• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.33 no.2
• /
• pp.115-168
• /
• 2018

An amendment to Japanese Civil Aeronautics Act came into effect December 10, 2015. The Act prohibits flying drones over residential areas or areas surrounding an airport without permission from the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transportation. Flying drones during night time and during an event is also prohibited. The term "UAV" or "UA" means any aeroplane, rotorcraft, glider or airship which cannot accommodate any person on board and can be remotely or automatically piloted (Excluding those lighter than a certain weight (200 grams). Any person who intends to operate a UAV is required to follow the operational conditions listed below, unless approved by the Minister of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism; (i) Operation of UAVs in the daytime, (ii) Operation of UAVs within Visual Line of Sight (VLOS), (iii) Maintenance of a certain operating distance between UAVs and persons or properties on the ground/water surface, (iv) Do not operate UAVs over event sites where many people gather, (v) Do not transport hazardous materials such as explosives by UAV, (vi) Do not drop any objects from UAVs. Requirements stated in "Airspace in which Flights are Prohibited" and "Operational Limitations" are not applied to flights for search and rescue operations by public organizations in case of accidents and disasters. This paper analyzes some issues as to regulations of UAVs in Korean Aviation Safety Act by comparing the regulations of UAVs in Japanese Civil Aeronautics Act. This paper, also, offers some implications and suggestions for regulations of UAVs under Korean Aviation Safety Act.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.34 no.1
• /
• pp.235-268
• /
• 2019

Under the Aviation Safety Act of Korea, any person who intends to operate a drone is required to follow the operational conditions listed below, unless approved by the Minister of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism; (i) Operation of drones in the daytime, (ii) Operation of drones within Visual Line of Sight, (iii) Maintenance of a certain operating distance between drones and persons or properties on the ground/ water surface, (iv) Do not operate drones over event sites where many people gather, (v) Do not transport hazardous materials such as explosives by drone, (vi) Do not drop any objects from drones. Requirements stated in "Airspace in which Flights are Prohibited" and "Operational Limitations" are not applied to flights for search and rescue operations by public organizations in case of accidents and disasters. This paper analyzes legal issues as to definition and regulations of drones in Korean Aviation Safety Act. This paper, also, offers some implications and suggestions for regulations of drones under Korean Aviation Safety Act by comparing the regulations of drones in Japanese Civil Aeronautics Act.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.24 no.2
• /
• pp.105-137
• /
• 2009

International Civil Aviation Convention contracted in 1944 adopted International Standards and Recommended Practices(SARPs) as Annexes to Convention for safety and order of International Air Transport and each contracting State shall establish and amend the law on the basis of the SAPRs. However, Any State which find it impracticable to comply in all respects with any such SARPs, or which deems it necessary to adopt regulations or practices differing in any particular respect from those established by SARPs shall give immediate notification to the ICAO of the differences between its own practice and that established by the SARPs and ICAO publish these difference notices as a supplement to annexes. Korea and neighboring countries contracting States with International Civil Aviation Convention are accomplishing standardization of regulation on the basis of SARPs in each State. Air Law of each State need to study on the trait and differences for safety of frequent air transport services around the Korean Peninsula, However, because Korea and Neighboring countries have differences of Air Law by reason of cultural differences and circumstance of each State. Korea and Neighboring countries mean Republic of Korea, The People's Republic of China, Japan and The Domestic People's Republic of Korea and study on Air Law of each state in this study. One of purposes of this study is to analyze the history and organization of each state and then to review how establishing own air law affect air law of each state. Another purpose is to make comparative study on differences between own regulation in Korea and neighboring countries and SARPs and then to review how the differences notice of each state affect air law of each state.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.13
• /
• pp.325-340
• /
• 2001

• 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.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.19 no.2
• /
• pp.9-53
• /
• 2004

This paper described the contents of theme entitled "Domestic Legislative Problems on the Civil Liability of Air Carrier in Korea" including the current example of fourteen countries' legislation ((1) Great Britain, (2) United States of America, (3) Canada, (4)European Union), (5) Germany, (6) France, (7) Italy, (8) Spain, (9) Swiss, (10) Australia, (11) Japan, (12) People's Republic of China, (13) Taiwan, (14) North Korea) relating to the aviation law or air transport law. Though the Korean and Japanese aviation act has provided only the public items such as (1) registration of aircraft, (2) persons engaged in aviation, (3) operation of aircraft, (4) aviation facilities including airport, (5) air transport business, (6) investigate of aircraft accidents etc., but they could not regulated the private items such as the legal relations of the air transport contract (1) air passenger ticket, (2) air luggage ticket, (3) airway bill, (4) liability of air carrier, (5) amount of compensation for damage caused by aircraft accidents, (6)jurisdiction, (7) arbitration, (8) limitation of action, (9) combined carriage, (10) carriage by air performed by an actual carrier other than contracting carrier, damage caused by aircraft to the third parties etc. in their aviation act until now. In order to solve speedily the legal problems on the limitation of air carrier's liability and long law suit and disputes between wrongdoers and survivors etc, it is necessary and desirable for us to enact a new "Draft for the Air Transport Act" including the abovementioned private items. I would like to propose personally and strongly the legislation of "Draft for the Air Transport Act" in Korea in emphasizing the importance of ensuring protection of the interests of consumers air passengers and shippers in carriage by air and the need for equitable compensation between air carriers and survivors caused by the aircraft accidents such as the German Air Transport Act (Luftverkerhrsgesetz).

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.26 no.2
• /
• pp.101-124
• /
• 2011

Since 1961, Aviation Act has regulated all aspects related to air transport business, aviation safety and airport. However, we are to face the new challenges that have to support air transport business more efficiently and air transportation services to the people effectively in condition of the globally competitive air transport industry. In this sense, the government proposed to devide "Aviation Act" into 'Air Transport Business Act', 'Aviation Safety Act', 'Airport Facility Act' in a timely manner. At first I am to take a look about the laws of traffic-related legislation and national laws of Japanese aviation system, and to evaluate implications. In addition, the background, the organization and the main information of the Act (Draft) will be introduced. And I would like to discuss the issues raised and suggest an alternative. In particular, the name of the Act (Draft), the specifying of airport manager operater, accounting method of airport development projects belong to the nation, the delegation of the authority and other issues are discussed to provide a starting point. In conclusion, the division of current "Aviation Act" is considered absolutely necessary. To stimulate fair competition, safety regulations and efficiency, the legislation process would be desirable in the direction of the total development of the aviation industry as well as ensuring aviation safety.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.19 no.1
• /
• pp.183-212
• /
• 2004

Die Haftung des Luftfrachtf${\"{u}}$hrers nach dem ge${\"{a}}$nderten Luftverkehrsgesetz 2004 In dieser Arbeit handelt es sich um das ge${\"{a}}$nderte Luftverkehrsgesetz in Deutschland. Neuerdings werden die bisherige Vielzahl von v${\"{o}}$lkerrechtlichen Abkommen und Protokollen, europarechtlichen Bestimmungen und privatrechtlichen Vereinbanmgen durch das Montrealer ${\"{U}}$bereinkommen 1999 zu einem einzigen Instrument zusammengefuhrt. Am 4. 11. 2003 ist das ${\"{U}}$bereinkommen von Montreal f${\"{u}}$r die Ratifikationsstaaten in Kraft getreten. Der Anwendungsbereich des Montrealer ${\"{U}}$bereinkommen beschr${\"{a}}$nkt sich jedoch nach dessen Art. 1 auf die internationale Bef${\"{o}}$rderung. Urn bei reinen Inlandf${\"{a}}$llen einen Gleichlauf zu gew${\"{a}}$hrleisten, will der deutsche Gesetzgeber im Zuge der Ratifikation in ${\S}$ 46 LuftVG eine entsprechende nationale Haftungsbestimmung schaffen.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.30 no.1
• /
• pp.117-149
• /
• 2015

On May 16, 2014 the Supreme Court of Korea rendered its decision with respect to litigation filed by All Nippon Airways Co., Ltd. ("ANA") for revocation of an order of correction and payment of a penalty imposed by the Korea Fair Trade Commission ("KFTC"). On or around September 2002, ANA and various airlines operating air cargo service from Japan to Korea were allegedly to have agree to introduce of fuel surcharge into their rates on cargo fares in an attempt to recoup falling profits from rising of oil price. As this hard core cartel was per se prohibited under Korean competition law (The Monopoly Regulation And Fair Trade Act), KFTC began an investigation and consequently with fruitful results imposed an amount of penalty and issued an order of prohibition. ANA protested against this imposition by filing suit against KFTC under the reasons that (1) their agreement was simply pursuant to the relevant laws and regulations including Air Transport Agreement between Korea and Japan, (2) there was an administrative guidance from Japanese government to allow this agreement, (3) extraterritorial application of Korean competition law to the agreement in this matter was improper as it was made within Japan and targeted only for the shipment from Japan to Korea: accordingly there is not a direct and serious effect between the agreement and any result of anti-competitive. This article aims to review ANA's allegation and the judgement delivered by Korean court under some issues respectively; (1) whether there is an effectively actual anti-competitive cartel between airlines including plaintiff, (2) whether filed rate doctrine is reasonable and applicable in this case for precluding wrongfulness, (3) what is the reasonable limitation of boundaries in extraterritorial application of Korean competition law. Additionally, this article also suggests to concern particular features of air transport business as an regulated industry in judging the unfair restrain on competition.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.33 no.1
• /
• pp.147-174
• /
• 2018

The air transportation industry is a field where control and interference of the state are generalized compared to other industries. However, the premise for national intervention in the air transportation industry is the determination of the nationality of the aircraft or airline company concerned. This is because it is necessary to clarify the distinction between the domestic and foreign carriers so that they can exercise airspace sovereignty. The purpose of this paper is to compare the current status and contents of Korean law and regulations on the determination of nationality with the foreign legal system. To this end, the starting point of the discussion is to look at the history of nationality restrictions on the US air transport industry and the issues that arise in the content and operation of the system today. In addition, this paper examined the provisions of the Japanese aviation law, which is very similar to that of Korea, and then compared the current legal provisions of the United States, Japan and Korea. As a conclusion, this paper sought the direction of revision of the Korean law on the basis of the foreign status of the restriction of nationality in the air transportation industry. Compared with our law, the US and Japan are generally regarded to be more concerned with the contents of their own airline companies than those of foreigners or non-citizen. In spite of the fact that there are many laws and regulations in the United States regarding the de facto dominance of domestic airline companies by foreigners, there have been a lot of controversies in this matter. By the way, Japan has been stipulating regulations on holding companies and affiliated companies. In the global era, it would be meaningful to check the status of the nationality restrictions in the aviation industry, which is based on internationality. I hope that this study will be able to build a legal institutional basis for Korea's aviation industry development from a reasonable protectionist point of view rather than a narrow nationalism in a rapidly changing era.