• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.20 no.1
• /
• pp.47-82
• /
• 2019

Inter-Korean exchanges and cooperation, in the process, will inevitably lead to various legal disputes, one of which is the issue of compensation for personal injury. The purpose of this study is to present the standards of settlement of disputes between the residents of North and South Korea by examining the North Korean compensation law on the calculation of damages due to personal injury and comparing it with the South Korean compensation law. Understanding the North Korean compensation law is a critical and urgent task, as exchanges and cooperation between the two Koreas are expected to increase in the future. For the South Korean compensation law does not have specific provisions on the estimation of damages, the specific methods and standards for estimating damages are determined by court precedents. The South Korean courts categorize the damages caused by personal injury into active property damages, passive property damages and emotional distress damages and calculate the amount of each damages. On the other hand, the North Korean Compensation for Damage Act stipulates the categories of damage by dividing the cases of personal injury into 1) infringement of health(§41), 2) disability due to infringement of health(§42), and 3) death resulting from human infringement(§44). In addition, the North Korea Compensation for Damage Act specifies the calculation of compensation for damages(§43, §51). Furthermore, South Korea widely acknowledges emotional distress damages for personal injury, whereas North Korea does not recognize emotional distress damages in principle.

• The Journal of Fisheries Business Administration
• /
• v.31 no.2
• /
• pp.133-153
• /
• 2000

During the last several decades, Korea has been regarded as one of the fastest growing economies in the world. However, the small size of national land has not met the vigorous demand for land necessary to develop economic infra-structures such as large-scale harbors airports and highways. In order to satisfy the growing demand for land, the Korean government and industry have implemented the national land development programs to reclaim land from the sea fur the several decades. It is certain that these land development programs have resulted in a lot of property disputes between fishermen and public project administrators. This paper is to develop a quantitative model to estimate compensation for damages or restriction of charted fisheries resulting from large-scale public projects. In this paper, the compensation model is derived by using cost-volume-profit analysis framework because the compensation for charted fisheries basically depends on the factors such as the costs, production volume, profit of charted fisheries damaged or restricted by public projects. The model shows that the compensation for damages or restriction of charted fisheries is determined by the average annual profit, damage duration period, and the degree of fishery damages. In addition, the degree of fishery damages measured by the ratio of lost profit to annual average profit turns out to be determined by the following factors: annul profit, unit variable cost, decrease in production volume, the rate of increase in variable cost, and a change in fixed cost. Furthermore, this parer discusses the nam issues related to practices and regulation of the compensation for fishery damages in the current Fishery Act of Korea and suggests some appraisal methods which will be able to lead to theoretically correct and fair compensation for fisheries damages resulting from large-scale public projects.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.41
• /
• pp.185-202
• /
• 2009

With the rapid development of oil and chemical industry in the late 20C, massive transportation of oil by oil tanker vessel has grown and it caused the big oil pollution accidents. When oil spill from the oil tanker, damages reach into the astronomical figures in economically and damages affect wide area and many people with break the balance of ecosystem. Recently in Korea, the oil pollution accidents has occurred frequently as growing of oil consumption and it caused large-scale damages to the victim. Oil pollution in Korea offshore takes not only Korean fisherman from their life ground and break the ecosystem but it takes too much time and money to recover. To minimize oil pollution damages, it is necessary to make pre-caution effort as a ship owner and relevant government bodies should endeavor to prevent from more damages. But once oil pollution accidents occurs in territorial sea, compensation for victim is very important. But it is true that compensation is not paid to victim smoothly. So this study aims at the problems of oil pollution compensation to the Korean victim and find the best way to get reasonable compensation.

• The Journal of Fisheries Business Administration
• /
• v.37 no.1 s.70
• /
• pp.25-44
• /
• 2006

Under the provision of Article 63 of the Enforcement Regulation of the Act on Acquisition and Compensation of Land and Others for Public Project that is recently enacted and implemented (hereinafter referred to as the 'Lend Compensation Act') the compensation is required to make 'When the Actual Damage Amount' is confirmed for the damage in fishery affairs that is outside of the public project area. The compensation for fishery business on the indirect damage area has been excluded from the advance compensation subject to conflict with the existing laws on fishery business compensation with the controversy in method, procedure, time and others to confirm the actual damage amount, and it lacks the standard of calculation for detailed compensation on partial damages outside of business implementation area, which caused the ceaseless conflicts and straggles between the project implementation party and the victimized fishermen regarding the calculation method of damages, standard, compensation period and others. In particular, from the numerous problems in damage compensation in fishery on the indirect damage area, the most recent problem emerged is the issue on application method of damage period in calculating the damage compensation amount that the struggle has been deepened with the differences between the project implementation party and the victimized fishermen without the stipulation on the compensation, that caused the difficulties in carrying out the public project and other serious social problems. In this study, the reasonable application method for the damage period and the calculation plan of the damage amount for calculating the damages on fishery industry outside of the public project implementation zone that is not fully specified under the Land Compensation Act, and the indirect damage area is not influenced for the notification of project recognition, and the compensation to undertake with the damage in the fishery industry in project implementation area to have the nature of damage compensation, the right to engage in fishery industry has the perpetual nature of rights, the fishery damage compensation system of Japan also recognizes the perpetual right on fishery industry to calculate the compensation amount, and the compensation for damage amount has been exercised for the period of actual damage occurrence period regardless of remaining effective period for most of fishery permit and license for fishery compensation outside of the project implementation area following the recent various public projects as well as the development process of theory on fishery loss compensation that the calculation of damage amount on the fishery industry outside of the project implementation zone would be prudent to compensate by calculating the applicable damages during the period of actual damages, and by doing so, the 'just compensation' guaranteed under the Constitution may be materialized. Therefore, the calculation of the damages from the implementation of the public project shall consider the actual period of damages and the degree of damage from the public project to calculate by the income capitalization method, however, considering the equitable consideration with the compensation following the cancellation, it shall not exceed the compensation following the termination of the applicable fishery businesses. Furthermore, the calculation method of partial damage amount on the fishery business following the project implementation shall apply, depending on the period of damage occurrence, by (1) the case of calculating the future damage amount at the present time, and (2) calculating the damage from the past to the present time as well as the damage to be incurred later, by selecting the calculation method for damages following the damage occurrence type.

• The Journal of Fisheries Business Administration
• /
• v.34 no.1
• /
• pp.9-30
• /
• 2003

This paper tries to suggest a rational proposal for the distribution of compensation of common property fisheries damages caused by a large scale coastal reclamation. For the purpose the paper introduces the approach of alternative cost of the use of fishing ground. The background of the paper is the legal conflict between tenants and non-tenants, both of whom are common owners of seaweed cultivation ground, in the distribution of compensation for damages. In principal, so far as the seaweed cultivation right is a common property of the fishing association, the compensation is also a common property of it. Therefore the distribution method of the compensation entirely depends on the decision of the association. But in case that the numbers of non-tenants is larger than those of tenants, the distribution of the compensation is usually unfavorable to the tenants even though the latter is the key contributor to the realization of present value of the common property. The paper aims to show an appropriate distribution method based on the economic principle of optimal distribution. In others words, the value added to the economic value of alternative use of the fishing ground should be distributed to the tenants. the value amount of alternative use of the fishing ground should be equally distributed to the members of the association.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.13 no.2
• /
• pp.179-214
• /
• 2012

There are two opinions on the legal characteristics of damages for non-pecuniary loss, a private sanctions theory and complementary function of damages for non-pecuniary loss, briefly. There is a close connection between the legal characteristics and the function of damages for non-pecuniary loss. The functions of damages for non-pecuniary loss are consist of satisfaction, prevention( sanctions) and complementation. Several cases of medical injury relief reported to Korea Comsumer Agency are categorized as follows, 1) cases of death after having an operation, 2) diagnosed with disability after a medical accident, 3) extended damages happening related to delayed diagnosis, 4) et cetera(a plastic surgery, a treatment with oriental medicine), and the damages for non-pecuniary loss in respect to each cases are examined. In the case of occurring death or disability, Korea Comsumer Agency has set up guidelines for assessment of damages for non-pecuniary loss by classifying into major and collateral violation for a duty of care. Furthermore, the damages for non-pecuniary loss in the case of all sorts of cancers, are assessed in accordance with the degree of responsibility subsequent to dividing cancer into good and poor prognosis. When it comes to a complementary function of damages for non-pecuniary loss in the actual work, it is hard to assess the damages as it is difficult to objectify non-pecuniary loss, such as emotional distress. Though compensation for damages is major legal characteristics of consolation money, preventing a damage(private sanctions) through consolation for a victim or sanctions against an assailant also has great significance. Therefore, it is necessary to approach flexibly for mutual agreement by considering specialty( concrete facts) of individual issue thoroughly. If considering this aging society that limits the possible age for work to 60 years old, it is needed to have a complementary function of consolation money in mind not to make it less meaningful for victims due to small sum of consolation money.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.22 no.2
• /
• pp.27-51
• /
• 2007

The cumulative result of the work by the ICAO Secretariat, the Secretariat Study Group and the Council Special Group on the Modernization of the Rome Convention of 1952 are two draft Conventions, namely: "Draft Convention on Compensation for Damage Caused by Aircraft to Third Parties, in case of Unlawful Interference", and "Draft Convention on Compensation for Damage Caused by Aircraft to Third Parties" The core provisions of the former draft Convention are as follows: The liability of the operator is strict, that is, without the necessity of proof of fault. It would be liable for damage sustained by third parties on condition only that the damage was caused by an aircraft in flight(Article 3). However, such liability is caped based on the weight of the aircraft(Article 4). It is envisaged to create an independent organization called the Supplementary Compensation Mechanism, with the principle purpose to pay compensation to persons suffering damage in the territory of a State Party, and to provide financial support(Article 8). Compensation shall be paid by the SCM to the extent that the total amount of damages exceeds the Article 4 limits(Article 19). The main issues on the farmer draft Convention are relating to breaking away from Montreal Convention 1999, no limits on individual claims but a global limitation on air carrier liability, insurance coverage, cap of operators' strict liability, and Supplementary Compensation Mechanism. The core provisions of the latter draft Convention are as follows: the liability of the operator is strict, up to a certain threshold tentatively set at 250,000 to 500,000 SDRs. Beyond that, the operator is liable for all damages unless it proves that such damage were not due to its negligence or that the damages were solely due to the negligence of another person(Article 3). The provisions relating to the SCM and compensation thereunder do not operate under this Convention, as the operator is potentially for the full amount of damages caused. The main issues on the latter draft Convention are relating to liability limit of operator, and definition of general risks. In conclusion, we urge ICAO to move forward expeditiously on the draft Convention to establish a third party liability and compensation system that can stand ready to protect both third party victims and the aviation industry before another 9/11-scale event occurs.

• The Journal of Fisheries Business Administration
• /
• v.31 no.2
• /
• pp.11-26
• /
• 2000

The study tries to extend the Kang and Kim's model(1997) for evaluating fisheries damages caused by a large scale coastal reclamation. The paper tries to suggest a more generalized model by adopting new applicable variables such as the decreasing rate of production quantity amount and decreasing numbers of variables for simplification and derivation of quantative results. The paper also tries to suggest the decision model for fisheries administrative measures on the basis of the degree of damages.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.12
• /
• pp.201-225
• /
• 1999

This article is focused on the review of price reduction and measuring damages under the CISG together with the law relating to sale of goods in main countries when the goods delivered did not conform with the contract. And also reviewed on the election of remedies for the aggrieved party, that is, which one between the two remedies would provide more compensation for the non-conformity. This article can be summarized as below. 1. Price reduction has its principal significance when the buyer accepts non-conforming goods and plays important role only when the seller is not liable for the non-conformity because the same price reduction formula applies for all circumstances. Of course, the buyer must bear any further damages, such as shutdown expenses and other consequential damages. 2. If the seller is liable for the damages and the price level rises, the buyer normally will claim damages since this approach is much more favorable result than price reduction. 3. In case the seller is liable for the damages and the buyer suffers no consequential damages, if the price level falls, price reduction would provide more compensation for the non-conformity than would damages and if there is no change in the market level, the allowance for defects in the goods will be normally the same under the price reduction and damages. By the way, In case the seller is liable for the damages and the buyer suffers consequential damages, it is desired that the buyer firstly elect the price reduction and later seeks to claim for consequential losses when the price level falls and unchanged.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.15
• /
• pp.7-31
• /
• 2001

All legal systems set out the principle of full compensation of damages, which aims to fulfil the plaintiff's expectations by putting him into as good a position as he would have been in if the contract had been performed. On the other hand, they place some limitations on the full recoverability of damages for breach of contract. In Civil Law systems, 'fault' is a necessary requirement for liability for damages, and the extent of recoverable damages is directly related to the degree of the dependent's fault. This principle, however, is not adopted by Common Law systems, in which the dependent would be liable in damages for breach of contract even though the breach was not due to his fault. The CISG is in a similar position to the latter systems. In Common Law systems as well as CISG, the extent of liability of the party in breach for damages depends on whether he foresaw or could have foreseen the damages at the time of contracting. Unlike the position in Civil Law systems, foreseeability seems to be the most effective principle to decide the extent. The tests for remoteness centre on reasonable foreseeability or contemplation of the loss. The party in breach is liable even for loss indirectly caused to the other party provided that this loss was foreseeable or contemplated by the party in breach. However, this manner to decide remoteness may lead to unreasonable results in some cases. If the party in breach were the inveterate pessimist who foresaw all sorts of possible damages, he could foresee damages too remote from the breach of duty. If this fact were revealed in the course of trial, he should be liable for such indirect damages. This is really undesirable result. Therefore, as to the remoteness test, the criterion of whether the loss is foreseen or contemplated must not be adopted. Foreseeability by reasonable person must be the only available criterion.