• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.21 no.2
• /
• pp.71-96
• /
• 2006

This paper intends to describe the carrier's duty for the delivery of international air cargo and the carrier's liability for the illegal delivery of cargo under the Montreal Convention, lATA Conditions of Carriage for Cargo and judicial precedents. Under the Article 13 of Montreal Convention, the consignee is entitled, on arrival of the cargo at the place of destination, to require the carrier to deliver the cargo to it, on payment of the charge due and on complying with the conditions of carriage. And unless it is otherwise agreed, it is the duty of the carrier to give notice to the consignee as soon as the cargo arrives. Under the Article 18 of Montreal Convention, the carrier is liable for damage sustained in the event of the destruction or less of or damage to, cargo upon condition only that the event which caused the damage so sustained took place during the carriage by air. And the carriage by air comprises by the period during which the cargo is in the carriage of the carrier. Under the Article 11 of lATA Conditions of Carriage for Cargo, carrier is liable to shipper, consignee of any other person for damage sustained in the event of destruction of loss of, or damage to, or delay in the carriage of cargo only if the occurrence which caused to the damage so sustained took place during the carriage as defined under Article 1. According to the precedent of Korean Supreme Court sentenced on 22 July 2004, the freight forwarder as carrier was not liable for the illegal delivery of cargo to the notify party (actual importer) on the airway bill by the bonded warehouse operator because the freight forwarder did not designate the bonded warehouse and did not hold the position of employer to the bonded warehouse operator. In conclusion, the carrier or freight forwarder should pay always attention the movement and condition of the cargo not to be liable for the illegal delivery of cargo.

• The Korean Journal of Archival Studies
• /
• no.39
• /
• pp.281-318
• /
• 2014

This article aims to inquire into the decision making system and the sources of the original documents made by means of it in Imperial Japan, the colonial Chosun, GHQ, and the occupied Japan in terms of the post-war treatments of compensation on the Japanese colonial rules. It deals with them from 1910 to 1952 in the perspective of history and archivistics. This article attempts to establish the foundation on which the perception of the documents made in the Imperial Japan, its colony, and the occupied territory would be widened by placing the colonial rules and the compensation on them into a continuous line. The records of Japan's forced occupation of Korea during 1910-1945, and the original records documenting the decision making process of post-war compensation under GHQ, 1945-1952, have been dispersed in Korea, Japan and the United States. This dispersed preservation was mainly due to the complicated decision-making process among Governor-General of Chosun, the Japanese Imperial government, and the GHQ. It was the top-down styled, dual decision making system, in which the critical policies, personnel, and budget had been decided in Imperial homeland, while their implementations were made in the colonies. As a result, the records documenting the whole process of domination have been preserved dispersedly in Japan and its colonies. In particular, the accounts of not yet paid Korean workers that was forced to mobilize in Japan's colonial periods, which is emerging as the diplomatic conflict between Korea and Japan, had been dealt in the decrees of the Japanese government and policy-making of GHQ. It has already been changed to the problem as 'economic cooperation' from the 'debt'. Also, the critical records for post-war compensation were preserved dispersedly in the United States and Japan under the top-down decision making process of GHQ-Japan. Therefore, the dispersed records of 1910-1952 about the colonial rules by the Imperial Japan and the post-war compensation on them must be re-investigated for the adequate documentation in the context of time and space.

• Journal of Venture Innovation
• /
• v.4 no.3
• /
• pp.141-150
• /
• 2021

Although management decisions centered on the board of directors and directors must be made in order to effectively promote ESG management, the company's management is not obligated to make decisions considering ESG factors. A Korean corporation(company) is an established organization for commercial or other profit, and the purpose of treating a legal organization as a corporation is to easily handle the legal relationship of a group (corporate's property) and individual property of a group member, but legal person such as rights to "harm public rights" or "defend fraud". Criminal liability for illegal acts of a corporation, but the liability of a corporation (natural person) for illegal acts of a corporation is recognized within a limited range, but the criminal liability of a corporation (natural person) is limited. As the social responsibility of a corporation is great, limiting the responsibility of a corporation-related person (natural person) to civil responsibility will halve its effectiveness if considering the impact on the corporation's national economy. Objective requirements such as the completeness of control, hybridization of property, infringement of creditors' rights, and small-capitalization, and the subjective intention of abusing the company system to avoid legal application to controlling shareholders should be denied. Despite the increasing influence on corporate society, such as large-scale projects and astronomical business profits, corporate officials (natural persons) are forced to be held liable for negligence and intentional liability within a limited range. In such cases, it is necessary to introduce criminal responsibility separately from civil responsibility to legal persons (natural persons) in consideration of the maturity of capitalism in Korean society and the economic status of the world. In Korea, the requirements for recognition of corporate denial are strict, but the United States says that it is sufficient to have control or fraud. Therefore, it is not about civil responsibility, but about criminal responsibility of a legal person (natural person), so if fraud is recognized, it can strengthen the corporate social responsibility.