 28, Paragraphs 3 and 4). The concept of the place where the employee habitually carries out his/her work was proposed by the EU to determine international jurisdiction and governing law. In international aviation law, the legislative purpose of the place where the employee habitually carries out his/her work is different from that of home base, which is a concept introduced for fatigue management of the crew in order to secure the aviation safety; thus the place where the employee habitually carries out his/her work and home base are not the same concept. In order to determine the place where the employee habitually carries out his/her work, following matters should be considered comprehensively; (i) where the crew starts and ends work, (ii) where the aircraft the crew is performing work on is primarily parked, (iii) where the crew is informed of the instructions and organizes his/her work activities, (iv) where the crew is obliged to reside according to the labor contract, (v) where there is an office provided by the employer and available to the crew, (vi) where the crew is obliged to be when he/she is ineligible for the work or subject to discipline. However, since all of the above items are the same as the location of the home base, it is reasonable to consider the home base as the most important factor when deciding on the place where the employee habitually carries out his/her work. In contrast, the state where the aircraft is registered (Article 17 of the Chicago Convention), should not be regarded as a place of where the employee habitually carries out his/her work. In this case, CJEU provided the first judging standard for the concept of the place where the employee engaged in international air transportation habitually carries out his/her work. It is the interpretation of the Brussels regulations which became a model -for the Korean Private International Act,- so it would be helpful to understand the concept of the place where the employee habitually carries out his/her work.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.25 no.2
• /
• pp.3-42
• /
• 2010

This study shows that the Warsaw Convention in Article 1 is not an international transport, origin, destination and all the Contracting Parties is not a purely domestic shipping does not apply to this Treaty. Therefore, in this case, liability and damages for the governing law is selected according to international law should be. In addition, in the case of international shipping and passenger air carrier of this treaty to govern the relationship, not all of which aim is the unification of certain rules. Product liability is the most important thing of all. As for the aircraft manufacturer's responsibility according to international law also does not select the applicable law is not. The Warsaw Convention Article 17 apply for the passenger's personal damages Article 2 Section 2 leads to the most prestigious type of damages, and subjective and objective with regard to the scope of international law are being committed. In this regard, Governing Law-related aircraft accidents leading to serious accidents in China of an aircraft crash in Nagoya, Japan, the airport can be. China Airlines accident of the aircraft are operated for the unification of the rules for international air transport on the Warsaw Convention as amended by Article 17, Article 18 of damages by the tort claims and claims based on damages caused by, or this cause of aircraft accidents air bus maker by the Corporation for damages in tort claims for damages claimed on the basis of solidarity is the case. In the case of these grand scale claim responsibility for the airline, air transport agreements to determine the applicable law of the contract is very complex. There for the contracts based on individual circumstances or origin, and by considering because each must be determined.

• Proceedings of the Korean Institute of Navigation and Port Research Conference
• /
• 2006.06b
• /
• pp.147-152
• /
• 2006

Nowadays, the redevelopment of the conventional pier in Busan port has been one of top issues on Busan port. Busan Port Authority has already launched a research project on that and the Master Plan undergoing. However, the conventional pier is still booming one for small vessels providing feeder service to and from Busan port and both Japanese ports and Chinese ones. Accordingly, there are several terminal operation companies(TOC) and union workers which make might be a major obstacle for the redevelopment. Furthermore, it has been said that alternative pier is necessary before starting redevelopment. Under such circumstance this paper tries to review the major limitations and provide some thought for the solution.

• 주택과사람들
• /
• no.54 s.71
• /
• pp.185-206
• /
• 1996

1.건설제도의 국제화와 경쟁기반 구축 $\bullet$건설산업을 기획$\cdot$설계$\cdot$시공$\cdot$감리$\cdot$사후관리 등 전 분야에 걸쳐 경쟁력 있는 산업으로 육성-기획$\cdot$설계$\cdot$시공$\cdot$감리$\cdot$유지관리 등 건설산업 전반에 관한 기본사항을 법제화-대규모 공사의 경우 발주자를 대신하여 건설공사의 기획$\cdot$설계$\cdot$발주$\cdot$감리$\cdot$시공관리 등 업무의 전부 또는 일부를 종합적으로 조정$\cdot$관리하는 $\lceil$건설사업관리$\rfloor$제도를 도입 $bullet$건설공사 $\lceil$현장실명제$\rfloor$도입을 통한 하도급제도의 정비-전문건설업자로부터 하도급, 위탁, 고용 등의 형태로 공사에 참여하는 현장근로자를 신고 받아 권익을 보호하고 시공책임도 부과하는 $\lceil$현장실명제$\rfloor$도입 $\bullet$공사완성보증제, 손해배상보증제도를 도입하고, 신용상태 $\cdot$시공능력에 따라 보증 요율 등을 차등화 하여 부실업체를 배제 $\bullet$건설공사관련 각종 계약서와 시방서 등 제기준을 정비하여 발주자$\cdot$시공자 등 건설주체간의 역할과 책임을 명확화$\bullet$건설분쟁을 신속하고 객관적으로 조정$\cdot$중재하기 위하여 $\lceil$건설분쟁중재원$\rfloor$으로 확대 개편 2. 건설인력의 육성과 고용안정$\bullet$경쟁력 제고의 관건인 우수인력 확보를 위하여 대학교육 제도의 개선을 포함한 건설 인력 수급대책을 추진 - 대학의 건설관련 학과 정원을 2000년까지 매년 일정규모로 증원하여 고급기술 인력을 배출 현재 50$\%$에 불과한 건설관련 국가기술자격자를 2000년에 70$\%$까지 제고 - 감리 등 전문인력을 양성하고, 선진외국 감리 회사를 활용하여 국내 업계와의 경쟁을 유도 $\bullet$건설현장의 최일선에서 품질을 담당하고 있는 건설기능공의 고용안정과 복지향상을 위한 획기적인 대책을 마련 - 건설기능공의 자긍심과 사회적 책임의식을 고취하기 위해 기능공이 여러 현장을 전전하여 근무하더라도 경력관리, 공제금 등의 합산 관리가 가능하도록 $\lceil$건설 근로자 복지카드$\rfloor$제도를 도입 *$\lceil$건실시연구단$\rfloor$을 구성$\cdot$구체적인 운영방안을 수립 - 건설 업체 실정에 맞는 현장위주의 기능검정제도 도입 $\cdot$자격증이 현장에서 요구되는 기능수준과 숙련도를 제대로 반영할 수 있도록 검정방법을 현장 실기위주로 개선하고 자격검정업무도 건설협회 등의 자격 검정능력을 향상시켜 위탁$\cdot$시행하는 방안을 검토 3. 공사시행기관의 전문성과 책임성 제고 $\bullet$시장이 개방되어 건설공사가 국제적인 관행에 따라 이루어질 것에 대비하여 시행기관에 계약$\cdot$공사관리 등 전문직공무원을 집중 교육하여 양성 $\bullet$ 조달청이 대행하여 공사계약을 하는 경우라도 설계변경은 발주기관이 자체적으로 할 수 있도록 허용 $\bullet$ 기술직 공무원의 기술향상을 위하여 관련 공무원의 확충, 해외연수, 현장교육 강화 등을 지속적으로 추진 $\bullet$ 충분한 사전조사를 거쳐 사업계획을 수립하도록 $\lceil$건설공사 시행절차$\rfloor$를 규정 $\bullet$ 공사기간 3년 이상의 공사에 대하여는 최대한 계속비사업으로 편성토록 계속비제도의 운영을 활성화 4. 건설현장의 품질관리체제 구축 $\bullet$ 현장배쳐플랜트 설치를 확대하여 레미콘의 품질관리를 일원화하고 현장에서 레이콘을 배합하는 건식공법을 채택 - 현장레미콘생산시설(B/P)설치 확대로 콘크리트 하자에 대한 책임한계 일원화 유도 - 레미콘 재료인 골재$\cdot$시멘트$\cdot$물을 공장에서 혼합하여 공급하는 현행 습식배합 대신에 물만을 현장에서 혼합하는 건식 배합방식을 도입 $\bullet$철강재$\cdot$철구조물의 품질을 보증하기 위하여 일정기술을 갖춘 공장에서만 제작토록 하는$\lceil$공장인증제$\rfloor$를 도입 - 제작시설과 품질관리 등을 심사하여 제작공장을 등급화하고 등급에 따라 철강재 등의 제작업무 범위를 차등화 $\bullet$시설물에 대하여도 시공업체가 제작공장을 등급화하고 등급에 따라 철강재 등의 제작업무 범위를 차등화 $\bullet$시설물에 대하여도 시공업체가 사후관리를 일괄 책임질 수 있도록 $\lceil$시공 및 유지관리 일괄계약제도$\rfloor$를 도입 - 대형교량$\cdot$소각로$\cdot$하수처리장 등 유지관리에 전문성이 요구되는 분야부터 시범적으로 도입 $\bullet$건설자재의 표준화$\cdot$정보화사업을 조속히 추진 5. 건설업체에 대한 지원 강화 $\bullet$일부 공공사업자의 경우 관행화되어 있는 대금일부의 어음 또는 채권지급방법을 단계적으로 축소 $\bullet$매월 감독이나 감리원의 기성확인에 의하여 시공자에게 공사대금을 직접 지급토록 하는 등 대금 지급절차를 간소화 6. 민간 건축물에 대한 안전확보 $\bullet$충실한 설계가 이루어지도록 제도를 개선 - 설계도서 작성기준을 제정하고 다중이용시설에 대하여는 건축심의단계에서 구조검토 등 설계심의를 의무화 $\bullet$대형다중이용시설에 대한 감리 강화 - 감리전문회사 수준의 감리체제로 전환하고 감리대가도 공공수준으로 인상하고 적용요율대로 지도$\cdot$감독 강화