• 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.

• Korean small business review
• /
• v.42 no.1
• /
• pp.19-41
• /
• 2020

In Korea, punitive damages were introduced in the 2011 Fair Transactions in Subcontracting Act(FTSA), and in 2019 the Patent Act, Trade Secret Protection Act(TSPA), Industrial Technology Protection Act(ITPA), and Mutually Beneficial Cooperation Act(MBCA). In punitive damages, the judgment of 'intentional' is especially important, and it is necessary to refer to US precedents since there is no accumulated case. Major Company can avoid intentional counseling through the advice of lawyers, but SMEs may have to punish punitive damages due to a lack of awareness of the system. In the case of TSPA, ITPA, FTSA, and MBCA, except for Patent Act, the provisions related to proof of damage have not been well maintained yet. Therefore, the data submission order system of these laws needs to be revised to the level of patent Act need to be. TSPA needs to be amended in the future to estimate the amount of the royalties in estimating the amount of damages so that it can receive the 'reasonably' estimated amount rather than the usual amount. On the other hand, ITPA, FTSA, and MBCA do not have any provisions for the estimation of damages. Besides, it is difficult to evaluate the technology value in the case of leakage or deodorization of new technologies. Therefore, valuation needs to be carried out by a credible institution along with the development of a model for calculating damages.

• Korean Security Journal
• /
• no.61
• /
• pp.333-352
• /
• 2019

In January and August 2019, there were amendments to the Unfair Competition and Trade Secrets Protection Act (UCPA) and the Industrial Technology Protection Act(ITPA). These amendments will contribute to technology protection. But these amendments need to be supplemented further. In the area of civil remedies, despite the introduction of treble damages in the case of the UCPA and ITPA, the provisions related to the submission of supporting data have not been maintained. Therefore, it is necessary to recognize the claim of the other party as true if it is maintained at the level of the revised Patent Act and the scope of submission of supporting data. And the enforcement of the case of compulsory submission for the calculation of damages, and the order of filing documents are not followed. ITPA, on the other hand, has introduced the compensation for damages, but there is no provision for estimating the amount of damages. Therefore, it is necessary to estimate the amount of lost profits, profits, and royalties. In the area of criminal remedies, both the UCPA and ITPA have raised the penalty, but the sentencing regulations are not maintained. In addition, although the recent outflow of technology has expanded beyond organizational deviations to organizational outflows, amendments need to be made in relation to the serious consequence for the punishment of related juristic persons, such as companies involved in it. It should be noted that Japan and the United States have corporate regulations and regulations. In addition, in relation to the confiscation system, Act on Regulation and Punishment of criminal proceeds concealment require that domestic defenses be confiscated by defense industry technology, while trade secrets and industrial technologies are confiscated only by "foreign" outflows, and an amendment is necessary.