• 항공우주정책ㆍ법학회지
• /
• 제6권
• /
• pp.191-215
• /
• 1994

The concept of 'wilful misconduct" was initally used in article 25 of the Warsaw Convention of 1929. The concept was defined in the Hague Protocol, 1955, as having the following two differing concepts: i) "with the intent to cause damage" and ii) "recklessly and with the knowledge that damage would probably result." The concepts contained in the Hague Protocol were used in various international Conventions on carriage by sea, such as Article 2(e) and Article 3(4) of the Protocol adopted at Brussels on Feb. 23, 1968 to amend the International Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules of Law relating to Bills of Lading, signed at Brussels, Aug. 25, 1929(Hague-Visby Rules), Article 13 of the Athens Convention relating to the Carriage of Passengers and their Luggage by Sea, Dec. 13. 1974, Article 4 of the Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims, 1976, Article 8(1) of the U.N. Convention on the Carriage of Goods by Sea, 1978(Hamburg Rules) and Article 21 (1) of the U.N. Convention on International Multimodal Transport of Goods, Geneva, 1980. The same concepts were also adopted in Article 746, 789-2(1), 789-3(2) of the Korean Maritime Commercial Law, revised in 1991. As of yet, the legal system of Korean Private Law recognizes only the concepts of "Vorsatz" and "grobe Nachlassigkeit", as is the case with German Private Law. The problem is that the concepts in the Convention do not coincide precisely with the concepts of "Vorsatz" and "grobe Nachlassigkeit". The author has conducted a comparative analysis of the treatment of the concepts of wilful misconduct and its varied interpretations, that is, "with the intent to cause damage" and "recklessly and with the knowledge that damage would probably result" in the Anglo-American law and in the continental European law in the following manner: 1. Background in which the concept of wilful misconduct was introduced in the Warsaw Convention. 2. The concept of "dol" in French private law. 3. The concepts of "Vorsatz" and "grobe Nachlassigkeit" in Korean private law. 4. Analysis of the concept of wilful misconduct in Anglo-American case law. 5. Analysis of the cases interpreting the concepts of "with intent to cause damage" and "recklessly and with knowledge that damage would probably result" in various jurisdictions. 6. The need to incorporate the concepts of "with the intent to cause damage" and "recklessly and with the knowledge that damage would probably result." 7. Faute inexcusable in French private law. Based upon the comparative analysis, the author points out the difference between the concepts of "wilful misconduct" or "with the intent to cause damage" and "Vorsatz", and between the concepts of "recklessly and with the knowledge that damage would probably result" and "grobe Nachlassigkeit" in the Convention and that of the Korean Private Law system. Additionally, the author emphasizes the importance of the unification in the interpretation of the provisions of the Conventions world wide.

• 수산해양교육연구
• /
• 제5권2호
• /
• pp.110-118
• /
• 1993

A squid gill-net fishing vessel Jayueoroho which was being insured ITC-Hulls and was laid up long period illegally under the condition of unmanned in the Pert of Kamcheon. On 30, March, 1993, the fishing vessel moved out toward the high sea by assistance of two tugboats, 12 miles southeast from Teajongdae, to discharge sewage. At that time the shipowner, the skipper, chief engineer and two labourers were boarding, and a fire was broken out by electric leakage at sea. For all their efforts of fire-fighting operation the fishing vessel foundered with explosion. In this case, she had been breached the warranties of legality, especially Korean maritime acts concerned, and the warranties of seaworthiness(MIA 39(5)) as attributable cause because of unmanned on board by wilful misconduct of the insured. Therefore it is prima facie evidence that the insurer is not liable for any loss attributable to the wilful misconduct and breach of warranties of the insured in MIA 1906.

• 항공우주정책ㆍ법학회지
• /
• 제5권
• /
• pp.265-301
• /
• 1993

지난 6월 3일 동경에서 있었던, 아시아 항공/우주법 학술대회 제 3분과에서 영국 Bin Cheng교수의 "The Warsaw System: Mess up, Tear up, or Shore up?"이라는 주제의 논문발표가 있었다. Bin Cheng교수는 특히 유럽의 EC Consultant Paper 와 일본항공사들의 1992년의 무한책임보상주의 채택에 대하여, 마치 무한 책임보상주의의 이론이 승리하였으며, 위의 상황들이 그 시작이라고 단정하였는데 이러한 견해는 아직까지 시기상조라고 생각한다. 본 글에서는 동경회의에서의 Bin Cheng교수의 논문중 특히 10항의 결론 부분을 중점으로 반대되는 의견을 제시하고자 한다. 국제항공사법인 와르소체제가 과연 발전하고 있는 것인가? 퇴보하고 있는 것인가? 와르소체제의 반대론자들은 미국의 소송변호사들, 일본항공사들과 일부 순수이론을 고수하는 학자들로써 이들은 와르소체제로부터의 탈퇴와 무한책임보상주의를 고수하고 있다. EC Consultation Paper (각주 122 참조)에서 보듯이, 비록 항공운송시의 손해배상액이 타 운송시의 손해배상액보다 적기는 하지만 이것이 곧 '무한책임보상주의'를 의미하는 것은 아니다. 미국의 판례중 불법행위로 인한 소송 (Nichole Fortman v. Hemeo Inc.)에서 보면, 작은 창자의 대부분을 병원의 과실때문에 잃은 Brooklin의 한 여인에게 500억 정도의 손해배상이 주어진 것을 보면, 과연 완전 보상에 맞는 무한책임이 과연 항공소송에 적용될 수 있는 것인가를 알아야 한다. 무한책임보상주의는 특히 개발도상국의 항공사들에게 보험료가 너무 과중하고, 와르소협약의 근본목적인 국제항공법의 통일성에 반하고 있기 때문에 국제사회 전반에 적용하기에는 비현실적이다. 와르소체제의 통일 성에 대한 거부는 만약 와르소체제에 버금가는 다른 보상체제가 있는 경우에는 다르지만, 현실적으로는 결국 국제적 혼란만을 야기사킬 것이다. 또한 와르소체제 반대자들은 항공운송인과 승객들의 관계를 갈등관계로 보고 있지만, 근본적으로 와프소협약에서의 항공운송인파 승객들의 관제는 공동이악관계로 보아야 한다. 항공운송사업의 목적도 또한 이윤추구인 바, 승객들이 항공운송인에게 과다한 손해배상을 요구하면, 결국 항공운송인은 승객들의 주머니에서 그 댓가를 찾으려고 할 것이다. 절국 양자의 이익을 보는 것은 소송변호사들 뿐이라고 볼 수 있다. 또한 'Unlimited Liability' 에서 'Unlimited' 란 'Full-Compensation' 을 의미하는 것으로, 'Wilful-Misconduct' 의 경우에는, 'Full-Compensation' 의 개념과 다르게, 그 보상액이 Warsaw협약 제 22조 1항에 적용되지 않는 'No-limited' 의 개념으로 해석하여야 한다. 항공소송의 경우에 통상 'Wilful-Misconduct' 의 경우에 손해배상액이 약 $700,000 인 것을 보더라도 'Full-Compensation'의 의미로 해석할 수 없다. 몬트리올 제 3추가의정서에서 'WilfulMisconduct' 의 개념을 삭제하고자 하는 것은, 이에 대비하여 추가보상제도, 임액수의 종액, 영격책임추의 등의 요소들을 전제로 하고 있기 때문이다. 몬트리올 제 3추가의정서가 최근의 발전적인 손해배상제도인가에 대하여, Bin Cheng 교수는 반대를 하고 있지만, 최선의 제도를 찾는 입장에서 몬트리올 추가 의정서는 여러가지로 부족하다. 그러나, 유한책임제도의 개선, 엄격책임주의의 도입, 빠른 소송타결의 제도, 재판관할권의 확대 그리고, SDR 화폐단위의 채택 등은 헤이그 의정서 이후의 보다 나은 제도적 장치를 하고 있다고 해석하여야 할 것이다. 시대의 변화에 따라 점진적으로 발전된 보상제도를 채택하였다면, 오늘날과 같이 시대에 뒤떨어진 보상체제로 혼란을 겪고 있지 않았을 것이다.

• 항공우주정책ㆍ법학회지
• /
• 제5권
• /
• pp.119-169
• /
• 1993

In this article the present writers have surveyed recent cases on Warsaw Convention especially on the cases emerged in the years between 1986 to 1993. The cases before 1986 were discussed already in the book titled "Liability of International Air Carrier," written by Professor Choi, published in Seoul 1986. In this article the writers have reviewed most of the American cases and some cases from the courts of Germany, France and England. Main subjects which were discussed herein were as follows: Liability of air carriers in Warsaw Convention carriage 1. Exclusivity of the Warsaw Convention as a remedy 2. Warsaw Jurisdiction 3. The scope of the Warsaw Convention's definition of "Accident" under Article 17 of the Warsaw Convention (1) Mental anguish (2) Unusual or unexpected events 4. Adequacy of notice of the limitation of liability to passengers for injuries and death 5. Damages recoverable, punitive damages and burden of proof 6. The wilful misconduct exception; definition of wilful misconduct 7. Cargo and passenger baggage 8. Time limitation of actions After examining articles published world-wide, this article compiles and analyses recent cases involving the Warsaw Convention system. As Warsaw System is based on international convention, maintaining uniformity in interpretation is of utmost importance. Therefore, this type of study is essential for resolving air-transportation disputes in Korea. This article examines the current state and recommends the desired course for the Warsaw Convention. The writers hope that this article is helpful to the Korean courts and those in the air-transportation industry in interpreting the Warsaw Convention.

• 한국항만경제학회지
• /
• 제31권2호
• /
• pp.41-53
• /
• 2015

Paracomon Inc. v. Telus Communication사건('Realice호 사건')에서 Realice호의 닻이 항해과정에서 해저광섬유케이블에 얽히는 사고가 발생하자, 선주사의 대표이사이자 선장은 사용 중인 케이블을 절단해 버렸다. 케이블 소유회사는 선주에게 수리비를 청구하였고, 선주는 케이블 소유회사의 청구액을 책임보험자에게 청구하였다. 그런데 캐나다 대법원은, 선주는 1976년 해사채권에 대한 책임제한에 관한 조약('1976년 책임제한조약')에 따라 케이블 소유회사에 대한 손해배상책임을 일정 한도로 제한할 수 있으나, 케이블을 절단한 선주의 비행은 1993년 캐나다 해상보험법(Canada Marine Insurance Act)상 보험자의 면책사유인 피보험자의 고의적 불법행위(wilful misconduct)에 해당되어 책임보험자에게 보험금을 청구할 수 없다고 판결하였다. 결국 이번 판결로 선주는, 케이블소유회사에 대한 책임제한권은 인정받았으나, 책임보험자에 대한 보험금청구권은 상실하게 되었다. Realice호 사건은 국제조약상 선주에게 인정되는 책임제한과 그에 대한 책임보험의 보상 간의 상호 관계를 최초로 다루고 있다는 점에서 우리에게 시사하는 바가 크다. 따라서 본 논문의 목적은 Realice호 사건에서 대법원의 판결 이유를 분석하고, 해운 보험업계 이해와 지금까지 확립된 해상법에 기초하여 판결의 정당성을 평가하는데 있다. 본 논문은 1976년 책임제한조약의 입법 연혁을 고려할 때 선주가 책임제한권을 갖는다는 대법원의 판결은 타당하지만, 해운 및 보험업계의 이해, 제3자의 직접청구권의 도입취지, 책임제한 배제사유의 입법 과정 등을 고려할 때 책임보험자가 면책된다는 대법원의 판결은 적절하지 않다는 결론을 내린다. 끝으로, 본 논문은 이번 대법원 판결에 기초하여 2014년 세월호 사건에서 선주의 책임제한과 책임보험자의 보상 문제를 검토한다.

• 한국항해학회지
• /
• 제18권3호
• /
• pp.51-79
• /
• 1994

Section 55 (1) of the Marine Insurance Act 1906 states that the insurer is liable for any loss proximately caused by a peril insured against but is not liable for any loss not proximately caused by a peril insured against. It is, therefore, essential to determine whether it is to be recoverable under the Marine Insurance Policy attaching the Institute Cargo or Hull Clauses. But a number of important losses are excluded from the policy by subsection 2 of the same section, unless the policy otherwise provides, although these losses are proximate causes of them. The purpose of this study is to investigate the meaning of proximate cause and excluded losses in the Act. The method of this study is a literature survey. In summary, (1) if the loss is considered to have been proximately caused by a certain peril, and the peril is insured against, the claim is recoverable, (2) if there are different causes resulting in separate losses, the claims recoverable will be those due to insured perils, (3) when the effective cause of the loss is established, remote causes can be ignored, (4) when causes of loss are combined, the claim is recovera-ble if the cause which is proximate in efficiency is an insured peril, (5) if there are two causes, equal in efficiency, the loss is recoverable if one of the causes is an insured peril, but always providing the other cause is merely an uninsured peril rather than a specific exclusion, (6) although certain losses are exclu-ded by section 55 (2) of the Act, with the exception of wilful misconduct of the insured, it is permitted for provision to be made in the policy to widen the terms to include such losses.

• 항공우주정책ㆍ법학회지
• /
• 제1권
• /
• pp.147-162
• /
• 1989

The current status of the application and interpretation of the Warsaw Convention and its subsequent Protocols in Asian countries is in its fredgling stages compared to the developed countries of Europe and North America, and there is thus little published information about the various Asian governments' treatment and courts' views of the Warsaw System. Due to that limitation, the accent of this paper will be on Korea and Japan. As one will be aware, the so-called 'Warsaw System' is made up of the Warsaw Convention of 1929, the Hague Protocol of 1955, the Guadalajara Convention of 1961, the Guatemala City Protocol of 1971 and the Montreal Additional Protocols Nos. 1,2,3 and 4 of 1975. Among these instruments, most of the countries in Asia are parties to both the Warsaw Convention and the Hague Protocol. However, the Republic of Korea and Mongolia are parties only to the Hague Protocol, while Burma, Indonesia and Sri Lanka are parties only to the Warsaw Convention. Thailand and Taiwan are not parties only to the convention or protocol. Among Asian states, Indonesia, the Phillipines and Pakistan are also parties to the Guadalajara Convention, but no country in Asia has signed the Guatemala City Protocol of 1971 or the Montreal Additional Protocols, which Protocols have not yet been put into force. The People's Republic of China has declared that the Warsaw Convention shall apply to the entire Chinese territory, including Taiwan. 'The application of the Warsaw Convention to one-way air carriage between a state which is a party only to the Warsaw Convention and a state which is a party only to the Hague Protocol' is of particular importance in Korea as it is a signatory only to the Hague Protocol, but it is involved in a great deal of air transportation to and from the united states, which in turn is a party only to the Warsaw Convention. The opinion of the Supreme Court of Korea appears to be, that parties to the Warsaw Convention were intended to be parties to the Hague Protocol, whether they actually signed it or not. The effect of this decision is that in Korea the United States and Korea will be considered by the courts to be in a treaty relationship, though neither State is a signatory to the same instrument as the other State. The first wrongful death claim in Korea related to international carriage by air under the Convention was made in Hyun-Mo Bang, et al v. Korean Air Lines Co., Ltd. case. In this case, the plaintiffs claimed for damages based upon breach of contract as well as upon tort under the Korean Civil Code. The issue in the case was whether the time limitation provisions of the Convention should be applicable to a claim based in tort as well as to a claim based in contract. The Appellate Court ruled on 29 August 1983 that 'however founded' in Article 24(1) of the Convention should be construed to mean that the Convention should be applicable to the claim regardless of whether the cause of action was based in tort or breach of contract, and that the plaintiffs' rights to damages had therefore extinguished because of the time limitation as set forth in Article 29(1) of the Convention. The difficult and often debated question of what exactly is meant by the words 'such default equivalent to wilful misconduct' in Article 25(1) of the Warsaw Convention, has also been litigated. The Supreme Court of Japan dealt with this issue in the Suzuki Shinjuten Co. v. Northwest Airlines Inc. case. The Supreme Court upheld the Appellate Court's ruling, and decided that 'such default equivalent to wilful misconduct' under Article 25(1) of the Convention was within the meaning of 'gross negligence' under the Japanese Commercial Code. The issue of the convention of the 'franc' into national currencies as provided in Article 22 of the Warsaw Convention as amended by the Hague Protocol has been raised in a court case in Korea, which is now before the District Court of Seoul. In this case, the plaintiff argues that the gold franc equivalent must be converted in Korean Won in accordance with the free market price of gold in Korea, as Korea has not enacted any law, order or regulation prescribing the proper method of calculating the equivalent in its national currency. while it is unclear if the court will accept this position, the last official price of gold of the United States as in the famous Franklin Mint case, Special Drawing Right(SDR) or the current French franc, Korean Air Lines has argued in favor of the last official price of gold of the United States by which the air lines converted such francs into us Dollars in their General Conditions of Carriage. It is my understanding that in India, an appellate court adopted the free market price valuation. There is a report as well saying that if a lawsuit concerning this issue were brought in Pakistan, the free market cost of gold would be applied there too. Speaking specifically about the future of the Warsaw System in Asia though I have been informed that Thailand is actively considering acceding to the Warsaw Convention, the attitudes of most Asian countries' governments towards the Warsaw System are still wnot ell known. There is little evidence that Asian countries are moving to deal concretely with the conversion of the franc into their own local currencies. So too it cannot be said that they are on the move to adhere to the Montreal Additional Protocols Nos. 3 & 4 which attempt to basically solve many of the current problems with the Warsaw System, by adopting the SDR as the unit of currency, by establishing the carrier's absolute liability and an unbreakable limit and by increasing the carrier's passenger limit of liability to SDR 100,000, as well as permiting the domestic introduction of supplemental compensation. To summarize my own sentiments regarding the future, I would say that given the fact that Asian air lines are now world leaders both in overall size and rate of growth, and the fact that both Asian individuals and governments are becoming more and more reliant on the global civil aviation networks as their economies become ever stronger, I am hopeful that Asian nations will henceforth play a bigger role in ensuring the orderly and hasty development of a workable unified system of rules governing international commercial air carriage.

• 항공우주정책ㆍ법학회지
• /
• 제30권2호
• /
• pp.37-81
• /
• 2015

인도네시아의 에어 아시아 QZ8501 제트여객기가 2014년 12월 28일, 오전 5시 35분에 인도네시아, Surabaya도시에 있는 Juanda 국제공항을 출발하여 같은 날 8시 반 싱가포르 Changi 국제공항에 도착할 예정이었다. 그러나 인도네시아의 에어아시아(에어버스 A320-200) 여객기는 인도네시아 제 2의 도시인 수라바야공항에서 승개 162명을 태우고 싱가포를 향하여 비행도중 동년 12월 28일 Java 바다에 추락하였다. 인도네시아의 에어아시아 제트여객기의 잔해가 Juanda 국제공항에서 약 66 마일 떨어진 위치에서 발견되었으며 이곳에서 12월 28일 지상에 있는 항공교통관제관 (ATC) 과 조정사간에 교신이 끊겼다. 레이더에서 사라진 여객기 (QZ 8501)에는 승객 155명과 승무원 7명이 탔으며 희생된 여객 가운데에는 155명의 인도네시아어인, 3명의 한국인, 싱가포르인, 말레이시아인, 영국인이 각각 1명이었다. 말레이시아여객기 추락사건을 살피어 본다면, 말레이시아 여객기 (MH370)는 현지 시간 2014년 3월 8일 밤 12시41분 쿠알라룸푸르 국제공항을 출발하여 같은 날 새벽 6시 30분 (현지시간) 중국 베이징수도국제공항에 착륙 할 예정이었다. 그러나 말레이시아 여객기 (MH370) 는 쿠알라룸푸르 국제공항을 출발하여 베이징수도국제공항을 향하하여 비행도중 (쿠알라룸푸르와 북경 간에 비행거리: 4,414km 2,743마일) 갑자기 살아져 3월 8일 남인도양에 추락하였다. 이 말레이시아여객기는 쿠알라룸푸르 국제공항을 이륙한 후 1시간 만에 지상에 있는 항공교통관제관 (ATC) 과 조정사간에 교신이 두절되었으며 이 여객기에 227명의 승객 (15개국)과 12명의 승객이 타고 있었다. 상기 227명의 승객가운데에는 중국인 153명, 말레이시아인이 38명, 인도네시아 인이 7명, 호주인이 6명, 인도인이 5명, 프랑스인이 4명, 미국인이3명, 이란인이2명, 캐나다인이2명, 뉴질랜드인이 2명, 우크라이나인이 2명, 러시아인이 1명, 네덜란드인이 1명, 대만인이 1명이었음으로 중국인 승객이 거의 3분의 2 이상을 차지하고 있었다. 본 인도네시아 및 말레이시아 여객기 추락사건에 있어 승객 및 승무원들은 전원 사망하였고 가해자(국)인 인도네시아 및 말레이시아뿐만 아니라 피해자(국) 인 중국, 한국, 호주인, 인도, 프랑스, 미국, 인도네시아 및 말레이시아 등이 모두 1999년의 몬트리올조약의 가맹국이기 때문에 인도네시아 및 말레이시아의 항공사들은 동 조약 제21조에 따라 손해배상금액으로서 113,100 특별인출권 (SDR, 계산단위, 미화 155,000달러)를 유족들에게 무조건 지급하여야만 된다. 그러나 인도네시아 및 말레이시아 여객기 추락사건에 있어 유족들은 상기 배상금액에 만족하고 있지 않기 때문에 승객사망자에 대한 유족들의 손해배상청구소송 사건에 있어 일부 유족들은 자국법원에 소송을 제기하는 것보다는 손해배상금액을 많이 탈수 있는 미국 법원에 소송을 제기하고 있다. 미국은 현재 국제항공운송에 있어 항공여개운송인의 책임이 국제조약에 따라 유한책임 제도를 채택하고 있지만 국내항공운송에 있어서는 항공여개운송인의 책임이 무한책임제도를 채택하고 있다. 현재 미국법원은 국제 및 국내항공운송을 막론하고 항공여객운송인이 Wilful-misconduct (인식이 있는 중대한 과실) 범하였을 때에 무한책임을 인정하여 손해배상금액에 관한 판결내용이 30만 달러 내지 500만 달러를 상회하고 있음으로 유족들은 몬트리올조약 제33조 (재판관할권) 및 미국에서 제조한 여객기의 결함을 이유로 한 "제조물책임법"에 근거하여 본 소송사건에 있어 일부 유족들은 미국이변호사에 소송사건을 의뢰하여 미국법원에 손해배상청구소송사건을 제기한바 있다. 한편 필자의 의견으로는 1999년의 몬트리올조약 제17조에 규정되어 있는 국제항공운송인의 손해배상책임사유로 bodily injury라고 신체상의 상해만을 규정하고 있어 피해자 보호에 만전을 기할 수가 없음으로 앞으로 ICAO 법률위원회에서 가까운 장래에 몬트리올조약을 개정 할 때에 이 문구를 피해자의 정신적손해도 다 포함될 수 있도록 personal injury 라는 문구로 수정하는 것이 바람직하다고 본다.

• 항공우주정책ㆍ법학회지
• /
• 제19권2호
• /
• pp.9-53
• /
• 2004

한국(韓國)과 일본(日本)의 항공법(航空法)은 주로 공법적(公法的)및 행정규제적(行政規制的)인 규정(規定)들로 조성(構成)되어 있음으로 항공기사고가 발생하였을 때에 항공안전인(航空運送人)의 손해배상책임(損害暗慣責任)의 한계(限界), 배상가액(暗慣價額) 책임소멸시기(責任消滅時期), 재판관할지(裁判管轄地 )등을 규정하는 사법적(私法的)인 규정은 한 조문도 들어가 있지 않음으로 손해배상청구사건(損害暗慣請求事件)을 처리히는데 있어 재판의 기준이 없어 항공소송사건(航空訴認事件)의 해결은 지연되고 있어 당사자(當事者)간(원(原) 피고(被告)간)의 분쟁은 더욱 심화되고 있는 것이 오늘날의실정이다. 국제항공안전(國際航空運送)의 사법적(私法的)인 법률관계는 바르샤바조약(條約) 헤이그의정서(議定書), 과다하라조약(條約), 1966년(年)의 몬트리올 항공사(航空社)간의 협정(協定), 몬트리올3개 추가의정석(追加議定書)와 몬트리올 제(第)4의정석(議定書), 몬트리올조약(條約)및 개정(改正)로마조약(條約) 등에 의하여 어느 정도 해결될 수 있지만 국내항공안전(國內航空運送)의 사법적(私法的)인 법률관계에 대하여서는 한국(韓國)과 일본(日本)은 법률에 아무런 규정이 없음으로 항공운송약관(航空運送約款)또는 민상법(民商法)등에 의하여 처리되고 있다. 그러나 항공운송약관(航空運送約款)의 일부조항이 무효결정(無效決定)또는 무효판정(無效判決)이 선고되어 문제가 제기된바 있다. 이와 같은 문제점을 해결하기 위하여서는 항공기사건(航空機事故)에 의한 분쟁당사자 간의 책임한계(責任限界)를 정하여 재판(裁判)의 기준을 정하기 위한 법을 만들어 재판(裁判)의 공정성, 신속성, 간편성을 도모할 수 있는 항공운송인(航空運送人)의 책임에 관한 국내입법으로 "항공운송법(航空運送法)"의 제정(制定)이 무엇보다도 필요하다고 본다. 이와 같은 문제의 해결과 가해자(加害者)와 피해자(被害者)간의 책임한계(責任限界)를 명확하게 정하기 위하여 현행(現行) 상법(商法)또는 항공법(船空法)을 개정하여 항공운송인(航空運送人)의 민사책임에 관한 규정을 삽입하는 것이 오랜 시일이 소요되어 가능하지 않을 때에는 신속한 해결을 위하여 항공가사건(航空機事件)의 분쟁당사자간의 책임한계(責任限界)및 법률관계(法律關係)를 규정한 새로운 "항공운송법(航空運送法)"을 특별법의 형태로 입법하는 것이 바람직하다고 본다. 이와 같은 점을 고려하여 이 논문(論文)에서는 우리나라 항공운송(航空運送)의 현황과 항공운송인(航空運送人)의 민사책임(民事責任)에 관한 세계각국(世界各國)의 입법예(立法例) ((1)영국(英國), (2)미국(美國), (3)캐나다, (4)유럽연합(聯合)(EU), (5)독일(獨逸), (6)프랑스, (7)이탈리아, (8)스페인, (9)스위스, (10)오스트레일리아, (11)일본(日本), (12)중국(中國), (13)대만(臺灣), 북한(北韓))에 관한 내용(內容)을 분석(分析) 소개(紹介)한 후 우리나라 항공운송인(航空運送人)의 책임(責任)에 관한 운송약관(運送約款)의 문제점, 그 동안의 항공안전법계약법할안(航空運送法契約法試案)의 퇴진경위(推進經緯)와 항공운송인(航空運送人)에 대한 운송계약책임(運送契約責任)과 불법행위책임(不法行爲責任)등 둘 다 포함시킨 새로운 "항공운송법(航空運送法)"의 입법(立法)의 필요성(必要性)과 이유(理由)등 입법론(立法論)을 제시하였다. 앞으로 이 입법론(立法論)에 따라 항공안전법계약법시안(航空運送法契約法試案)을 작성할 때에 규정할 주(主)된 내용(內容)은, (1)이 법(法)의 입법목적(立法目的), (2)적용범위(適用範圍), (3)"항공수화물(航空手倚物)", "항공화물(船空貨物)", "항공운송(航空運送)", "항공운송인(航空運送人)", "항공사고(航空事故)", "계산단위(計算單位)(SDR)" 등의 개념정립, (4)여객항공권(旅客械空卷), 수화물표(手倚物票)또는 항공운송상(航空運送狀)의 기재사항, (5)항공운송인(航空運送人)의 책임원칙(責任原則)및 책임원칙(責任原則) (6)피의자(被害者)의 기여과실(寄與過失)에 기인되는 항공운송인(航空運送人)의 책임감면, (7)면책특약(免責特約)의 금지, (8)항공운송인(航空運送人)의 책임한도(責任限度)의 적용배제(wilful misconduct), (9)소(訴)의 명의(名義), (10)순차운송)(順次運送)의 법률관계, (11)운송인(運送人)의 사용인(이행보조자)에 대한 책임, (12)수화물(手倚物)및 화물(貨物)의 멸실 등의 통지의무, (13)항공운송인(航空運送人)에 대한 소(訴)를 제기(提起)하는 기한(期限), (14)계약운송인이외(契約運送人以外)의 실제운송인(實際運送人)에 의하여 행하여진 항공운송(航空運送)의 법률관계(實際運送人의 책임(責任)등), (15)항공기(航空機)의 추락 또는 파편의 낙하에 의한 지상(地上)제(第)3자(者)에게 입힌 인적(人的)또는 물적손해(物的揚害)에 대한 배상책임 불범행위책임(不法行寫責任)등), 항공운송상(航空運送狀)또는 화물손해(貨物損害)에 관한 추정적효력(prima facie evidence)의 인정, 항공화물(航空貨物)의 처분청구권의 인정, 제(第)3자(者)에 대한 청구권(구상권(求償權)), 전도금(前渡金)의 지급, 부합운송(複合運送), 중재제도(仲裁制度)의 도입, 항공보험(航空保險), 재판관할지(裁判管轄地), 항공운송인(航空運送人)에 대한 제소(提訴)의 소멸시기(消滅時期)(제척(除斥)) 등이 있다.

• 항공우주정책ㆍ법학회지
• /
• 제9권
• /
• pp.85-143
• /
• 1997

The main purpose of the investigation of an accident caused by aircraft is to be prevented the sudden and casual accidents caused by wilful misconduct and fault from pilots, air traffic controllers, hijack, trouble of engine and machinery of aircraft, turbulence during the bad weather, collision between birds and aircraft, near miss flight by aircrafts etc. It is not the purpose of this activity to apportion blame or liability for offender of aircraft accidents. Accidents to aircraft, especially those involving the general public and their property, are a matter of great concern to the aviation community. The system of international regulation exists to improve safety and minimize, as far as possible, the risk of accidents but when they do occur there is a web of systems and procedures to investigate and respond to them. I would like to trace the general line of regulation from an international source in the Chicago Convention of 1944. Article 26 of the Convention lays down the basic principle for the investigation of the aircraft accident. Where there has been an accident to an aircraft of a contracting state which occurs in the territory of another contracting state and which involves death or serious injury or indicates serious technical defect in the aircraft or air navigation facilities, the state in which the accident occurs must institute an inquiry into the circumstances of the accident. That inquiry will be in accordance, in so far as its law permits, with the procedure which may be recommended from time to time by the International Civil Aviation Organization ICAO). There are very general provisions but they state two essential principles: first, in certain circumstances there must be an investigation, and second, who is to be responsible for undertaking that investigation. The latter is an important point to establish otherwise there could be at least two states claiming jurisdiction on the inquiry. The Chicago Convention also provides that the state where the aircraft is registered is to be given the opportunity to appoint observers to be present at the inquiry and the state holding the inquiry must communicate the report and findings in the matter to that other state. It is worth noting that the Chicago Convention (Article 25) also makes provision for assisting aircraft in distress. Each contracting state undertakes to provide such measures of assistance to aircraft in distress in its territory as it may find practicable and to permit (subject to control by its own authorities) the owner of the aircraft or authorities of the state in which the aircraft is registered, to provide such measures of assistance as may be necessitated by circumstances. Significantly, the undertaking can only be given by contracting state but the duty to provide assistance is not limited to aircraft registered in another contracting state, but presumably any aircraft in distress in the territory of the contracting state. Finally, the Convention envisages further regulations (normally to be produced under the auspices of ICAO). In this case the Convention provides that each contracting state, when undertaking a search for missing aircraft, will collaborate in co-ordinated measures which may be recommended from time to time pursuant to the Convention. Since 1944 further international regulations relating to safety and investigation of accidents have been made, both pursuant to Chicago Convention and, in particular, through the vehicle of the ICAO which has, for example, set up an accident and reporting system. By requiring the reporting of certain accidents and incidents it is building up an information service for the benefit of member states. However, Chicago Convention provides that each contracting state undertakes collaborate in securing the highest practicable degree of uniformity in regulations, standards, procedures and organization in relation to aircraft, personnel, airways and auxiliary services in all matters in which such uniformity will facilitate and improve air navigation. To this end, ICAO is to adopt and amend from time to time, as may be necessary, international standards and recommended practices and procedures dealing with, among other things, aircraft in distress and investigation of accidents. Standards and Recommended Practices for Aircraft Accident Injuries were first adopted by the ICAO Council on 11 April 1951 pursuant to Article 37 of the Chicago Convention on International Civil Aviation and were designated as Annex 13 to the Convention. The Standards Recommended Practices were based on Recommendations of the Accident Investigation Division at its first Session in February 1946 which were further developed at the Second Session of the Division in February 1947. The 2nd Edition (1966), 3rd Edition, (1973), 4th Edition (1976), 5th Edition (1979), 6th Edition (1981), 7th Edition (1988), 8th Edition (1992) of the Annex 13 (Aircraft Accident and Incident Investigation) of the Chicago Convention was amended eight times by the ICAO Council since 1966. Annex 13 sets out in detail the international standards and recommended practices to be adopted by contracting states in dealing with a serious accident to an aircraft of a contracting state occurring in the territory of another contracting state, known as the state of occurrence. It provides, principally, that the state in which the aircraft is registered is to be given the opportunity to appoint an accredited representative to be present at the inquiry conducted by the state in which the serious aircraft accident occurs. Article 26 of the Chicago Convention does not indicate what the accredited representative is to do but Annex 13 amplifies his rights and duties. In particular, the accredited representative participates in the inquiry by visiting the scene of the accident, examining the wreckage, questioning witnesses, having full access to all relevant evidence, receiving copies of all pertinent documents and making submissions in respect of the various elements of the inquiry. The main shortcomings of the present system for aircraft accident investigation are that some contracting sates are not applying Annex 13 within its express terms, although they are contracting states. Further, and much more important in practice, there are many countries which apply the letter of Annex 13 in such a way as to sterilise its spirit. This appears to be due to a number of causes often found in combination. Firstly, the requirements of the local law and of the local procedures are interpreted and applied so as preclude a more efficient investigation under Annex 13 in favour of a legalistic and sterile interpretation of its terms. Sometimes this results from a distrust of the motives of persons and bodies wishing to participate or from commercial or related to matters of liability and bodies. These may be political, commercial or related to matters of liability and insurance. Secondly, there is said to be a conscious desire to conduct the investigation in some contracting states in such a way as to absolve from any possibility of blame the authorities or nationals, whether manufacturers, operators or air traffic controllers, of the country in which the inquiry is held. The EEC has also had an input into accidents and investigations. In particular, a directive was issued in December 1980 encouraging the uniformity of standards within the EEC by means of joint co-operation of accident investigation. The sharing of and assisting with technical facilities and information was considered an important means of achieving these goals. It has since been proposed that a European accident investigation committee should be set up by the EEC (Council Directive 80/1266 of 1 December 1980). After I would like to introduce the summary of the legislation examples and system for aircraft accidents investigation of the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Germany, The Netherlands, Sweden, Swiss, New Zealand and Japan, and I am going to mention the present system, regulations and aviation act for the aircraft accident investigation in Korea. Furthermore I would like to point out the shortcomings of the present system and regulations and aviation act for the aircraft accident investigation and then I will suggest my personal opinion on the new and dramatic innovation on the system for aircraft accident investigation in Korea. I propose that it is necessary and desirable for us to make a new legislation or to revise the existing aviation act in order to establish the standing and independent Committee of Aircraft Accident Investigation under the Korean Government.