골프사고에 대한 골프장운영자의 불법행위책임

이강웅 한국스포츠엔터테인먼트법학회 2014 스포츠와 법 Vol.17 No.2

As golf population increases, various safety accidents occur in frequent succession and such accidents are caused by batting, cart accidents, defect of golf course facilities etc. As for golf accidents, legal liability becomes a problem and liability differs depending on the types of accident. Many different subjects are involved in safety accidents occurring within a golf course. Among the subjects are players and companions, caddy who assists game progress, golf course operator who supervises caddy and installs·manages and operates golf course facilities and cart manufacturer who is liable for cart accidents. Among the foregoing, golf course operator is the main agent who assumes the broadest responsibility for golf accidents. In the event that a safety accidents occurs in a golf course, legal composition that victim becomes entitled to make golf course operator take both contractual liability and tort liability becomes possible. Meanwhile, there are the occasions in which golf course operator assumes tort liability for affected players, and user liability in the Article 756 and liability for structures in the Article 758 of the Civil Law may become the legal basis. In the event that an accident occurred by the negligence of a caddy who is responsible for safe operation of golf game, user liability in the Article 756 of the Civil Law may become a problem. Also, a golf course is a structure. In accordance with Clause 1 of the Article 758 of the Civil Law, an occupant·owner of a structure shall take the responsibility for damages occurred by the defect in the event there is a defect with installation·preservation of a structure. Thus, as a person who installs a structure on the land and preserves·manages the structure, golf course operator is responsible for damages in the event the structure caused damage to others due to a defect. In the event of occurrence of safety accidents in a golf course, a victim may call a golf course operator to account contractual liability based on the safe care obligations for golf course users which is a golf course operator’s incident duty on the basis of contract for facility use he or she entered into with a golf course operator. In reality, however, details of a contract between user and golf course operator is not considered clear and awareness of the contractual relationship is low, victims usually make tort liability against a golf course operator of means. As for accidents that the negligence of a caddy who is an assistant for a game, making a golf course operator take user liability is not considered so difficult. In the event of holding a golf course operator accountable for liability for structures with respect to the accidents that occurred related to safety insufficiency of golf course facilities, however, to what extent golf course operator’s liability for protection management shall be acknowledged may become a difficult problem. 골프인구가 증가함에 따라 골프장에서는 다양한 형태의 안전사고가 빈번하게 일어나고 있으며, 이와 같은 사고는 일반적으로 타구사고, 카트사고, 골프장시설물 하자로 인한 사고 등의 모습으로 나타나고 있다. 골프사고에는 법적책임이 문제되고, 사고유형에 따라 책임이 다르게 나타난다. 골프장내에서 발생하는 안전사고에는 여러 주체들이 관여된다. 플레이어와 동반자들, 경기진행을 보조하는 캐디, 캐디를 감독하며 골프장 시설을 설치·관리하고 운영하는 골프장운영자, 카트사고시 카트의 제조업자 등이다. 이 가운데 골프장운영자는 골프사고에 대하여 가장 폭넓은 책임을 부담하게 되는 주체이다. 골프장 안전사고 발생시 피해자는 골프장운영자와의 시설물이용계약을 근거로 골프장운영자의 부수적 의무인 골프장이용자에 대한 안전배려의무를 근거로 하여 계약책임을 물을 수도 있다. 그러나 실제로는 이용자와 골프장운영자 사이의 계약의 내용이 명확하다고 볼 수도 없고, 계약관계에 대한 의식도 낮기 때문에 주로 자력이 있는 골프장운영자를 상대로 불법행위 책임을 묻는 경우가 많다. 그 근거로서는 민법 제756조의 사용자책임과 민법 제758조의 공작물책임을 들 수 있다. 골프경기의 안전한 진행을 책임지는 캐디의 과실을 원인으로 사고가 발생한 경우에는 민법 제756조의 사용자책임이 문제될 수 있다. 또한 골프장은 공작물이다. 민법 제758조 제1항 규정에 의하면 공작물의 설치·보존에 하자가 있는 경우, 공작물의 점유자·소유자는 그 하자로부터 발생한 손해에 대하여 책임을 부담한다. 골프장운영자의 피용자라고 볼 수 있는 경기보조원인 캐디의 과실이 개재된 사고에서는 우리 판례는 제756조 제1항 단서에 규정되어 있는 사용자의 면책을 사실상 거의 인정하지 않으므로 골프장운영자에게 사용자책임을 묻는 것은 어려운 점이 없어 보인다. 또 골프장내에서 공작물의 설치·보존상의 하자로 인하여 플레이어가 경기 도중 다친 경우에는 골프장운영자가 공작물의 위험성에 비례하여 사회통념상 요구되는 정도의 공작물의 설치·보존상의 방호설비의무를 다했는지 또는 사고방지를 위한 안전배려의무를 다했는지의 여부를 기준으로 판단하고 플레이어 역시 사고의 방지를 위해 주의의무를 다하였는지에 따라 책임의 정도를 변별하여야 할 것이다.

항공기 운항자의 지상 제3자의 손해에 대한 책임 - 로마협약 개정안 및 상법 항공운송편 제정안을 중심으로

이강빈 국제거래법학회 2008 國際去來法硏究 Vol.17 No.2

It is essential that the liability of the operator for damage to third parties on the surface caused by aircraft be regulated at international level. However, the Rome Convention on Damage Caused by Foreign Aircraft to Third Parties on the Surface of 1952 and the Montreal Protocol of 1978 did not have significant worldwide repercussions since few countries have ratified them. The cumulative result of the work by the ICAO Secretariat and the Council Special Group on the Modernization of the Rome Convention of 1952 are two draft Conventions, namely: “Draft Convention on Compensation for Damage Caused by Aircraft to Third Parties, Resulting from Acts of Unlawful Interference Involving Aircraft”, and “Draft Convention on Compensation for Damage Caused by Aircraft to Third Parties”. The core provisions of the former draft Convention are as follows: The liability of the operator is strict, that is, without the necessity of proof of fault. It would be liable for damage sustained by third parties on condition only that the damage was caused by an aircraft in flight. However, such liability is caped, based on the weight of the aircraft. It is envisaged to create an independent organization called the Supplementary Compensation Mechanism, with the principle purpose to pay compensation to persons suffering damage in the territory of a State Party, and to provide financial support. Compensation shall be paid by the SCM to the extent that the total amount of damages exceeds the Article 4 limits. The main issues on the former draft Convention are relating to breaking away from Montreal Convention 1999, no limits on individual claims but a global limitation on air carrier liability, insurance coverage, cap of operators’ strict liability, and Supplementary Compensation Mechanism. The core provisions of the latter draft Convention are as follows: the liability, that is, without the necessity of proof of fault. Such liability is caped, based on the weight of the aircraft. Beyond that, the operator is liable for all damages unless is proves that such damage were not due to its negligence or that the damages were solely due to the negligence of another person. The provisions relating to the SCM and compensation thereunder do not operate under this Convention, as the operator is potentially for the full amount of damages caused. The main issues on the latter draft Convention are relating to liability limit of operator, and definition of general risks. Korea has not ratified the Rome Convention and has not the national legislation on the liability of the operator for damage to third parties on the surface caused by aircraft. Now the Ministry of Justice is proceeding to make such legislation, and the draft revision of the Part VI the Carriage by Air of the Commercial Code has the provisions on the liability of the aircraft operator for damage to third parties on the surface. The main issues on the draft revision of the Commercial Code are relating to the liability for the injury of third party on the surface, the liability limit of the aircraft operator in respect of personal injury, the liability of the unlawful user of aircraft, and the advance payment.

항만하역사업자의 책임

정영석 ( Jeong Yeong Seog ) 한국상사판례학회 2003 상사판례연구 Vol.15 No.-

The international unification of legal principle of liability for all distribution is a matter of importance to the revitalization of general cargo distribution and also the legal system on the liability of terminal operators is an important matter on the whole legal system of liability for cargo distribution. But there is no legal system on the liability of terminal operators in korea. Practically it depends on the principle of civil law and normal business practice. If the contract of stevedoring is concluded, it is very important who is the contractor. Because the contents of liability vary greatly with the contractors. As a general rule, the shippers have three ways to claim damages resulting from loss of or damage to the goods. First, he can claim a compensation for damage from the carrier under the contract. In this case, it can be settled by the interpretation of general principle of civil law and commercial law. Second, he can claim damages on tort against the carrier. This case is almost the same as the upper cases. Third, he can claim damages on tort against the terminal operators. In this case, if the Himalaya clause, any person whomsoever carriage is peformed or undertaken(including all sub-contractors of carrier) can be invoked the benefit of every right, defence and limitation of the carrier, is expressly existed in the contract, the operator will enjoy the benefit of every right as a carrier. But the problem is that the range of compensation for shipper is changed by the clause of a special contract. In spite of the same payment of shipper, why it is that the range of damage compensation for shipper is different? The purpose of this paper is to solve the upper problem. Moreover, the contract of terminal operators, according to the form of a contract, is divided into two forms. First, In the case of the charter-party, the stevedoring contract is concluded between the operator and a shipper. If any damages for goods occurs, the shipper will claim against the operator and have a compensation for damages. Second, In the case of the liner-contract, the shipper is used to enter into a contract with a carrier. Therefore the shipper claims against the carrier for cargo damages. After compensation for damages, the carrier will have the right of compensation for the operator. According as the korean commercial law, the carrier can enjoy the right of immunities and limits of liability for cargo damages of the shipper but the operator must cover all the expanses for the carrier`s damages. Also, if the shipper claims in tort against the operator directly, the operator must have a liability in accordance with the contents of the contract. In the same manner way as upper problem, why must the contents of a claim of damage for the same contract become different with the contractor? This contradiction must not be solved by the present legal system. For that reason, it is need to legislate for the law on the liability and legal position of the operator. So this paper suggests the below principles of legislation. First, it needs to be In harmony with the international unification and the present law on the liability of a carrier. Second, the benefit of immunity and limit of liability of carrier must expand into the liability in tort of the sub-executor of terminal operators.

항공기운항자의 지상 제3자 손해배상책임에 관한 상법 항공운송편 규정의 문제점 및 개선방안

김지훈 ( Ji Hoon Kim ) 한국항공우주정책.법학회(구 한국항공우주법학회) 2014 한국항공우주정책·법학회지 Vol.29 No.2

오랜 논의와 노력 끝에 우리나라 상법 제6편 항공운송편이 신설되어 2011년11월부터 시행되었다. 상법 항공운송편은 국내항공운송으로 인해 발생한 항공운송인의 손해배상책임 문제와 항공기 운항으로 인해 발생한 지상 제3자에 대한 항공기운항자의 손해배상책임 문제 등을 규율하기 위해 제정되었다. 상법항공운송편은 관련 국제 조약들과 항공선진국들의 국내입법을 충분히 비교 검토하여 우리 법으로 수용하였기 때문에 국제 기준에 부합한다는 장점도 있지만, 항공기운항자의 지상 제3자에 대한 손해배상책임 규정을 중심으로 다음과같이 개선해야 할 내용들도 포함하고 있다. 첫째, 상법 항공운송편상 항공기운항자의 지상 제3자 손해에 대한 배상책임 한도액은 피해자에 대한 적절한 배상을 하기에는 너무 낮은 수준으로 규정되어있어 상향될 필요성이 있다. 따라서 독일과 같이 2009년 체결된 일반위험협약 및 불법방해배상협약의 관련 내용을 수용하여 항공기의 중량에 따른 분류기준을 10단계로 세분화하고 총 책임한도액을 최대 7억 SDR까지 상향시키면서, 인적 손해에 대한 배상책임한도액은 기존의 법무부 검토안처럼 최근의 물가상승률을 반영하여 현 규정의 5배 수준인 1인당 62만5천SDR까지 상향 조정하는 방안을 생각해 볼 수 있다. 이 방안이 한 사고당 항공사에게 일반적으로 보험으로서 보장되는 단일배상책임한도액이나 다양화 된 항공기 제원을 반영하면서도 지상 제3자에게 현실에 맞는 적절한 손해배상을 할 수 있다는 점에서 가장 바람직하다고 본다. 둘째, 항공기운항자는 현 상법 항공운송편상 항공기 납치.공격이나 9.11테러와 같은 항공기를 이용한 공격행위 등과 같은 항공기테러에 의한 지상 제3자의 손해에 대하여도 무과실책임을 부담한다. 이에 관하여는 항공기운항자에게 지나치게 가혹하고 불합리한 입법이라는 견해가 있지만, 항공기운항자에게도 일정 부분 테러를 방지할 법적 의무가 있고 피해를 입은 제3자 구제 측면에서 그것이 항공기운항자에게 지나치게 가혹하거나 불합리하다고 생각되지는 않는다. 그러나 9.11테러와 같이 조직화 된 테러단체에 의해 항공기가 테러에 이용되어 지상 제3자 피해가 발생한 경우에도 항공기운항자가 피해자들에게 무과실책임을 지도록 하는 것은 불합리하며, 이러한 경우에는 항공기운항자의 책임이 면제되는 방향으로 상법 항공운송편 규정은 개정되어야 할 것이다. 셋째, 항공기사고와 같은 항공기 운항으로 인한 피해의 엄청난 규모를 고려해 볼 때, 다수의 피해자들이 경제적 어려움에 직면할 수 있으므로 항공여객의 인적 손해에 대한 항공운송인의 배상책임 발생 시 적용되는 선급금 지급 규정을 항공기운항자의 책임 발생 사례에도 준용할 필요가 있다고 본다. 넷째, 현행 상법 항공운송편상 항공기운항자의 손해배상책임 규정은 항공기운항으로 인한 피해가 지상 또는 수면 및 수중에서 발생된 경우에만 적용되고 공중에서 발생한 피해에는 적용되지 않는다. 하지만 다른 항공기의 운항으로 인한 공중에서 발생된 항공기 등의 손해가 지상이나 수면 및 수중에서 발생한 손해와 차이가 있다고 볼 수 없다. 그러므로 상법 항공운송편상 ‘지상 제3자’라는 용어에서 ‘지상’이란 용어를 삭제하여 다른 항공기 운항으로 인한 공중에서의 항공기 등의 손해에도 상법 항공운송편상 항공기운항자의 지상 제3자 손해배상책임 관련 규정이 적용될 수 있게 하는 것이 바람직하다고 본다. 위에서 제시된 상법 항공운송편상 항공기운항자의 지상 제3자 손해에 대한 배상책임 관련 규정의 개선방안 검토와 동 규정의 보완을 위한 지속적인 관심과 노력을 통하여, 상법 항공운송편이 피해를 입은 지상 등의 제3자에게 현실에 맞는 적절한 배상을 할 수 있게 하면서도 항공기운항자에게 과도한 부담을 지우지 않는 상호 간의 이익 균형상 더욱 바람직한 방향으로 발전되기를 희망한다. The Republic of Korea enacted the Air Transport Act in Commercial Law which was entered into force in November, 2011. The Air Transport Act in Korean Commercial Law was established to regulate domestic carriage by air and damages to the third party which occur within the territorial area caused by aircraft operations. There are some problems to be reformed in the Provisions of Korean Commercial Law for the aircraft operator``s liability of compensation for damages to the third party caused by aircraft operation as follows. First, the aircraft operator``s liability of compensation for damages needs to be improved because it is too low to compensate adequately to the third party damaged owing to the aircraft operation. Therefore, the standard of classifying per aircraft weight is required to be detailed from the current 4-tier into 10-tier and the total limited amount of liability is also in need of being increased to the maximum 7-hundred-million SDR. In addition, the limited amount of liability to the personal damage is necessary to be risen from the present 125,000 SDR to 625,000 SDR according to the recent rate of prices increase. This is the most desirable way to improve the current provisions given the ordinary insurance coverage per one aircraft accident and various specifications of recent aircraft in order to compensate the damaged appropriately. Second, the aircraft operator shall be liable without fault to damages caused by terrorism such as hijacking, attacking an aircraft and utilizing it as means of attack like the 9;11 disaster according to the present Air Transport Act in Korean Commercial Law. Some argue that it is too harsh to aircraft operators and irrational, but given they have also some legal duties of preventing terrorism and in respect of helping the third party damaged, it does not look too harsh or irrational. However, it should be amended into exempting aircraft operator``s liability when the terrorism using of an aircraft by well-organized terrorists group happens like 9;11 disaster in view of balancing the interest between the aircraft operator and the third party damaged. Third, considering the large scale of the damage caused by the aircraft operation usually aircraft accident, it is likely that many people damaged can be faced with a financial crisis, and the provision of advance payment for air carrier``s liability of compensation also needs to be applied to the case of aircraft operator``s liability. Fourth, the aircraft operator now shall be liable to the damages which occur in land or water except air according to the current Air Transport Act of Korean Commercial Law. However, because the damages related to the aircraft operation in air caused by another aircraft operation are not different from those in land or water. Therefore, the term of ``on the surface`` should be eliminated in the term of ``third parties on the surface`` in order to make the damages by the aircraft operation in air caused by another aircraft operation compensable by Air Transport Act of Korean Commercial Law. It is desired that the Air Transport Act in Commercial Law including the clauses related to the aircraft operator…s liability of compensation for damages to the third party be developed continually through the resolutions about its problems mentioned above for compensating the third party damaged appropriately and balancing the interest between the damaged and the aircraft operator.

남극 환경보호의정서의 책임부속서에 관한 연구

김기순 ( Ki Sun Kim ) 안암법학회 2008 안암 법학 Vol.0 No.27

In 1991, the international community adopted the Protocol on Environ-mental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty, instead of the Convention on the Regulation of Antarctic Mineral Resource Activities(CRAMRA). This Protocol is a comprehensive and broad environmental protocol, and complements the existing Antarctic Treaty System (ATS) which lacks the provision for the protection of Antarctic environment. It designates the Antarctic as "a natural reserve, devoted to science and peace", and regulates all human activities in Antarctica in accordance with a single standard in order to protect the Antarctic environment and the ecosystems that rely on it. In 2005, "the Annex VI on the liability arising from environmental emergencies"(the Liability Annex) was adopted to embody the liability scheme in accordance with the Article 16 of the Environmental Protection Protocol. This paper aims to examine and analyse the liability regime related to environmental emergencies in Antarctica, and to indicate the points at issue and their remedy. Annex VI is applied to the environmental emergencies which relate to scientific research programmes, tourism and all other governmental and nongovernmental activities in the Antarctic Treaty area, including relevant logistic support activities. Annex VI does not include the liability for damage, and does not cover state responsibility or civil liability. Instead, it gives priority to preventative measures, contingency plans, and response action to prevent environmental emergencies and to reduce their effect. The most important fact here is the question of who will be held liable for the cost of clean-up activities after environmental emergency. Annex VI imposes the liability to pay the clean-up costs on the operator, and if the operator fails to take prompt and effective action, he has to pay the Party who takes the actual response action for the clean-up costs. The liability of the operators is strict. The liability of the operator, however, is financially restricted, and he is required to maintain adequate insurance or other financial security to cover his liability. Annex VI has a significant meaning in that it minimizes the impact of environmental emergencies to Antarctic environment and its ecosystems by preventing the environmental emergencies and establishing response action. This Annex, however, is only the first step to implement Article 16 of the Environmental Protocol, and needs much improvement. Firstly, Article 6(5) allows sovereign immunity under international law for warships, naval auxiliaries, or other ships or aircraft owned or operated by States on government non-commercial service. Although this Article stipulates that the State is responsible for taking response action to environmental emergencies that it caused, sovereignty immunity frees such ships or aircraft from the regulation of this Annex and Article. In light of the fact that most of ships or aircraft in Antarctica are owned or operated by States, this Article reduces the scope of application and weakens the effectiveness of this Annex. This Article should therefore be revised towards not allowing sovereign immunity. Secondly, Annex VI rules out the liability for the reparation or restoration of the environmental damage caused by environmental emergencies. The reason behind this is that in reality it is difficult to include all liability caused by environmental emergencies in Antarctica in this Annex. As a result, a half liability regime has been made that does not impose the liability of compensation for the fatal damages of the Antarctic environment done by the activities of a third party, but imposes the liability for the response action and its costs to environmental emergencies. This problem has to be resolved by complementing the Annex in additional steps. Thirdly, there is no enforcement mechanism to operate the liability regime. This applies to the ATS in general. More importantly in the liability regime, the lack of an e

자율주행자동차 운행에 대비한 책임법제와 책임보험제도의 정비필요성: 소프트웨어의 흠결, 설계상 흠결 문제를 중심으로

이중기 ( Choong Kee Lee ),황창근 ( Chang Geun Hwang ) 한국금융법학회 2016 金融法硏究 Vol.13 No.1

Autonomous vehicles that drive themselves are becoming a reality and have the potential to drastically change many aspects of transportation, particularly safety. But, when autonomous cars eventually crash, it is unclear whether the current liability and insurance regimes for automobile accidents are well-suited to tackle the issues "Who is liable?", and "Who is to pay insurance bill?". The current Korean liability system for automobile accidents is heavily based upon the concept of "a car operator" who controls and benefits from the operation of his car, and auto liability insurance regime has well developed to cover this operator liability, because 90% of car accidents are due to the negligence of such operators. On the other hand, current product liability regime pays the least attention to cars, and insurance for auto makers to cover their product liability is not available yet, because only 1% of car accidents is due to defects in cars, However, once autonomous vehicles come into use, it is expected that there will be a shift in liability from operators to makers. Firstly, the potential liability for car operators will dramatically decrease, because autonomous driving technology is very likely to reduce the number of injuries and fatalities caused by automobile accidents, On the other hand, the probable liability for car manufacturers would sharply increase because in autonomous vehicles most accidents would be due to defects in technology or equipments applied in autonomous cars. But, after close examination of the current liability and insurance regimes for auto accidents, we can find that it is still unclear whether there comes a shift in liability. Firstly, unless relevant provisions are to be amended, strict liability regime for a car operator may still subject owners of autonomous vehicles to the strict liability. Secondly, product liability regime, in particular, the regime for manufacturing and design defects is ill-suited to address the unique issues raised by autonomous vehicles. Typical example is the low possibility of product liability for a defect in software that will define the sequence of the operation in a autonomous vehicle. It is argued here that the legal system must adopt new policies that will advance the interests of car makers and potential plaintiffs alike. In particular, in order to allocate reasonable and fair liability upon manufacturers of autonomous vehicles, the manufacturers should be able to accurately gauge their liability costs. To accomplish such a shift and fair allocation in liability, both regimes for auto liability and auto insurance should be amended at the same time.

자율비행항공기와 관련한 민사법적 책임

오지용 충북대학교 법학연구소 2022 과학기술과 법 Vol.13 No.1

The existing aircraft operator's liability, in which a person is involved in the operation of an aircraft, can be viewed as an intermediate liability or limited no-fault liability where the burden of proof is switched. However, the legal nature of the operator's liability for autonomous flying aircraft operated by the autonomous flight system should be considered differently from the existing one. In other words, the aircraft owner of an autonomous flying aircraft bears no-fault liability that cannot claim immunity even if the owner does not directly intervene in the operation of the aircraft. Therefore, the ‘force majeure’ exemption provision of Article 931, No. 4 of the Commercial Act, which is the immunity provision for aircraft operators, should be excluded from application in the case of autonomous flying aircraft. If an aircraft accident occurs due to the negligence of the victim, the aircraft owner cannot be held liable. Consequently, it is necessary to enact a special law for autonomous flying aircraft on no-fault liability that stipulates the above limiting factors as a condition subsequent. Until then, for the gap in regulation, it is reasonable to apply mutatis mutandis rules related to operation under the Compulsory Motor Vehicle Liability Security Act applicable to autonomous vehicles. This is because civil legal responsibilities related to the operation of autonomous flying aircraft are in line with civil legal responsibilities related to the driving of autonomous vehicles

개정상법에 신설된 항공기 운항자의 지상 제3자의 손해에 대한 책임

김두환(Kim, Doo-Hwan) 충북대학교 법학연구소 2011 法學硏究 Vol.22 No.2

오늘날 항공기사고는 우리나라뿐만 아니라 세계도처에서 때때로 발생되고 있다. 특히 항공기에 대한 갑작스러운 테로 공격 또는 일반 항공사고에 기인된 항공기의 추락 및 물건의 낙하로 인하여 지상에 있는 제3자에게 손해를 입히는 경우가 간혹 발생되고 있다. 이와 같은 항공기사건에 있어 가해자(항공기 운항자)는 피해자(지상 제3자 등)에 대하여 불법행위책임을 부담하게 되는데 이러한 사건들을 해결하기 위하여 1952년의 개정로마조약과 1978년의 몬트리올 의정서 등이 있는데 우리개정상법 제6편 항공운송, 제3장에 규정되어 있는 6개조문은 상기 2개 조약의 일부 내용을 받아들이고 있다. 특히 2001년 9월 11일에 뉴욕에서 발생된 이른바 항공기 납치에 의한 동시다발 테러 사건의 피해는 4대의 항공기에 탑승한 승객 및 승무원 266명이 전원 사망하였고 워싱턴에 있는 미국방성청사에서의 사망 및 실종이 125명, 세계무역센터에서의 사망 및 실종이 약5,000여명에 달하는 막대한 피해가 발생되었다. 9/11참사사건은 지상에 있는 제3자의 인적 및 물적 손해가 거액에 달하였음으로 이에 따라 영국의 로이드보험 등 세계보험업계가 크게 손실을 입게 되어 항공보험을 기피하는 현상이 생겨나 법적인 문제점이 제기되었다. 국제민간항공기구(ICAO)에서는 9/11사태 이후 이와 같은 테로 사건의 법적대응책과 자구책을 마련하기 위하여 약 8년간의 심의 끝에 항공기에 대한 테로 공격(불법방해 행위)과 1952년 개정로마조약의 현대화(일반위험) 등 새로운 2개 조약을 2009년 5월 2일에 성립시켜 공표하였다. 상기 새로운 2개의 조약 중 첫째 조약은 항공기의 불법방해 행위에 기인된 제3자에 대한 손해배상에 관한 조약(Convention on Compensation for Damage to Third Parties, Resulting from Acts of Unlawful Interference Involving Aircraft: 일명 불법방해조약이라고 호칭함: Unlawful Interference Convention)이고 둘째 조약은 항공기에 기인된 제3자에 대한 손해배상에 관한조약 (Convention on Compensation for Damage Caused by Aircraft to Third Parties: 일명 일반위험조약이라고 호칭함: General Risk Convention) 이다. 우리나라에서 앞으로 항공기 납치사건이나 또는 돌연한 항공기추락사건이 언제, 어디에서, 아떻게, 무웟 때문에 발생될런지 사전에 그 누구도 예칙할 수가 없음으로 항공기사건의 공정한 해결과 우리 국민을 보호하기 위하여 상기 2개조약을 비준하는 것이 바람직하다고 본다. 한국은 그동안 항공기사고로 인하여 발생된 인적 또는 물적 손해에 대한 피해자와 가해자간에 분쟁이 발생하였을 때에 이를 해결 (재판)할 수 있는 항공운송인(항공사 등)의 책임에 관계된 법적 근거와 피해자의 보호 및 재판의 기준 등에 관한 한 조문들이 우리의 민ㆍ상법 내지 항공법에 한 조문도 규정되어 있지 않아 많은 문제점들이 제기되고 있었다. 그러나 2011년 4월 29일 상법일부개정법률 안(제6편 항공운송 규정 신설)이 국회를 통과하였고 5월23일 정부가 공포하였음으로 6개월 후인 2011년 11월 24일부터 대한민국 전 영역에 시행하게 되었음으로 이와 같은 문제점들을 해결하게 되었다. 따라서 육상과 해상여객 및 물건운송에 있어서는 운송인의 운송계약을 중심으로 한 손해배상책임에 관한 법률관계가 상법 제2편(상행위)과 제5편(해상)에 각각 상세히 규정하고 있었지만 그러나 이번에 상법개정으로 인하여 제6편에 항공여객 및 물건운송에 있어 항공운송인의 운송계약 및 항공기의 추락 또는 충돌에 기인된 운항자의 불법행위를 중심으로 한 손해배상책임에 관계된 규정 등 40개 조문 신설되어 육ㆍ해ㆍ공의 운송계약책임에 관한 규정들이 일원화가 되어 어느 정도 합리적인 체계를 갖추게 되었다. 더욱이 한국은 2001년 11월 24일부터 상기 개정상법을 시행하게 됨으로 선진 각국의 상법전 가운데 프랑스, 일본 등보다 앞서나가는 세계최신의 첫 입법례가 되었다. 필자는 본 논문에서는 다음과 같이 ① 개정상법 내에 항공운송편을 신설하게 된 입법경위, ② 개정상법가운데에 항공운송편을 신설하게 된 입법배경과 항공운송약관의 문제, ③ 항공기운항자의 지상 제3자에 대한 책임에 관한 각국의 입법례, ④ 2009년의 몬트리올 항공불법방해조약 및 일반위험조약, ⑤ 개정상법 제6편에 신설된 항공기운항자의 지상 제3자에 대한 책임에 관한 주요내용과 앞으로의 전망이라는 순서로 논하였다. Meanwhile as the Aviation Act, Commercial Code and Civil Code in Korea did not regulated at all the legal basis of solution on the disputes between victims and offender for the amount of compensation for damage due to personal or property damage caused by aircraft accidents in Korea, so it has been raised many legal problems such as protection of victims, standard of decision in trial in the event of aircraft accident’s lawsuit case. But the Revised Commercial Code including Part Ⅵ, air transport regulations was passed by the majority resolution of the Korean National Assembly on April 29, 2011 and then the Korean government proclaimed it on May 23 same year. The Revised Commercial Code enforced at territory of the South Korea from November 24, 2011 after six month of the proclaimed date by the Korean Government. Thus, though Korean Commercial Code regulated concretely and respectively the legal relations on the liability of compensation for damage in the contract of transport by land it’s Part Ⅱ (commercial activities) and in the contract of transport by sea its Part Ⅴ (marine commerce), but the Amended Commercial Act regulated newly 40 articles in it’s Part Ⅵ (air transport) relating to the air carrier’s contract liability on the compensation for damage caused by aircraft accidents in the air passengers and goods transport and aircraft operator’s tort liability on compensation for damage caused by falling or collision of aircraft to third parties on the surface and so it was equipped with reasonable and unified system among the transport by land, marine and air. The ICAO adopted two new air law conventions setting out international compensation and liability rules for damage caused by aircraft to third parties at a diplomatic conference hosted by it from April 20 to May 2, 2009. The fight against the effects of terrorism and the improvement of the status of victims in the event of damage to third parties that may result either from acts of unlawful interference involving aircraft or caused by ordinary operation of aircraft, forms the cornerstone of the two conventions. One legal instrument adopted by the Conference is “the Convention on Compensation for Damage to Third Parties, Resulting from Acts of Unlawful Interference Involving Aircraft” (Unlawful Interference Convention). The other instrument, “the Convention on Compensation for Damage Caused by Aircraft to Third Parties” (General Risk Convention), modernizes the current legal framework provided for under the 1952 Rome Convention and related Protocol of 1978. It is desirable for us to ratify quickly the abovementioned two conventions such as Unlawful Interference Convention and General Risk Convention in order to settle reasonably and Justly as well as the protection of the Korean peoples. The Republic of Korea has become the first legislative example ahead of Japan and China etc. in the developed countries. I would like to explain briefly the main chapter of my paper such as ① history of enacting newly Part Ⅵ (air transport) in the Korea’s revised commercial law, ② legal background enacting newly Part Ⅵ (air transport) in the Korea’s revised commercial law and the problems on the conditions of air transport, ③ every countries’ legislative examples on the civil liability of aircraft’s operator, ④ unlawful Interference Convention and general risk convention of 2009, ⑤ main contents and prospects of the revised Commercial Code for the liability of aircraft’s operator etc.

무인항공기 운영자의 법적책임과 보험

김종복 한국항공우주정책⋅법학회 2018 한국항공우주정책·법학회지 Vol.33 No.2

Just as safety is the most important thing in aviation, safety is the most important in the operation of unmanned aircraft (RPA), and safety operation is the most important in the legal responsibility of the operator of the unmanned aircraft. In this thesis, the legal responsibility of the operator of the unmanned aircraft, focusing on the responsibility of the operator of the unmanned aircraft, was discussed in depth with the issue of insurance, which compensates for damages in the event of an accident First of all, the legal responsibility of the operator of the unmanned aircraft was reviewed for the most basic : definition, scope and qualification of the operator of the unmanned aircraft, and the liability of the operator of the Convention On International Civil Aviation, the ICAO Annex, the RPAS Manual, the Rome Convention, other major international treaties and Domestic law such as the Aviation Safety Act. The ICAO requires that unmanned aircraft be operated in such a manner as to minimize hazards to persons, property or other aircraft as a major principle of the operation of unmanned aircraft, which is ultimately equivalent to manned aircraft Considering that most accidents involving unmanned aircrafts fall to the ground, causing damage to third parties' lives or property, this thesis focused on the responsibility of operators under the international treaty, and the responsibility of third parties for air transport by Domestic Commercial Act, as well as the liability for compensation. In relation to the Rome Convention, the Rome Convention 1952 detailed the responsibilities of the operator. Although it has yet to come into effect regarding liability, some EU countries are following the limit of responsibility under the Rome Convention 2009. Korea has yet to sign any Rome Convention, but Commercial Act Part VI Carriage by Air is modeled on the Rome Convention 1978 in terms of compensation. This thesis also looked at security-related responsibilities and the responsibility for privacy infringement. which are most problematic due to the legal responsibilities of operating unmanned aircraft. Concerning insurance, this thesis looked at the trends of mandatory aviation insurance coverage around the world and the corresponding regulatory status of major countries to see the applicability of unmanned aircraft. It also looked at the current clauses of the Domestic Aviation Business Act that make insurance mandatory, and the ultra-light flight equipment insurance policy and problems. In sum, the operator of an unmanned aircraft will be legally responsible for operating the unmanned aircraft safely so that it does not pose a risk to people, property or other aircraft, and there will be adequate compensation in the event of an accident, and legal systems such as insurance systems should be prepared to do so. 항공에 있어서 안전이 가장 중요한 것처럼 무인항공기 운영에 있어서도 안전이 가장 중요하고 무인항공기 운영자의 법적책임에 있어서도 안전운영책임이 가장 중요하다고 할 수 있다. 본 논문에서는 무인항공기 운영자의 안전운영 책임을 중심으로 무인항공기 운영자가 지게 되는 법적책임 문제를 사고 발생 시 피해를 보상해주는 보험 문제와 함께 심도있게 고찰하였다. 우선 무인항공기 운영자의 법적책임 문제는 가장 기본적인 무인항공기 운영자의 정의, 범위, 자격요건을 살펴보고 규제동향으로 국제민간항공협약, ICAO 부속서와 RPAS Manual, 로마협약 등 주요 국제협약, 항공안전법 등 국내 관련 법률상의 운영자의 책임규정을 고찰하였다. ICAO에서는 무인항공기도 궁극적으로는 유인항공기와 동등한 수준의 기술상 및 운항상의 안전성을 확보할 것을 요구하고 있으며 무인항공기 운영의 대원칙으로 사람, 재산 및 다른 항공기에 대한 위험을 최소화 하는 방법으로 운영 되어야 한다고 규정하고 있다. 이와 관련 무인항공기 사고의 경우는 대부분이 지상에 추락하여 제3자의 인명이나 재산에 피해를 입히는 사고가 대부분인 점을 감안 관련 국제협약인 로마협약상의 운영자의 책임과 국내 상법 항공운송편의 제3자 책임 관련 규정을 중점적으로 살펴보았으며 사고 발생에 따른 배상책임 문제도 살펴보았다. 로마협약과 관련하여서는 1952년 로마협약이 운영자의 책임을 상세히 규정하고 있다. 배상책임과 관련하여서는 아직 발효는 되지 않았지만 EU 일부국가에서는 2009년 로마협약상의 책임한도액을 따르고 있는 점이 특징이다. 아직 우리나라는 어떠한 로마협약에도 가입하지 않고 있으나 상법 항공운송편은 배상책임에 있어 1978년 로마협약을 모델로 하고 있다. 이들 이외에 무인항공기 운영에 따르는 관련 법적책임으로 가장 많이 문제가 되고 있는 보안관련 책임과 사생활 침해에 대한 책임도 살펴보았다. 보험과 관련하여서는 전 세계적으로 항공보험의 가입 의무화 경향과 이에 따른 주요 각국의 규제현황을 살펴보고 무인항공기에의 적용 가능성을 살펴보았다. 또한 현행 국내 항공사업법상의 보험가입 의무화 조항과 초경량 비행장치 보험 규정과 문제점을 살펴보았다. 요컨대 무인항공기 운영자는 무인항공기를 인명이나 재산 또는 다른 항공기에 위험을 주지 않도록 안전하게 운영할 법적책임이 있으며 사고 발생 시는 적절한 보상책임이 있다고 할 것이며 이를 위한 보험제도 등 법제도적 장치가 마련되어야 한다.

대리운전 중의 사고로 입은 운행자의 상해

양승규(Yang Seung Kyu) 한국보험법학회 2011 보험법연구 Vol.5 No.1

자동차손해배상보장법은 자동차의 운행으로 사람이 사망 또는 부상한 경우에 피해자를 보호하기 위하여, 자동차의 운행자에게 다른 사람의 인적 손해에 대하여 엄격책임내지는 무과실책임을 인정하고(자배법 3조), 보유자에게 책임보험이나 책임공제의 가입을 강제하고 있다(자배법 5조). 자동차의 운전자가 음주 또는 다른 특별한 사정이 있는 경우 다른 운전자에게 대리운전을 위탁하고, 그 대리운전자의 과실로 인하여 그 차에 타고 있던 운전자가 상해를 입은 경우 그에 대한 책임관계가 문제된다. 대법원 2009. 5. 28. 선고 2007다87221 판결은 대리운전자와 그 운행자를 공동운행자로 보아 상해를 입은 운행자는 자배법 제3조 소정의 '다른 사람'임을 주장할 수 없고, 책임보험자도 그 상해에 대하여 보험금을 지급할 의무가 없다고 판시하고 있다. 이 판결에 대하여는 원칙적으로 찬성하나, 대리운전자는 의뢰자인 본인을 위하여 자동차를 운전하는 것이지 '자기를 위하여 자동차를 운행하는 자'가 아니므로 대리운전자를 공동운행자로 다루는 것은 잘못이라고 본다. 따라서 대리운전자의 운전부주의로 상해를 입은 운행자는 대리운전자에게 자배법상의 손해배상책임이 아니라 대리운전계약의무위반 또는 불법행위를 원인으로 하는 손해배상책임을 물을 수 있다고 풀이한다. The Automobile Indemnity Guarantee Act (AIGT) imposes a strict liability on the automobile operator in order to protect the victim who was dead or injured because of the operation of the automobile (sec. 3). The AIGT also prescribes that the automobile possessor obtain the liability insurance or quasi-liability insurance (sec. 5). A critical legal issue arises in case that the automobile operator who made a chauffeur service contract with a designated driver has suffered his death or injury in the automobile caused by the negligent driving of the designated driver. The Supreme Court (The Supreme Court 2009. 5. 28. decided 2007da87221) decided that the designated driver and the designating operator are joint operators, and therefore the designating operator cannot become the victim in the sec. 3 of the AIGT and the automobile liability insurer is exempt from the insurance claim. The above decision may be welcome in principle, but it is subject to the criticism that the designated driver cannot be a joint driver because he drives not for himself but for the automobile operator. Therefore, it is suggested that the automobile operator injured by negligent driving of the designated driver demand damages based not on the AIGT but on the chauffeur service contract or the tort law in general.