• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.31 no.2
• /
• pp.73-98
• /
• 2016

This is a case review of the Korean Supreme Court about international jurisdiction over a foreign-related case. This case is a guideline to other following cases how Korean court has international jurisdiction over the foreign elements cases. This case was an air crash accident in Busan, Korea. And the applicant was a chinese who was parents of flight attendant. The defendant was Air China. The applicant suid the defendant in Korea court, requesting for compensation for damages based on the contract of employment between died employee and the defendant and tort. The trial court rejected jurisdiction. But Supreme court granted jurisdiction on Korean court. The court determined the jurisdiction by the Korean Private International Law Act(KPILA). The KPILA has a concept of 'substantial connection', it is a main legal analysis to determine the jurisdiction. In the act, Article 2 Paragraph 1 says "In case a party or a case in dispute is substantively related to the Republic of Korea, a court shall have the international jurisdiction. In this case, the court shall obey reasonable principles, compatible to the ideology of the allocation of international jurisdiction, in judging the existence of the substantive relations." And Article 2 Paragraph 2 declares "A court shall judge whether or not it has the international jurisdiction in the light of jurisdictional provisions of domestic laws and shall take a full consideration of the unique nature of international jurisdiction in the light of the purport of the provision of paragraph (1)." In this case review find concepts, theories and cases out to clarify the meaning about Article 2 of the KPILA. Also it quoted from the concept of "the base rule" in Rome I (Regulation (EC) 593/2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations) to apply the contract of employment between flight attendant and Air carrier.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.67
• /
• pp.23-47
• /
• 2015

European Commission drafted and proposed the Common European Sales Law(CESL) to the European Parliament for the realization of a uniform set of international private law rules within the EU internal market. Since its purpose is for free international commercial activities for the sale of goods, for the supply of digital content and for related services, it was proposed to enable EU Member States to adopt or supplement as their substantive law according to their options. This study is relate to the legal bases on termination of a contract under CESL, they are composed of three parts: damages and interest, restitution and prescription. Damages and interest are divided into damages, general provisions on interest on late payments, and late payment by traders. Damages are explained by dividing into right to damages, general measure of damages, foreseeability of loss, loss attributable to creditor, reduction of loss, substitute transaction, and current price. Restitution is described by dividing into restitution on revocation, payment for monetary value, payment for use and interest on money received, compensation for expenditure and equitable modification. Prescription is explained by dividing into general provisions, periods of prescription and their commencement and extension of periods of prescription. General provisions explain right subject to prescription into a right to enforce performance of an obligation and any right ancillary to such a right. Regarding period of prescription, the short one is two years and the long one is ten years. However, in the case of a right to damages for personal injuries, period of prescription for such right is thirty years. Regarding commencement, the short one begins to run from the time when the creditor has become, or could be expected to have become, aware of the facts as a result of which the right can be exercised, while the long one begins to run from the time when the debtor has to perform. However, in the case of a right to damages, the CESL clarifies that it begins to run from the time of the act which gives rise the right.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.16
• /
• pp.35-58
• /
• 2001

The letter of credit is quintessentially international. In the absence of international legal system, a private system based on banking practices has evolved, commanding the adherence of the international letter of credit community and providing the foundation of th reputation of this instrument. To maintain this international system, it is vital that international standard banking practice should not be subject to local interpretations that misconstrue or distort it. The UCP is a formulation of international standard banking practice. It is neither positive law nor a "contract term" in any traditional sense and its interpretation must be consonant with its character as a living repositary of international understanding in this field. As a result, the interpretation and application of specific articles of the UCP must be consistent with its evolving character and history and with the principles upon which sound letter of credit practice is predicated. This study, especially, focuses on article 13 of the UCP500 and 95UCC 5-108. Both articles introduce a standard of document examination to be used by banks to determine whether they comply facially with the terms of the credit. While, in the UCP, this standard is called international standard banking practices, in the UCC, this standard is called standard practices. I think that both standards are not same. Thus, first, this study look for categories of both standards and scope of application. the second subject is how can issuing bank act in the face of non-documentary condtion under this standard of document examination. Third is correlation between the principle of Strice Compliance and the standard.

• Review of Korean Society for Internet Information
• /
• v.14 no.3
• /
• pp.68-77
• /
• 2013

This article consists of 3 parts. Part I is multi stakeholder approach on Internet governance system. Part II is analysis of the Korean Internet governance system. In this part, I explain relevant laws in Korea, including Korean Internet Address Resources Act. Part III is my suggestion on Korean Internet governance system using a multi stakeholder approach. First of all, the keyword of the Internet governance system is decision making process: that is, consensus based versus top-down approach. Then who are major players in Internet governance in national level? Government, or Private sectors such as business and civil society. Korean legal system for Internet governance shows a top-down decision making process. Major players are the government (that is, Ministry of Science, ICT and Future Planning) and KISA affiliated with the government. Other players include Internet Address Policy Committee, Korea Internet Governance Alliance, and NGOs. The key statute for Internet governance in Korea is Internet Address Resources Act of 2004. Articles 3 and 5 require the Ministry of Science, ICT and Future Planning to take a proactive role in Internet governance. The government shall consult with the Internet Address Policy Deliberation Committee for Internet governance. Yet this Committee is established under the control of the Ministry of Science, ICT and Future Planning. All members of this Committee are also commissioned or nominated by the Chairman of the Ministry. Meanwhile, there are also non-official organizations, including Sub-committee on Address & Infrastructure of Korea Internet Governance Alliance. I suggest to reform decision making process of Korean Internet governance system based on BOTTOM-UP process for CONSENSUS BASED DECISION. My suggested system includes the following: (1) The government hands over a major role in Internet governance to INDEPENDENT Internet policy organization. And the government participates in such organization as ONE of the players. (2) Nomination of this committee member must be bottom-up process for a genuine multi-stakeholder model including civil society, commercial organization, end-users and experts. (3) The government should establish plan for supporting the private sector's international activity on the long-term basis.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.32 no.1
• /
• pp.419-477
• /
• 2017

In Space contains valuable natural resources. These provide a compelling reason for entrepreneurs, investors, and governments to pursue space exploration and settlement. The Outer Space Treaty of 1967 explicitly forbids any government from claiming a celestial resource such as the Moon or a planet. Article II of the Outer Space Treaty states that "outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means." The U.S. Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act of 2015 (CSLCA), however, makes significant advances in furthering U.S. commercial space industry, which explicitly allows U.S. citizens to engage in the commercial exploration and exploitation of 'space resources' including water and minerals. Thus, some scholars argue that the United States recognizing ownership of space resources is an act of sovereignty, and that the act violates the Outer Space Treaty. This paper suggests that it is necessary to guarantee the right to resources harvested in outer space. More specifically, a private ownership of extracted space resources needs to promote new space business and industry. As resources on Earth become increasingly difficult and expensive to mine, it is clear that our laws and policies must encourage private appropriation of space resources. CSLCA which addresses all aspects of space resource extraction will be one way to encourage space commercial activity.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.27 no.2
• /
• pp.3-27
• /
• 2012

The Warsaw Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to International Carriage by Air was adopted in 1929. In 1999, the ICAO adopted the Montreal Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air vastly modernizing the unification of private air law. The Montreal Convention replaced the instruments of the Warsaw system, and came into force on 4 November 2003. The Montreal Convention is not only an international convention. It has also exercised a considerable influence on national legislation. Korea has made the national legislation of the Part VI the Carriage by Air of Commercial Act on April 29, 2011, and it has brought into force on November 24, 2011. The national legislation of the Part VI the Carriage by Air of Commercial Act of Korea has the provisions on the liability for damage caused to passenger, the liability for damage caused to baggage, and the liability for damage caused to cargo. The main feature of the liability regime of the air carrier under the Montreal Convention is the two-tier liability system for death or injury of the passenger with strict liability up to 100,000 SDR and presumptive liability with a reversed burden of proof without any limit above that threshold. The national legislation of the Part VI the Carriage by Air of the Commercial Act of Korea has adopted the main principles of the liability of the air carrier under the Montreal Convention. In conclusion, the national legislation relating to the liability of the air carrier by the Korean government will contribute to settle efficiently the dispute on the carrier' liability in respect of the carriage of passengers, baggage and cargo by air, and to provide proper compensation to the passenger or consignor who has suffered damage, subject to the defenses and limitations it sets out.

• 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 INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.12
• /
• pp.429-460
• /
• 1999

The letter of credit is quintessentially international. In the absence of international legal system, a private system based on banking practices has evolved, commanding the adherence of the international letter of credit community and providing the foundation of th reputation of this instrument. To maintain this international system, it is vital that international standard banking practice should not be subject to local interpretations that misconstrue or distort it. The UCP is a formulation of international standard banking practice. It is neither positive law nor a "contract term" in any traditional sense and its interpretation must be consonant with its character as a living repositary of international understanding in this field. As a result, the interpretation and application of specific articles of the UCP must be consistent with its evolving character and history and with the principles upon which sound letter of credit practice is predicated. This study, especially, focuses on article 13 and article 14 of the UCP500. Article 13(b) of UCP500 stipulates that banks will have a reasonable time, not to exceed seven days, to examine documents to determine whether they comply facially with the terms of the credit. The seven-day provision is not designed as a safe harbor, because the rule requires the issuer to act within a reasonable time. But, by virtue of the deletion of the preclusion rule in the document examination article in UCP500, however, seven days may evolve as something of a safe harbor, especially for banks that engage in strategic behavior. True, under UCP500 banks are supposed to examine documents within a reasonable time, but there are no consequences in UCP500 for a bank's violation of that duty. It is only in the next provision. Courts might read the preclusion more broadly than the literal reading mentioned here or might fashion a common-law preclusion rule that does not require a showing of detriment. Absent that kind of development, the change in the preclusion rule could have adverse effects on the beneficiary. The penalty, strict estoppel or strict preclusion, under UCP500 and 95UCC differs from the classic estoppel. The classic estoppel rule requires a beneficiary to show three elements. 1. conduct on the part of the issuer that leads the beneficiary to believe that nonconforming documents do conform; 2. reasonable reliance by the beneficiary; and 3. detriment from that reliance. But stict preclusion rule needs not detrimental reliance. This strict estoppel rule is quite strict, and some see it as a fitting pro-beneficiary rule to counterbalance the usually pro-issuer rule of strict compliance.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.21 no.1
• /
• pp.3-31
• /
• 2011

In response to complexity and diversity of a social phenomenon, the dispute also is various, therefore can not be settled efficiently by means of court adjudication to which applies a law strictly. To overcome such problems we are going to seek to make use of arbitration. According to Korean Arbitration Act Art. 3 (1), any dispute in private laws would be the object of arbitral proceedings. It could be the object of arbitral proceedings that disputes which are capable of a settlement by arbitration. It is a matter for debate that disputes containing punitive damages may be resolved by arbitration. This problem is concerning the arbitrability of the subject-matter of a dispute. To offer some solution to these issues, it is necessary to inquire into the nature of punitive damages. the policy and function of alimony, the fair apportionment of a loss. Moreover, international relations formed with international transactions should be considered. Punitive damages would be the object of arbitral proceedings as the dipute in private laws. When punitive damages pursue only punishment in the domestic arbitration that there is not foreign factors, arbitral tribunal could not make arbitral award containing punitive damages. However, if punitive damages are admitted under the rules applicable to substance of dispute, and there is the arbitration agreement in which is implied that the parties agree to submit to an arbitral award, arbitral tribunal could make arbitral award containing punitive damages in international arbitration. When it is questionable whether it is offend against our public policy or not, that we accept the effect of arbitral award containing punitive damages, and we admit the enforcement of it, we have to take the nature of punitive damages, the policy and function of alimony, the fair apportionment of a loss and the stability of international transactions into consideration.

• 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.