• 한국컴퓨터정보학회논문지
• /
• 제23권11호
• /
• pp.167-173
• /
• 2018

The Korean government announced its goal of commercializing autonomous vehicle by year 2020. With such changes, it is expecting to decrease car accident mortality by half. To commercialize autonomous car, not only worries on safety of autonomous vehicle has to be solved but at the same time, institutional system has to be clear to distinguish legal responsibilities in case of accident. This paper will present the legal improvement direction of the introduction of autonomous vehicles as follows. First, it is necessary to re-establish concept of 'driver' institutionally. Second, it is appropriate to focus on Level 3 autonomous vehicle which is about to be commercialized in year 2020 and organize legal responsibility. Third, we should have a clear understanding on how level 3 autonomous vehicle will be commercialized in the future. Fourth, it is necessary to revise The Traffic Law, Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accident, and Automobile Accident Compensation Security Law in line with level 3 autonomous vehicle. Fifth, it is necessary to review present car insurance system. Sixth, present Product Liability Law is limited to movable products (Article 2), however, it is necessary to include intangible product which is software. Seventh, we should review on making special law related to autonomous car including civil, criminal, administrative, and insurance perspectives.

• 대한안전경영과학회:학술대회논문집
• /
• 대한안전경영과학회 2001년도 춘계학술대회
• /
• pp.241-251
• /
• 2001

Subsequently in Korea product liability has been introduced. The position of consumers for defective products have been disadvantageous. Defective products should be broght under the law. Then, while consumers would be largely protected, a producer would take the heavy responsibility by law, Therefore, a producer would not be able to take countermeasures for product liability. Object of this paper to investigate and analyze the actual state of management for product liability in advanced countries, and to join it with our quality management system.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제37권
• /
• pp.35-59
• /
• 2008

In most products liability cases, the only or principal defendant is the manufacturer that designed, manufactured, and marketed the product which injured the plaintiff. In this regards, most national laws and international convention stipulates the definition of the producer. But there is no rule about the definition of the producer in China. Yet parties in the product distribution chain other than ordinary manufacturers, notably retail seller, often profit from moving products from factories to consumers and so may bear some responsibility when product hazards injure consumers. The purpose of this paper is to clarify the definition of the "producer", "seller" who is responsible for products liability claims in China. This paper will contributes to help the Korean exporters, manufacturers to build up the proper countermeasures regarding products liability in China.

• 환경정책연구
• /
• 제6권4호
• /
• pp.1-28
• /
• 2007

한 국가의 환경오염이 정치적 경계선에 불과한 국경에 한정되지 않고 인접국 또는 지구의 환경에 직 간접적인 영향을 미치기 때문에, 역으로 지구환경보호에 관한 국제적 논의결과는 곧바로 국내 환경법과 환경정책에 영향을 미치게 된다. 국제환경법은 '차별적 공동책임'이라는 원칙하에 선진국과 개발도상국 간의 차별적인 의무체계를 형성하고 있다. 차별적 공동책임은 모든 국가에게 공동의 환경보호책임을 확인하면서도 지구환경문제에 대한 선진국과 개발도상국 간의 역사적 책임의 차이와 환경문제를 다룰 수 있는 경제적 기술적 능력의 차이를 인정하여 국제의무를 차별화한다는 것이다. 그 예로써 선진국의 개발도상국에 대한 환경기술이전과 재정 지원 등이 논의되어 왔다. 문제는 우리나라의 지위이다. 선진국과 개발도상국의 지위에 따른 국제환경의무의 차이만큼이나 우리나라의 국제적 환경정책 또한 달라질 것이기 때문이다. 그 어느 국제법도 선진국과 개발도상국의 구분 기준을 명확히 확립하지 못하였다. WTO는 개발도상국 지위결정을 자기선택에 맡기고 있으며, 국제환경법에서는 협상능력에 따라 그 지위가 좌우되곤 한다. 결국 일반국제법 차원에서 우리나라의 지위가 고정될 수 없으며 정부는 선진국 또는 개발도상국의 지위를 전략적 차원에서 선택할 수 있다. 우리나라가 스스로 개발도상국임을 주장하여 국제의무의 부담을 줄이는 것도 좋은 선택일 수 있겠지만, 각종 경제지표 및 환경오염지표에서 10위권을 유지하고 있는 우리나라의 규모에 비추어볼 때 우리나라의 현실은 선진국에 가깝다고 보여진다. 친환경기술 및 상품의 개발이라는 적극적 정책이 개도국 주장이라는 방어적 정책보다 우선이다.

• 보건행정학회지
• /
• 제30권4호
• /
• pp.444-450
• /
• 2020

Background: In this study, we compared the incidents of humidifier disinfectants and incidents of mild hepatitis in Japan to highlight the differences in government response in the health care field in terms of "chain of responsibility". Methods: We examined whether the three mechanisms of action and the chain of responsibility hypothesis were applied to compare the cases of Korea and Japan. The incident of Japan occurred in 1987 in Misawa city, Aomori prefecture. In the 1990s, the safety of blood products increased dramatically. However, relief for infected victims was neglected. Green Cross did not notify the parties. In Korea, in the spring of 2011, a number of lung disease patients were accidentally admitted to a hospital in Seoul, and a female patient with respiratory failure symptoms expired. The Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention conducted animal tests and the Ministry of Health and Welfare issued an order for forced collection of humidifier disinfectants. Results: In the case of Japan, the Ministry of Health and Welfare had to take responsibility for follow-up measures such as the investigation of the cause, so it was tied to a "chain of responsibility". However, in the case of Korea, the Ministry of Health and Welfare was free from the chain. Conclusion: Through the comparison between the cases of Japan and Korea, we confirmed that whether or not a government organization chooses to conceal responsibility depends on its past behavior, which is whether it is free from the chain of responsibility or not. Therefore, it was reaffirmed that an organization (ministry or department) free from the chain of responsibility must exist within the government.

• 의료법학
• /
• 제10권1호
• /
• pp.213-260
• /
• 2009

While the medical supplies have positive functions such as extending lifespan, recovering health, and preventing diseases, they also cause unexpected tragic consequences due to their side effects, and the magnitude of such damage inevitably increases due to the mechanism of mass production, mass distribution, and mass consumption of those medical supplies. Therefore, needless to say, the optimal way to prevent or reduce such damage is rather through medical supply manufacturers' producing non-defective products, or through the government's controlling production and sales of medical supplies with more aggressive exercise of regulatory authority on medical supply manufacturers, than through a remedy by a legal relief after using medical supplies. In this case, although the victim died due to the defect of the cold medicine, 'CONTAC 600', the drug company's responsibility to cover damages was not recognized because a defect could not be found in the then-manufacturing process. Thus, while pharmaceutical companies are gaining economic profits by producing and selling a medical supplies, if they do not take any remedy measures for the victims of their products' side effects, the victims have to use medical supplies under their own responsibility of taking a risk, and they have to accept the full damage of the potential consequence. Therefore, to remove such absurdity and contradiction, and to practically remedy the victim of medical supplies' side effects, the pharmaceutical side effects remedy project pending in the the Drugs, Cosmetics and Medical Instruments Lawneeds to be actively implemented.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제26권
• /
• pp.35-86
• /
• 2005

International distributorship contract(IDC), as well as international agency contract is a type of contract which is most frequently used in international trade. But one of the main difficulties faced by parties of IDC is the lack of uniform rules for this type of contract. This means that both parties should be careful about each clause of the contract when they draw up it. The ICC prepared model form which incorporates the prevailing practice in international trade, and which aims at protecting and balancing the legitimate interests of both parties. This author examined the several important clauses in this model contract. The purpose of this examination is to help the contracting parties for better understanding and applying them in their actual contracting practice, which based on this model contract. When the supplier and the distributor execute their contract or use ICC Model Contract, they should be careful about the following points: First, some terminologies(like, "territory", "product", "competing products" and "exclusivity") should be clearly defined in their contract. Second, regarding the supplier's functions including "supplying products" and the distributor's responsibility including "undertaking not to compete", and "attaining guaranteed minimum targets", both parties should make clear about each party's right and obligation as well as one party's remedies available when other party makes breach of its obligation. Third, both parties should examine the relationship between the "exclusivity" or "sole" and competition law which is regarded as a mandatory rule in the territory. Forth, when both parties lay down "termination clause" in the contract, they should make clear about the indemnity in case of termination. Fifth, as there is not uniform law for the distributorship contract, it is inevitable to choose any local law as an applicable law in case of litigation. So both parties should keep in mind to insert arbitration clause to avoid the application of the local law. Besides, both parties should consider their individual and specific circumstances and try to reflect them in their contract by Annex I to XI attached to the end of model contract.

• 품질경영학회지
• /
• 제27권3호
• /
• pp.189-201
• /
• 1999

On November, 1998, Ministry of Finance and Economy in Korea announced officially to enforce the PL(Product Liability) Law within the country at the first half of the year 2000. Therefore, a companys responsibility for customers who are damaged by a defect in the products safety will be gradually strict and impose burden on management. This paper presents suggestions about PL prevention of domestic enterprise through the research of PL prevention strategies and prevention systems in the USA and Japanese leading enterprises.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제31권4호
• /
• pp.119-136
• /
• 2021

Due to the restriction of movement caused by the Corona epidemic and the expansion of the "big face" through human distance, the "unmanned system" based on artificial intelligence and the Internet of Things has been widely used in modern life. "Self-driving," one of the transportation systems based on artificial technology, has taken the initiative in the transportation system as the spread of Corona has begun. Self-driving technology eliminates unnecessary contact and saves time and manpower, which can significantly impact current and future transportation. Accidents may occur, however, due to the performance of self-driving technology during transportation albeit the U.S. allows ordinary people to drive automatically through experimental operations, and the product liability law will resolve the dispute. Self-driving has become popular in the U.S. after the experimental stage, and in the event of a self-driving accident, product liability should be applied to protect drivers from complicated self-driving disputes. The purpose of this paper is to investigate whether disputes caused by defects in ordinary cars can be resolved through arbitration through U.S. precedents and to investigate whether disputes caused by defects in autonomous cars can be arbitrated.

• 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.