• The Inventors News
• /
• no.27
• /
• pp.2-2
• /
• 2004

BM 특허출원 지속적인 증가 추세 유지 - 휴대폰 게임관련 특허출원 회복세 뚜렷 - 특허침해소송 2심 전속관할 통해 국가경쟁력 강화 - 데이콤 캐드넷 BM 특허 획득 - 수자원공사 인재육성 시스템 특허 획득

• Proceedings of the Korean Institute of Navigation and Port Research Conference
• /
• 2013.06a
• /
• pp.288-290
• /
• 2013

해양안전심판제도는 해양사고의 원인을 밝혀 해양안전에 이바지함을 목적으로 하고 있음에도, 실질적으로 원인조사보다는 징계를 주목적으로 하는 것처럼 보일 수 있다. 해양사고가 발생하였을 경우, 지방해양안전심판원은 원인재결 및 징계재결을 하는데, 해기사나 도선사에게 징계재결을 하면 이는 침익적인 행정처분에 해당된다. 이러한 행정처분에 다툼이 있을 경우 중앙해양안전심판원에 구제를 요청하면 행정심판이 된다. 행정심판의 재결에 대하여 다시 대법원에서 다투는 것이 행정소송이 된다. 일반적으로, 행정심판의 재결은 3심제의 재판을 받을 수 있으나, 해양안전심판제도에서 중앙해양안전심판원의 재결에 대한 행정소송은 대법원 전속관할 단심제로 운영되고 있어 헌법의 기본권 중의 하나인 재판청구권에 대한 위헌 논란이 계속되고 있으므로, 이 논문에서는 해양안전심판제도의 본래의 목적인 해양사고 원인규명을 통한 해상안전의 확보 및 징계재결로 인한 침해된 국민의 권리를 구제하기 위한 개선방안을 제안하고자 한다.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.31 no.2
• /
• pp.3-35
• /
• 2016

The United States Constitution gives power to the federal district courts to hear admiralty cases. 28 U.S.C. §.133, which states that "The district courts shall have original jurisdiction, exclusive of the Courts of the States, of any civil case of admiralty or maritime jurisdiction." However, the determination of whether a case is about admiralty or maritime so that triggers admiralty jurisdiction was not a simple question. Through numerous legal precedents, the courts have drawn a line to clarify the boundary of admiralty cases. This unique jurisdiction is not determined by the mere involvement of a vessel in the case or even by the occurrence of an event on a waterway. As a general rule, a case is within admiralty jurisdiction if it arises from an accident on the navigable waters of the United States (locus test) and involves some aspect of maritime commerce (nexus test). With regarding to the maritime nexus requirement, the US Supreme Court case, Executive Jet Aviation, Inc. v. City of Cleveland, held that federal courts lacked admiralty jurisdiction over an aviation tort claim where a plane during a flight wholly within the US crashed in Lake Erie. Although maritime locus was present, the Court excluded admiralty jurisdiction because the incident was "only fortuitously and incidentally connected to navigable waters" and bore "no relationship to traditional maritime activity." However, this historical case left a milestone question: whether an aircraft disaster occurred on navigable water triggers the admiralty jurisdiction, only for the reason that it was for international transportation? This article is to explore the meaning of admiralty jurisdiction over aviation accidents at US courts. Given that the aircraft engaged in transportation of passenger and goods as the vessels did in the past, the aviation has been linked closely with the traditional maritime activities. From this view, this article reviews a decision delivered by the Seventh Circuit regarding the aviation accident occurred on July 6, 2013 at San Francisco International Airport.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.13 no.2
• /
• pp.309-334
• /
• 2012

Although the number of foreign patients visiting Korea for medical treatments or plastic surgery is rapidly increasing, countermeasures against unforeseen medical disputes involving foreign patients are adequate. To date, the record shows that most foreign patients have visited doctors at the departments of family medicine, internal medicine, dermatology (incl. plastic surgery), and healthcare centers, which, fortunately, indicates that there are not many severe, high risk patients. However, if the current growth rate continues to rise and the number of foreign patients visiting each department continues to grow, more diverse medical practices will be likely to take place in the future, and consequently, it is expected that the possibilities of medical malpractice and the costs of dispute resolution will also rise dramatically. When a medical dispute occurs, in general, a lawsuit is ultimately settled by the court. However, since this can damage the creditworthiness of medical institutions and also incur significant litigation costs, which is a typical characteristic of a medical lawsuit, medical professionals or institutions will be heavily burdened. Furthermore, an adequate policy or countermeasure against a medical dispute with a foreign patient has not yet been established, and it would be difficult to resolve a dispute by finding the middle ground, due to relative standards and policies between countries. Now, we need to improve the existing policies and prepare for countermeasures that will allow us to precisely predict the nature of such disputes, which have been increasing, and resolve them peacefully. Based on such knowledge, this study aims to establish countermeasures against medical disputes with foreign patients, and examine ways to promptly and reasonably resolve them at an early stage.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.30 no.2
• /
• pp.83-153
• /
• 2015

As our economy grows and the number of aircraft increase, the number of civil execution against aircraft cases are likely to increase as well in the future. The purpose of this article is to present the legal theory on the civil execution against aircrafts by drawing on the legal theory on the civil execution against vessels which constitute a relatively large number of cases thus observed. The provisions of the civil execution against immovables or vessel, shall basically apply mutatis mutandis to the civil execution against aircraft or light aircraft. The civil execution against ultra-light flying devices or a foreign aircraft shall be executed in conformity with the civil execution against movables. There are a compulsory auction, an auction to execute a security right to aircraft, and an auction under the right of retention, etc. in the civil execution against an aircraft. A compulsory execution against an aircraft means an execution carried out by a creditor against a debtor's aircraft to obtain satisfaction of claims for the purpose of payment of money. The court of execution of a compulsory execution against an aircraft shall be the district court having jurisdiction over the airport of stoppage or storage of such aircraft at the time of seizure. The forums of execution of a compulsory execution against an aircraft shall be exclusive forums. When a court has rendered an order on commencing an auction, it shall order an execution officer to receive a certificate of the aircraft's registration and other documents as required for its operation, and to submit them to the court. A court may revoke the procedures for a compulsory auction when an execution officer fails to obtain a transfer of the aircraft's registration certificate, etc. and the location of the aircraft is not evident, not later than an elapse of 2 months from the date on which an order on commencing an auction has been rendered. In the case where it is deemed that there exists a business-related need or other based on proper reasoning, the court may permit the aircraft's operation, upon the motion submitted by the debtor. In this case, there shall be a consent from the creditor, the highest bidder, the next highest bidder and successful bidder. A court may, upon a motion submitted by the creditor, make the dispositions required for observing and preserving the aircraft. When a debtor has submitted the documents under subparagraph 2 or 4 of the Article 49 of the Civil Execution Act, and furnished the guarantee equivalent to the claims of the execution creditors and the creditors demanding a distribution and to the costs for execution, before a declaration of bid, the court shall, upon request, revoke other procedures than those for distribution. The provisions of a obligatory auction against vessel or aircraft and an auction to execute a security right to real estate or vessel, shall apply mutatis mutandis to an auction to execute the security right to aircraft. In an auction to execute the security right to aircraft case, an executive title is not necessary. An executory exemplification is not necessary in an application for an auction to execute the security right to aircraft. A court should examine the existence of security right and claim secured. No order on commencing an auction procedure shall be issued with non-existence or invalidity of the security right and absence or extinguishment of the claim secured. Furthermore, these prohibitions are the reason of a decision on non-permit for sale, the court overlooked these prohibitions, and the decision on a permit for sale became final and conclusive, the successful bidder who paid the price and registered of ownership could not acquire ownership of the aircraft sold. A court may render a ruling to put plural aircrafts up for a blanket auction, only when they are in restraint and related matter (Supreme Court Order 2001Ma3688 dated on August 22, 2001). A righter of retention on aircraft may file a request for an auction against the aircraft. The provisions of an auction to execute a security right to aircraft shall apply mutatis mutandis to the formal auction. Airport facility fee and an aircraft are not in restraint and related matter, so an airport management corporation does not hold the right of retention on the aircraft (Supreme Court Decision 2011Da29291 decided on April 10, 2014). In an auction in accordance with the right of retention, all encumbrances (e.g., mortgages) on the sold aircraft shall be extinguished by a sale under the legal conditions for sale. Not only creditors who have claims for preferential payment but also general creditors could demand for distribution. The precedence of the claim of the right of retention on aircraft and that of general creditor's claims are equal.