• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.28 no.1
• /
• pp.55-71
• /
• 2013

By aircraft from Aviation regulations and institutional regulatory framework for ensuring the safety is secured. State-of-the-art aircraft, according to the type of development and diversification, modernization and new types of aircraft are operated. In particular, light aircraft and ultralight flying device such as the gyro-plane and unmanned flying devices is introduced a new device, and the device operates at these flight in accordance with the standards of the Aviation Act regulations may not occur often. Variety of light aircraft and ultra-light aircraft assembly, can be adapted for a person engaged in the business of aviation safety management and to perform the legal basis was established. Depending on the classification of newly introduced aircraft, the biggest change is the introduction of the concept of the LSA. In Korea, the various light aircraft are operating, but these aircraft range not clearly Aviation Regulations had difficulty in ensuring safety. This study examined the differences between international rules and regulations of Korea about the classification of aircraft. The LSA are included in aircraft categories internationally, but LSA will not be included in the aircraft categories, which is one of a range of powered flight device exists in Korea Aviation Act. Limit for maximum continuous power speed in a LSA, it is a limit on the right of the people who want using the high-performance plane. Also it is an international trend does not fit in, and is consistent with the intent of LSA manufacturer. Delete the content from a range of future aviation law revisions and light aircraft-related provisions to limit the maximum continuous power speed is considered to be suitable for the purpose of introducing the light aircraft industry. The laws and regulations set up in order to ensure the safety of ultralight aircraft categories existing in ultralight aircraft that exceeds the purpose of the introduction of LSA technology development at home and abroad, and is intended to reflect. These standards complement of aircraft operation is not appropriate for the situation unless the country is difficult to ensure the safety of operations. Also developed in other countries, the introduction of aircraft operating in the country, so many problems occur early revision is required.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.30 no.2
• /
• pp.83-153
• /
• 2015

As our economy grows and the number of aircraft increase, the number of civil execution against aircraft cases are likely to increase as well in the future. The purpose of this article is to present the legal theory on the civil execution against aircrafts by drawing on the legal theory on the civil execution against vessels which constitute a relatively large number of cases thus observed. The provisions of the civil execution against immovables or vessel, shall basically apply mutatis mutandis to the civil execution against aircraft or light aircraft. The civil execution against ultra-light flying devices or a foreign aircraft shall be executed in conformity with the civil execution against movables. There are a compulsory auction, an auction to execute a security right to aircraft, and an auction under the right of retention, etc. in the civil execution against an aircraft. A compulsory execution against an aircraft means an execution carried out by a creditor against a debtor's aircraft to obtain satisfaction of claims for the purpose of payment of money. The court of execution of a compulsory execution against an aircraft shall be the district court having jurisdiction over the airport of stoppage or storage of such aircraft at the time of seizure. The forums of execution of a compulsory execution against an aircraft shall be exclusive forums. When a court has rendered an order on commencing an auction, it shall order an execution officer to receive a certificate of the aircraft's registration and other documents as required for its operation, and to submit them to the court. A court may revoke the procedures for a compulsory auction when an execution officer fails to obtain a transfer of the aircraft's registration certificate, etc. and the location of the aircraft is not evident, not later than an elapse of 2 months from the date on which an order on commencing an auction has been rendered. In the case where it is deemed that there exists a business-related need or other based on proper reasoning, the court may permit the aircraft's operation, upon the motion submitted by the debtor. In this case, there shall be a consent from the creditor, the highest bidder, the next highest bidder and successful bidder. A court may, upon a motion submitted by the creditor, make the dispositions required for observing and preserving the aircraft. When a debtor has submitted the documents under subparagraph 2 or 4 of the Article 49 of the Civil Execution Act, and furnished the guarantee equivalent to the claims of the execution creditors and the creditors demanding a distribution and to the costs for execution, before a declaration of bid, the court shall, upon request, revoke other procedures than those for distribution. The provisions of a obligatory auction against vessel or aircraft and an auction to execute a security right to real estate or vessel, shall apply mutatis mutandis to an auction to execute the security right to aircraft. In an auction to execute the security right to aircraft case, an executive title is not necessary. An executory exemplification is not necessary in an application for an auction to execute the security right to aircraft. A court should examine the existence of security right and claim secured. No order on commencing an auction procedure shall be issued with non-existence or invalidity of the security right and absence or extinguishment of the claim secured. Furthermore, these prohibitions are the reason of a decision on non-permit for sale, the court overlooked these prohibitions, and the decision on a permit for sale became final and conclusive, the successful bidder who paid the price and registered of ownership could not acquire ownership of the aircraft sold. A court may render a ruling to put plural aircrafts up for a blanket auction, only when they are in restraint and related matter (Supreme Court Order 2001Ma3688 dated on August 22, 2001). A righter of retention on aircraft may file a request for an auction against the aircraft. The provisions of an auction to execute a security right to aircraft shall apply mutatis mutandis to the formal auction. Airport facility fee and an aircraft are not in restraint and related matter, so an airport management corporation does not hold the right of retention on the aircraft (Supreme Court Decision 2011Da29291 decided on April 10, 2014). In an auction in accordance with the right of retention, all encumbrances (e.g., mortgages) on the sold aircraft shall be extinguished by a sale under the legal conditions for sale. Not only creditors who have claims for preferential payment but also general creditors could demand for distribution. The precedence of the claim of the right of retention on aircraft and that of general creditor's claims are equal.