• Journal of Korea Port Economic Association
• /
• v.29 no.2
• /
• pp.255-275
• /
• 2013

The purpose of the study is to examine compliance criteria for documents of the Letter of Credit(L/C) by the Korean Supreme Court in practical use. The judgement criteria of the court in documents' examination is supported by the doctrine of strict compliance. And, in examination of documents by the Supreme Court, the difference between documents presented and the credit should be followed by the allowance of international standard banking practices. In this case, the Supreme Court makes a reference for ICC's opinion or decision proposed as the international standard banking practices, or otherwise admit by exploring the practices. However, when documents reviewing by the bankers' auditors, it is very difficult for them to judge in a short time due to the lack of high level of knowledges and insights. As shown the cases of this study, the doctrine of strict compliance of an L/C be relaxed, and most of the recent precedents be ruled by the exception of the doctrine. Because, therefore, it is difficult for to documents reviewers of bank to judge these consistencies, conducting arbitrary document review will be inevitable. As a result, it will be difficult for banks and applicants to ensure the strictness of the documents, and free use of L/Cs in international transactions will be avoided. Finally, the expanded usage of the electronic negotiation system that simplifies the highly difficult compliance criteria to ensure the strictness of documents will be needed, and not only be eradicated the acts of arbitrary documents examination practices, but also be promoted the freely usage of L/Cs.

• Convergence Security Journal
• /
• v.17 no.4
• /
• pp.39-47
• /
• 2017

In the Republic of Korea, punishment of conscientious objectors is rising as a social issue once again. Large number of news articles on the punishment of conscientious objectors are updated on portal sites several times a day. The background for this phenomena is based on the disagreement between the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court. The Constitutional Court has ruled that it is constitutional for the government to punish conscientious objectors who denied their service for religious belief according to the Clause 1 of the Article 88 of the Military Service Law. However, district courts have taken different stance in the lower instance. 6 rulings in 2015, 7 rulings in 2016, and 16 rulings in the first half of 2017 has declared the conscientious objectors as not guilty. At the same time, the issue is becoming more controversial as the Jeju District Court has made two different rulings on the punishment of conscientious objectors who denied their military service for religious belief. Therefore, the study aims to find out whether conscientious objection can be included as a reasonable cause under the Clause 1 of the Article 88 of the Military Service Law, and take thorough review on the interpretation and the application of Article 18 of the Human Rights Covenant by examining the rulings at the Supreme Court, Constitutional Court, and District Courts.

• The Journal of the Institute of Internet, Broadcasting and Communication
• /
• v.17 no.3
• /
• pp.235-241
• /
• 2017

With the coming of the digital era, encryption has become common in everyday life. Almost anyone can easily acquire encryption software and use it to prevent unwanted third parties from accessing one's private information. However, the spread of encryption has also seriously hindered law enforcement during the investigation of cybercrimes, which hides incriminating digital evidence in encrypted hard drives and files. Therefore, many countries have attempted to compel criminals to decrypt encrypted evidence and it has been inevitable to examine privilege against self-incrimination as basic right on the side of constitution. This study analyzed the past court decisions on the issue of compelled decryption in the US and whether the Government can compel a defendant to disclose his password in Korean legal system on the constitutional side. Finally, this study suggests an approach to create a legal procedure to make it a crime for a suspect or defendant to refuse to disclose his password to law enforcement for criminal cases in Korea.

• 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.31 no.1
• /
• pp.99-144
• /
• 2016

The summary of the case is as follows: a Korean passenger booked and purchased a business class ticket from Air France that was scheduled to depart from Paris and arrive in Seoul. When the passenger arrived at the check-in counter, he was told that all business class seats were occupied. It was because the flight was overbooked by Air France. The passenger cancelled the Air France flight and took another air carrier. After arriving in Korea, he brought suit against Air France for damages. The purpose of this article is to discuss the governing law when interpreting the contract of international air carriage in accordance with the Korean Private International Act (2001) and to analyze air carrier's civil liability for the bumped passenger in the overbooking case. If the parties have not chosen the applicable law the contract shall be governed by the law of the habitual residence of the consumer in the following situations: prior to the conclusion of the contract, the opposite party of the consumer conducted solicitation of transactions and other occupational or business activities by an advertisement in that country or conducted solicitation of transactions and other occupational or business activities by an advertisement into that country from the areas outside that country and the consumer took all the steps necessary for the conclusion of the contract in that country or in case the opposite party of the consumer received an order of the consumer in that country [Article 27 (1), (2) of the Private International Act]. Since the contract of international carriage falls into the consumer contract, the Supreme Court viewed that the governing law of the contract in this case would be the law of the habitual residence of the consumer (Supreme Court Decision 2013Da8410 decided on Aug. 28, 2014). This interpretation differs from the article 5 (4) of Rome Convention(80/934/EEC) which declares that the consumer contract article shall not apply to neither a contract of carriage nor a contract for the supply of services where the services are to be supplied to the consumer exclusively in a country other than that in which he has his habitual residence. Even though overbooking can be considered as a common industry practice, an air carrier must burden civil liability in case of breach of contract for the involuntary bumped passenger(Seoul Central District Court Decision 2014Na48391 decided on Jan. 29, 2015). In case of involuntary bumping, an air carrier must offer re-routing to passenger's final destination by an alternative flight. If an air carrier fails to effect performance in accordance with the tenor and purport of the obligation, the involuntary bumped passenger may claim damages(Article 390 of the Civil Code).

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.20 no.2
• /
• pp.3-39
• /
• 2019

Even after the Constitutional Court decided on August 23, 2012 that the provisions of abortion were constitutional, discussions on the abolition of abortion continued. The controversy about abortion is not only happening recently, but it has already existed since the time when the Penal Code was enacted, and it shares the history of modern legislation with the Republic of Korea. Legislators whom submitted amendment while insisting upon the eradication of abortion in the process of enacting criminal law at that time, presented social and economic adaptation reasons as the core reason. From then on, the abolition of abortion has been discussed during the development dictatorship, but this was not intended to guarantee women's human rights, but it was closely connected to the national policy projects of "Contraception" and "Family Planning" of the Park's dictatorship. Since then, the enactment of the Mother and Child Health Law, which restrictively allow artificial abortion, was held on February 8, 1973, in an emergency cabinet meeting that replaced the legislative power after the National Assembly was disbanded. It became effected May 10th. The reason behind the Mother and Child Health Law that included legalization of abortion in part was that the Revitalizing Reform at that time did not allow any opinion, so it seem to be it was difficult for the religious to express opposition. The "Maternal and Child Health Law" enacted in this way has been maintained through several amendments. It can be seen that the question of maintenance of abortion has been running on parallel lines without any significant difference from the time when the Penal Code was enacted. On August 23, 2012, the Constitutional Court decided that the Constitutional Opinion and the unonstitutional Opinion were 4: 4. However, it was decided by the Constitution without satisfying the quorum for unconstitutional decision of the Constitutional Court. This argument about abolition of abortion is settled for the the time being with the decision of the constitutional inconsistency of the Constitutional Court, and now, the National Assembly bears the issue of new legislation. In other words, the improved legislation must be executed until December 31, 2020, and if the previous improved legislation is not implemented, the crime of abortion (Article 269, Paragraph 1, Article 270 of the Criminal Code) Article 1 (1) will cease to be effective from 1 January 2021. Therefore, in the following, we will look into the reason of the Constitutional Court's constitutional discordance adjudication on criminal abortion(II), and how it structurally differs from the previous Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court. After considering key issues arised from the constitutional discordance adjudication(III), the legislative direction and within the scope of legislative discretion in accordance with the criteria presented by the Constitutional Court We reviewed the proposed revisions to the Penal Code and the Mather and Child Health Act of Korea(IV).

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.33 no.1
• /
• pp.45-79
• /
• 2018

An increase of airplanes and military aircraft operation lead to significant demanding of residential claims by people who live in nearby airports and military bases due to noise, vibration and residential damages caused by aircraft operations. In recent years, a plaintiff has filed a lawsuit against the defendant, claiming the prohibition of using claimant's possessed land as a helicopter landing route, and the Daejeon High Court was in favour of the plaintiff. Although the Supreme Court later dismissed the Appeal Court decision, it is necessary to discuss the case of setting flight prohibited zone. In Japan, the airport noise lawsuits have been filed for a long time, mainly by environmental groups. Unlike the case that admitted residential damages caused by noise, the Yokohama District Court for the first time sentenced a judgment of the prohibition of the flight. This ruling was partially changed in the appellate court and some of the plaintiffs' claims were adopted. However, the Supreme Court of Japan finally rejected such decision from appeal and district courts. Atsugi Base is an army camp jointly used by the United States and Japan, and residents, live nearby, claim that they are suffering from mental damage such as physical abnormal, insomnia, and life disturbance because of the noise from airplane taking off and landing in the base. An administrative lawsuit was therefore preceded in the Yokohama District Court. The plaintiff requested the Japan Self-Defense Forces(hereinafter 'JSDF') and US military aircraft to be prohibited operating. The court firstly held the limitation of the flight operation from 10pm to 6am, except unavoidable circumstance. The case was appealed. The Supreme Court of Japan dismissed the original judgment on the flight claim of the JSDF aircraft, canceled the first judgment, and rejected the claims of the plaintiffs. The Supreme Court ruled that the exercise of the authority of the Minister of Defense is reasonable since the JSDF aircraft is operating public flight high zone. The court agreed that noise pollution is such an issue for the residents but there are countermeasures which can be taken by concerned parties. In Korea, the residents can sue against the United States or the Republic of Korea or the Ministry of National Defense for the prohibition of the aircraft operation. However, if they claim against US government regarding to the US military flight operation, the Korean court must issue a dismissal order as its jurisdiction exemption. According to the current case law, the Korean courts do not allow a claimant to appeal for the performance of obligation or an anonymous appeal against the Minister of National Defense for prohibiting flight of military aircraft. However, if the Administrative Appeals Act is amended and obligatory performance litigation is introduced, the claim to the Minister of National Defense can be permitted. In order to judge administrative case of the military aircraft operation, trade-off between interests of the residents and difficulties of the third parties should be measured in the court, if the Act is changed and such claims are granted. In this connection, the Minister of National Defense ought to prove and illuminate the profit from the military aircraft operation and it should be significantly greater than the benefits which neighboring residents will get from the prohibiting flight of military aircraft.