• 대한안전경영과학회:학술대회논문집
• /
• 대한안전경영과학회 2004년도 춘계학술대회
• /
• pp.153-159
• /
• 2004

There are various types of PLM(product liability management) according to corporation management level. It is necessary to develop diagnostic methods and application systems for PLM as well as to establish an efficient PLM system. This paper aims to propose a PLM system which can be applied to product with high-reliability and high-safety, and diagnostic methods for PLM based on AHP, and also show an empirical application of the proposed PL management system for Auto Test Robot System of the Mobile Phone (EVT 4320).

• 항공우주정책ㆍ법학회지
• /
• 제9권
• /
• pp.277-298
• /
• 1997

Air transportation industry was established on a basis of liability limitation from the outset. Many treaties, however, had to be drafted since 1960' s to meet the need of the Unites States, who argued full compensation without limitation like other torts cases, but most of them were in vain. The Japanese Initiative in 1992, though being aimed to lower a level of compensation in air crash cases to that of other transportation accidents, showed a way to the U.S. how to solve the issue. Instead of obtaining an multilateral agreement through ICAO, the U.S. persuaded IATA to organize intercarrier consensus for voluntary waive the limitation. IATA succeeded in adopting Intercarrier Liability Agreement in 1995, in which carriers agreed not to use Warsaw limitation and accepted strict liability up to 100,000SDRs. Through a series of negotiation to implement the Intercarrier agreement, US DOT tried to insert a domicile standard provision to the agreement which enable US victims to be compensated according to the law of the U.S. regardless of the situation. IATA opposed the intent aggressively. The U.S. set back to the starting point remaining issues for further discussion. The liability limitation under the Warsaw system is being collapsed. It is the result of a simple logic; liability limitation cannot be maintained without appropriate compensation.

• 한국안전학회지
• /
• 제16권4호
• /
• pp.188-193
• /
• 2001

From July 1st 2002, the Product Liability Act will be efficacious in Korea, and its influence will be prevalent over all industrial folds. However, little attention has been paid to the Act and its influence in the area of Industrial Safety. Therefore, this paper aimed to call the people's attention to them, and to suggest some points for counterplans in that n As for counterplans to the Product Liability, there are two different approaches - Product Liability Prevention (PLP) and Product Liability Defense(PLD). Between them, PLP is more safety-oriented approach, and especially Product Safety(PS) will be the core of it. Related with this, it was noted that productive goods which are utilized as productive materials or tools in the later process or industries could be troublesome when the Act is efficacious. As a solution, the necessity of cooperation among manufacturing plants belong to the similar industry, and of development of qualitative techniques applicable to analyses of consumers behavior was emphasized. Ant the interest and participation of Human Behavioral Scientists, Ergonomists as well as Consumer Psychologists were called upon. Also, it was suggested that an integrative approach including administrative or governmental management system for industrial goods should be developed.

• 한국건축시공학회지
• /
• 제10권1호
• /
• pp.101-109
• /
• 2010

건설사업계약은 우리나라에는 관련법령에 따라 목적물의 준공이후 시공자가 하자담보책임을 부담하고 있다. 그러나 하자담보책임의 주요 내용인 하자보수, 손해배상과 관련하여 많은 분쟁이 있다. 이러한 분쟁의 결과에도 불구하고 하자와 관련하여 항상 많은 문제점이 발생하고 있어 정부에서는 성능보증계약제도의 도입에 대해 검토하는 등 다양한 대책을 준비 중에 있다. 본 제도가 제대로 적용되기 위해서는 미국의 Warranty제도와 관련하여 다양한 판례동향을 분석할 필요성이 있다. 따라서 본 연구에서는 미국의 Warranty제도를 살펴보고, 목적물 인수효과, 입증책임, 구제조치, 계약해제에 대한 동향을 제시하였다.

• 한국벤처창업학회:학술대회논문집
• /
• 한국벤처창업학회 2008년도 추계학술대회
• /
• pp.285-334
• /
• 2008

2002년 제조물책임법이 시행된 이후 정부에서는 종합시책을 확정하고, 업종별 PL센터를 설립하여 소비자 상담과 분쟁에 적극 대응하고 있다. 그러나 아직 많은 기업들이 제품고유의 안전성 확보를 위한 철학과 기술을 가지고 있지 못하여 제조물책임법에 대한 대응체계가 미흡한 것이 사실이다. 본 연구의 목적은 제조물책임 관련 안전사고와 리콜실태, 소비자 위해실태, Pl보험사고 소송사례 등을 실증적 사례중심으로 검토 분석하여 이를 토대로 제조물책임이 기업가치에 어떠한 영향을 미치는지 상호관계를 연구하고, 기업의 제조물책임 대응전략을 제시하는데 그 의미가 있다.

• 벤처창업연구
• /
• 제3권3호
• /
• pp.17-65
• /
• 2008

2002년 제조물책임법이 시행된 이후 정부에서는 종합시책을 확정하고, 업종별 PL센터를 설립하여 소비자 상담과 분쟁에 적극 대응하고 있다. 그러나 아직 많은 기업들이 제품고유의 안전성 확보를 위한 철학과 기술을 가지고 있지 못하여 제조물책임법에 대한 대응체계가 미흡한 것이 사실이다. 본 연구의 목적은 제조물책임 관련 안전사고와 리콜실태, 소비자 위해실태, Pl보험사고 소송사례 등을 실증적 사례중심으로 검토.분석하여 이를 토대로 제조물 책임이 기업 가치에 어떠한 영향을 미치는지 상호관계를 연구하고, 기업의 제조물책임 대응전략을 제시하는데 그 의미가 있다.

• 항공우주정책ㆍ법학회지
• /
• 제5권
• /
• pp.101-118
• /
• 1993

Generally there is no law and liability system which applies particulary to commercial space ventures. There are several international treaties and national statutes which deal with space ventures, but their impact on the liability of commercial space ventures has not been significant. Every state law in the United States will impose both tort and contract liability on those responsible for injuries or losses caused by defective products or by services performed negligently. As with the providers of other products and services, those who participate in commercial space ventures have exposure to liability in both tort and contract which is limited to the extent of the resulting damage The manufacturer of a small and cheap component which caused a satellite to fail to reach orbit or to operate nominally has the same exposure to liability as the provider of launch vehicle or the manufacturer of satellite into which the component was incorporaded. Considering the enormity of losses which may result from launch failure or satellite failure, those participated in commercial space ventures will do their best to limit their exposure to liability by contract to the extent permitted by law. In most states of the United States, contracts which limit or disclaim the liability are enforceable with respect to claims for losses or damage to property if they are drafted in compliance with the requirements of the applicable law. In California an attempt to disclaim the liability for one's own negligence will be enforceable only if the contract states explicitly that the parties intend to have the disclaimer apply to negligence claims. Most state laws of the United States will refuse to enforce contracts which attempt to disclaim the liability for gross negligence on public policy grounds. However, the public policy which favoured disclaiming the liability as to gross negligence for providers of launch services was pronounced by the United States Congress in the 1988 Amendments to the 1984 Commercial Space Launch Act. To extend the disclaimer of liability to remote purchasers, the contract of resale should state expressly that the disclaimer applies for the benefit of all contractors and subcontractors who participated in producing the product. This situation may occur when the purchaser of a satellite which has failed to reach orbit has not contracted directly with the provider of launch services. Contracts for launch services usually contain cross-waiver of liability clauses by which each participant in the launch agrees to be responsible for it's own loss and to waive any claims which it may have against other participants. The crosswaiver of liability clause may apply to the participants in the launch who are parties to the launch services agreement, but not apply to their subcontractors. The role of insurance in responding to many risks has been critical in assisting commercial space ventures grow. Today traditional property and liability insurance, such as pre-launch, launch and in-orbit insurance and third party liability insurance, have become mandatory parts of most space projects. The manufacture and pre-launch insurance covers direct physical loss or damage to the satellite, its apogee kick moter and including its related launch equipment from commencement of loading operations at the manufacture's plant until lift off. The launch and early orbit insurance covers the satellite for physical loss or damage from attachment of risk through to commissioning and for some period of initial operation between 180 days and 12 months after launch. The in-orbit insurance covers physical loss of or damage to the satellite occuring during or caused by an event during the policy period. The third party liability insurance covers the satellite owner' s liability exposure at the launch site and liability arising out of the launch and operation in orbit. In conclusion, the liability in commercial space ventures extends to any organization which participates in providing products and services used in the venture. Accordingly, it is essential for any organization participating in commercial space ventures to contractually disclaim its liability to the extent permitted by law. To achieve the effective disclaimers, it is necessary to determine the applicable law and to understand the requirements of the law which will govern the terms of the contract. A great deal of funds have been used in R&D for commercial space ventures to increase reliability, safety and success. However, the historical reliability of launches and success for commercial space ventures have proved to be slightly lower than we would have wished for. Space insurance has played an important role in reducing the high risks present in commercial space ventures.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제71권
• /
• pp.147-170
• /
• 2016

International maritime law conventions concerned with cargo liabilities have sought to achieve solutions which will be acceptable to a wide range of states. The Rotterdam Rules was approved by the UN Assembly on 11 December 2008. The Rotterdam Rules are intended to replace The Hague and Hamburg Rules. This paper is comparing The Rotterdam Rules with The Hague and Hamburg Rules for the carrier' liabilities and exceptions in order to find carrier' liability System, the burden of proof and exceptions in the International maritime Rules. The purpose of this paper is considering the carrier's principal recourse for defending himself inmost cargo claims. The first area analyze the transfer of carrier's fundamental Liability system in the International Rules. The second is the matter on the appointment of proof in order to establish liability or to be relieve of liability. And the third is the change of the carrier's possible exclusions from liability in the International maritime Rules. From the result of the said analysis, my paper suggests differences of the exclusions in the Rotterdam Rules comparing with the Hague and Hamburg Rules, and features of the Rotterdam Rules appling exceptions on the basis of the Hague and Hamburg Rules with regard to carrier's liability and burden of proof. The former is the inclusion of three exclusions, the deleted natural fault, and The provision making the carrier responsible for the acts of its servants or agents in the 'fire on the ship' of the Rotterdam Rules. The latter is deleting the principle of overriding obligation related to carrier's obligation of seaworthiness in the Rotterdam Rules, the burden of proof being diverted from the carrier to the carrier and the shipper in the cargo damage caused by two factors(one for which the carrier was liable and the other for which it was excusable) in the new rules.

• 한국산학기술학회논문지
• /
• 제18권6호
• /
• pp.596-608
• /
• 2017

2002년 제조물책임법(PL)을 시행하여 소비자가 제조물을 생산하고 판매하는 기업에 대하여 제품의 결함에 따른 손해배상을 청구할 수 있도록 하는 제도적 장치를 마련하였다. 그러나 최근 가습기 살균제 사건 등으로 인해 기업의 제조물책임 강화와 소비자 피해구제를 위한 집단소송제도, 징벌적배상제 도입을 위하여 제조물책임법 개정안 등 현재, 12여건의 관련 법안이 국회에 발의되어 있으나 정작 법안의 이해 당사자인 중소기업의 62.6%는 이에 대해 잘 알고 있지 못한 것으로 나타났다고 하고 있다. 많은 기업들이 PL 방어대책(Product Liability Defense : PLD)으로 문서작성 보관의 적정화, 관련업자와의 책임관계의 명확화, PL 보험의 가입 또는 배상자금의 확보 등으로 대비하고 있으나 이와 같은 대비책은 제품의 설계와 제품의 안전성을 고려한 부분에 대하여 한계점을 느끼게 한다. 이에 본 연구는 먼저 PL의 명확한 개념과 대응방안에 대해 살펴보고 PL 시스템과 개별 경영시스템 간의 관련성을 파악하고 제조물책임법에 대비한 PL 대응시스템을 기업의 개별경영시스템에 통합하고 보다 제품의 안전에 중점을 둔 개별경영시스템 모델을 제시하고자한다. 이 같은 연구목적에 따른 결과는 중소기업의 PL법 대응을 위한 합리적 대응방안으로 평가 받을 것으로 기대된다.

• 무역학회지
• /
• 제43권3호
• /
• pp.101-124
• /
• 2018

한국 제조물책임법 제정 후 입증책임에 관한 신설조항이 추가되고 소비자 보호의 목적에 맞게 개정된 후 시행되고 있다. 신설조항 제3조 2는 입증책임 완화를 위해 간접사실을 입증하면 인과관계를 추정하는 규정을 명문화하였다. 소비자의 권익이 높아지고 소비자 문제에 대중의 관심이 쏠리고 있지만 여전히 문제점이 대두하고 있는 상황이다. 이 문제점을 해결하기 위해 강력한 소비자의 권리를 가지고 있는 미국 제조물책임법을 연구하여 소비자 보호의 측면에서 한국의 제조물책임법이 나아가야 할 방향에 대해 서술하였다. 비교분석 결과를 도출하면 엄격책임의 엄격성, 소비자분쟁해결, 입증가능성, 소송접근성의 기준에서 미국이 한국에 비해 엄격책임의 개념이 확장되어 제조물책임에 엄격책임을 적용 시 더욱 강하게 다루어졌으며, 소비자분쟁해결제도는 교육과 체제적인 소비자 ADR제도를 운영하여 소비자를 철저하게 보호하였다. 입증가능성기준에서 한국은 입증내용이 3가지, 미국은 1가지로 증명내용의 수가 작음에 따라 미국이 입증가능성이 높았고, 소비자소송이 빈번하게 이루어지는 미국은 입증책임 당사자가 제조자로 전환되어 소송 시 입증책임을 당사자가 소비자인 한국에 비해 소송접근성이 높았다. 본 연구에서는 소비자 보호에 초점을 맞추어 한국 제조물책임법이 발전될 수 있는 시사점을 제공한다.