• Journal of Aerospace System Engineering
• /
• v.5 no.1
• /
• pp.24-29
• /
• 2011

The industry related to commercial space transport is growing rapidly as a futurity industry all over the world and America is leading them. If this trend continues, domestic individuals or private enterprises may plan for the commercial space transport business by adopting the advanced technology. Therefore it is necessary to make a law to control the business in our country for the industrial development and the growth related to commercial space transport. This paper provides outline for domestic commercial space transport law by the study and analysis of U.S. commercial space transport laws.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.33 no.1
• /
• pp.3-43
• /
• 2018

Auf die ganze Welt macht unbemannte $Flugger{\ddot{a}}te$(sog.Drohnen) in vielen Bereichen rasch Fortschritte und Anwendungen gezeigt. Nachdem ferngesteuerte Drohnen $urspr{\ddot{u}}nglich$ $prim{\ddot{a}}r$ $f{\ddot{u}}r$ $milit{\ddot{a}}rische$ Zwecke entwickelt wurden, $erh{\ddot{o}}cht$ sich derzeit ihre zivile Nutzung sowohl im Freizeit- als auch im Dienstleistungsbereich(Paketdrohnen, Drohnen-taxi) stetig. Mit der vermehrten Drohnennutzung steigen allerdings auch die damit verbundenen Risiken und Herausforderungen. In Zusammenhang damit stellt sich dann die Frage, ob $gegenw{\ddot{a}}rtige$ Vorschriften im Bereich von Luftrecht zurecht gekommen sind. Es sieht sich gerade der zwei Schwerpunkt $gegen{\ddot{u}}ber$. Erstens kann $Passagierebef{\ddot{o}}rderung$ mit unbemanntem Luftfahrzeug(mehr als 150kg) im $gegenw{\ddot{a}}ritigen$ Luftrecht keine Anwendung finden. Denn das kor. Luftsicherheitsgesetz und sein Durchsetzungsverordnung definieren die Terminologie von unbemannten Luftfahrzeugen und unbemannten $Flugger{\ddot{a}}te$ als "wenn eine Person nicht an Bord geht und ferngesteuert wird". Also soll Drohne nach dieser gesetzlichen Definition nur "ohne Person" geflogen werden. Das besagt ohne Piloten und ohne Passagiere. Zweitens ist unbemannte $Flugger{\ddot{a}}te$(weniger als 150kg) nicht auf Handelsgesetz anzuwenden, auf das ${\ddot{u}}ber$ Anspruchsgrundlage und Zurechnungsnorm des gewerblichen Luftverkehr geregelt ist. Der unbemannte Luftfahrzeuglieferdienst bringt nicht nur die Gefahr einer $Besch{\ddot{a}}digung$ des Frachtguts mit sich, sondern auch die Gefahr von $Bodensch{\ddot{a}}den$ durch Dritte. Gemäß ${\S}$ 896 des Handelsgesetzes ist aber die Anwendung von unbemannte $Flugger{\ddot{a}}te$(weniger als 150kg) $hierf{\ddot{u}}r$ begrenzt, weil unbemannt $Flugger{\ddot{a}}te$ $einschl{\ddot{a}}gig$ in Ultralight $Flugger{\ddot{a}}t$ ist, die im Handelsgesetz ausschließlich besteht. Technische Fortschritt und die dadurch $erm{\ddot{o}}glichten$ kommerziellen Anwendungen werden die Nachfrage nach unbemannter $Flugger{\ddot{a}}te$ wecken. Die Umsetzung der $bez{\ddot{u}}glichen$ Vorschriften sollte auch diese Entwicklung aktiv begleitet und $fr{\ddot{u}}hzeitig$ kommuniziert und erarbeitet werden, damit Hersteller und Nutzer $fr{\ddot{u}}hzeitig$ Planungssicherheit haben.

• Journal of the Korean Society for Aeronautical & Space Sciences
• /
• v.35 no.6
• /
• pp.483-488
• /
• 2007

The aerodynamic characteristics of FAST(Future Air Speed Transit) combined the body with tandem wing flying over nonplanar ground surface are investigated by using a boundary element method. To validate the present method, results of the present analysis are compared with the experiment and other numerical results. The arrangement of the tandem wing is determined to secure sufficient aero-levitation force and the stability through the analysis of the aerodynamic characteristics of the FAST. The FAST has the maximum lift characteristics when the tandem wing with lower endplate is located at the front side and the rear side of the body. The stability of the FAST can be secured by using the flaperon of the tandem wing.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.34 no.1
• /
• pp.39-77
• /
• 2019

Crew members engaged in international air transportation provide work in many countries due to the nature of their work. According to the Private International Act, the place where the employee habitually carries out his/her work plays an important role in the determination of the governing law of the international labor contract (Article 28, Paragraph 2) and in the decision of international jurisdiction (Article 28, Paragraphs 3 and 4). The concept of the place where the employee habitually carries out his/her work was proposed by the EU to determine international jurisdiction and governing law. In international aviation law, the legislative purpose of the place where the employee habitually carries out his/her work is different from that of home base, which is a concept introduced for fatigue management of the crew in order to secure the aviation safety; thus the place where the employee habitually carries out his/her work and home base are not the same concept. In order to determine the place where the employee habitually carries out his/her work, following matters should be considered comprehensively; (i) where the crew starts and ends work, (ii) where the aircraft the crew is performing work on is primarily parked, (iii) where the crew is informed of the instructions and organizes his/her work activities, (iv) where the crew is obliged to reside according to the labor contract, (v) where there is an office provided by the employer and available to the crew, (vi) where the crew is obliged to be when he/she is ineligible for the work or subject to discipline. However, since all of the above items are the same as the location of the home base, it is reasonable to consider the home base as the most important factor when deciding on the place where the employee habitually carries out his/her work. In contrast, the state where the aircraft is registered (Article 17 of the Chicago Convention), should not be regarded as a place of where the employee habitually carries out his/her work. In this case, CJEU provided the first judging standard for the concept of the place where the employee engaged in international air transportation habitually carries out his/her work. It is the interpretation of the Brussels regulations which became a model -for the Korean Private International Act,- so it would be helpful to understand the concept of the place where the employee habitually carries out his/her work.

• 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 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.20 no.2
• /
• pp.9-58
• /
• 2005

The Warsaw Convention-officially denominated the "Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to International Transportation by Air"- is a major multilateral agreement governing the rights and responsibilities of passengers, consignor/consignee and air carriers in international transportation. Article 29(1) of the Warsaw Convention provides that the right to damages shall be extinguished if an action is not brought within 2 years, reckoned from the date of arrival at the destination, from the date on which the aircraft ought to have arrived, or from the date on which the transportation stopped. There has been disagreement as to the nature of this provision. It has been viewed on one hand as a statute of limitations, which may be tolled in appropriate circumstances. Some US Courts which have taken this approach read Article 29(2)-which states that the method of calculating the period of limitation shall be determined by the law of the court to which the case is submitted-as leaving to local law the determination of when the 2-year limitation period provided for in Article 29(1) runs. Therefore, they conclude, under Article 29(2), whenever state law would toll a state statute of limitations, the statute of limitations contained in Article 29(1) would be tolled as well. On the other hand, some other US courts have viewed the 2-year provision contained in Article 29(1) as a condition precedent to the right to bring suit, which will absolutely bar any action not brought within 2 years of the events giving rise to the action. These courts view Article 29(2) as providing only that the forum court should look to the law of the forum on the question whether the plaintiff has taken the necessary measures within the 2-year period to invoke that particular court's jurisdiction over the action. These courts have placed great weight on the "legislative" history of the Convention in reaching this position, noting in particular that the delegates to the Convention expressly considered and rejected a provision, which would have incorporated local tolling provisions.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.35 no.3
• /
• pp.3-37
• /
• 2020

The aircraft crew operating on international routes performs almost identical tasks as police officials in terms of dealing with the unlawful interference in the aircraft. This means that the liability question which is related to the law enforcement by the police officer may arise regarding the crew's performance of his or her duties. With regard to the carrier's liability due to the crew's unlawful action, there are distinctive characteristics from the liability due to police officers' unlawful action. In case of the claim for damages by the crew's unlawful action, the first question should be whether such action complies with the requirements under the Tokyo Convention 1963. If such action does not conform with the Tokyo Convention 1963, we should examine that claim under the State Compensation Act, the Montreal Convention 1999, and the Civil Act of Korea. The examination under the Tokyo Convention 1963 is not so different from the Korean Court's precedents. However, the court should consider the characteristics of the environment surrounding the crew. The action which is not indemnified under the Tokyo Convention 1963 should be examined under the tort laws. Because the aircraft crew is private persons entrusted with public duties under Korean Law, the State Compensation Act may apply. However, further studies regarding the harmonious interpretation with the Montreal Convention 1999 is needed. With regard to the carrier's liability, the Montreal Convention of 1999 should be applied to the crew's unlawful actions onboard. This is because the Montreal Convention of 1999 preempts the national law for the events that occurred during transportation, and there is no provision which excludes such unlawful actions from the scope of its application. On the other hand, the national law, such as the Civil Act of Korea, applies to unlawful actions taken after transportation. This is because the interpretation that infinitely expands the scope of the Montreal Convention 1999 should not be allowed. Given the foregoing, the standard of the claim for damages due to the crew's unlawful action varies depending on the place where the specific action was taken. As a result, the type of damage recoverable and the burden of proof also varies accordingly. Carriers and crew members must perform their duties with this in mind, but in particular, they should observe the proportionality, and when interpreting the law, it is necessary for the court or lawyer to consider the special characteristics of the work environment.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.35 no.1
• /
• pp.103-125
• /
• 2020

This paper reviews the EU Case, Claudia Wegener v. Royal Air Maroc SA [2018] ECLI:EU:C:2018:361, Case C-537/17. It analyzes some issues as to Wegener case by examining EU Regulations and practical point of views. Article 3(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, entitled scope, provides: "this Regulation shall apply: (a) to passengers departing from an airport located in the territory of a Member State to which the Treaty applies; (b) to passengers departing from an airport located in a third country to an airport situated in the territory of a Member State to which the Treaty applies, unless they received benefits or compensation and were given assistance in that third country, if the operating air carrier of the flight concerned is a Community carrier." ECJ held that must be interpreted as meaning that Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 applies to a passenger transport effected under a single booking and comprising, between its departure from an airport situated in the territory of a Member State and its arrival at an airport situated in the territory of a third State, a scheduled stopover outside the European Union with a change of aircraft. According to the Court, it is apparent from the regulation and case-law that when, as in the present case, two (or more) flights are booked as a single unit, those flights constitute a whole for the purposes of the right to compensation for passengers. Those flights must therefore be considered as one and the same connecting flight.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.16
• /
• pp.160-196
• /
• 2002

In this thesis. I have first introduced and studied Chubb & Son. Inc. v. Asiana Airlines. 214 F.3d 301 (2nd Cir. 2000). which held that at the time that the dispute in this case arose. there was no treaty relationship between the United States and South Korea under the Original Warsaw convention. the Hague Protocol. or a treaty consisting of those provisions of the Original Convention that were not amended by the Protocol. And I have analyzed U.S. government s position that was expressed in Brief for the United States as Amicus Curiae on petition for a writ certiorari to the 2nd Circuit on Chubb & Son case and 2nd Circuit s Fujitsu Limited v. Federal Express Corporation. 247 F.3d 423 (2001) which was held in a related question afterwards but was somewhat inconsistent with Chubb & Son s holding. Furthermore. I also examined U.S. government s measures which have been considered and taken to cope with consequences of Chubb & Son case's ruling. Lastly. I have examined several effects which Chubb & Son s ruling would give our nation s airlines and suggested our government's countermeasures.