Beginning from July. 2000, the product liability of Korea is designed for reduction of customer loss by defective products. Therefore, most of company are supposed to be ready for taking care of safety and quality of products. ISO9001：2000 quality management system reform to emphasize continual improvement of the process with customer satisfaction. First of all, this paper start with introduction motive of the product liability and examine distinctive mark of the ISO9001：2000 quality management system. We consider the correlation between ISO9001：2000 quality management system and product liability and would like to propose product liability prevention by ISO9001：2000 quality management system with classification a defect style of product, the management guide and the law case.

본 논문은 우리나라에서도 2002년 7월1일 시행하게될 제조물책임법(PL)에 대비해 최근 우리나라 및 선진국인 미국, 일본을 중심으로 조사된 최근 사례를 결함별, 제품별, 국가별로 유형화하여 분석한다. PL법이 시행되기 전 많은 사례들이 발생하여 소송으로 제기되었고, 각 나라는 많은 시행착오를 거쳐 지금의 제조물책임(PL)을 수정, 보완되고 있는데 이러한 측면에서 외국의 사례와 우리나라의 사례를 비교, 유형화시켜 분석하고자 한다.

2002년 7월부터 시행될 한국의 제조물책임법은 제조물의 결함으로 인한 소비자의 피해구제가 목적으로 이에 따라 기업으로서는 제품의 품질과 안전에 대한 부담은 더욱 증가하게 되었다. ISO9001:2000 품질경영시스템의 요구사항은 고객만족 지향에 대한 프로세스의 지속적인 개선을 강조하여 개정되었고, 고객의 요구는 제품의 안전을 더욱 중요시하는 추세로서 이러한 대응방안을 ISO9001:2000 품질경영시스템의 요구사항에서 고찰·제시하고자 한다. ISO9001:2000 품질경영시스템은 경영에 대한 프로세스 접근방식의 도입으로 프로세스의 입력사항으로 고객이 중요한 역할을 하며, 고객의 요구사항이 충족되었는지를 검토하며, 지속적인 고객만족을 위해 프로세스를 관리한다. 본 연구에서는 먼저 제조물책임법의 도입배경과 Is09001:2000 품질경영시스템의 특징을 고찰한다. 그리고, ISO9001:2000 품질경영시스템과 PL과의 관련성을 제고하여 제조물의 결함 유형별, 경영관리지침 항목, 소송상의 항목으로 분류하여 제조물책임 대응방안으로 ISO 9001:2000 품질경영시스템을 제시하고자 한다.

용액중 칼륨수준을 달리한 조건에서 수경재배된 오차드그라스에 들어있는 무기물중 칼륨, 마그네숨, 칼슘을 각각 물, 알코올, 산에 가용성언 깃으로 성분분획했는데, 그 결과는 다음과 같다. (1) 목초에 함유된 칼륨함량 전체에 대한 물, 알코올, 0.5% 개산에 의해 용출된 성분의 비솔은 수경액중 칼륨수준에 영향을 받지 않았으며 각각 90~93%,4~6%,2~3% 의 범위였다,(2) 마그네슘량의 약 80%가 수용성이었으며, 14~22%는 0,5% 염산에 의해

Purpose - This study examines car accidents that occurred in South Korea territory, and analyzes criminal liability of the offender and certain issues of driver's insurance, but a civil liability to the injured is excluded as civil liability belongs to auto insurance. Research design, data, and methodology - With carrying out this research, case study of driver's liability and literature review were adopted throughout. For this, car accidents that occurred in South Korean territory were examined and then criminal liability of the offender and certain issues of driver's insurance were analyzed. Results - From this case study on driver's liability it was found that the offender cannot receive insurance money from the insurer irrespective of the valid drive insurance, if there is no 'bill of agreement of criminal consensus'. This study suggests some ideas, offers suggestions of convenience and assistance of qualified claim staff to overcome a hurdle of drive insurance. Conclusions - As long as the accident is not a fraud and scam by the parties concerned, advance payment of agreement of criminal consensus is required to the insured, the policy holder within the limit of liability of driver insurance, on condition that the drive insurance is valid.

Three Supreme Court’s rulings are reviewed in this paper. They are all about the similar cases. Someone asked the other person to withdraw a specific sum of money from his account, but the latter(the delegated person) withdrew an excess and took it. What sort of crime should be assigned to him? The ruling A presents the view of fraud by electronic instrument. It says that defendant took illegal gain through inputting unauthorized data into ATM. Another judgement, the ruling B, sets forth the different view. It declares the breach of trust, saying that defendant violated his duty. The final judgement, the ruling C, also deals with the case alike. However it supports the decision of the lower court to give defendant the embezzlement verdict. To sum up, there are contradicted rulings on the same case! What solution could be made to handle such confusion. It is the task of this paper. The conclusion is the crime of embezzlement, it means that the ruling C is appropriate. This paper presents its grounds and arguments and hopes for readjusting The Supreme Court’s ruling forward.

영국 해사법상 S&P 브로커로 널리 알려진 선박매매 브로커는 선박매매를 원하는 의뢰인인 본인을 대신하여 협상을 행사하는 독립적 계약자이다. 또한 S&P 브로커는 선박매매시 본인을 대리하는 대리인으로 그 법적지위를 갖는다. S&P 브로커들은 로이드 선급, 미국 선급 및 한국 선급 등에서 선박의 중요한 명세 자료와 정보들을 수집하여 선박매매를 원하는 매도인과 매수인에게 상호 이익이 되도록 조력 한다. S&P 브로커의 책임은 선박매매계약서의 합의 내용에 반하지 않고 선량한 관리자로서 주의의무를 다하며, 의뢰인인 본인의 요청에 전 문적으로 업무수행 함을 의미한다. 그러나 선박매매계약에 의하여 당사자와의 관계 범위, 주된 조건, 계약 위반 및 면책내용에 있어서 분쟁이 발생할 경우, S&P 브로커에게도 책임문제가 발생한다. 이 S&P 브로커의 책임은 직접계약당사자의 원칙에 의하거나 제3자의 권리에 관한 계 약법에 근거한다. 그러므로 S&P 브로커가 의무를 불이행한 경우 또는 계약 내용에 반하거나 과실에 기인하여 불법행위가 야기된 경우, 분쟁 과 소송이 발생하게 된다. 이에 이 논문에서는 S&P 브로커의 특징 중 대리인으로서의 법적 책임, 수수료 문제, 이익의 충돌과 비밀 수수료, 등에 대하여 영국 해사법과 영국 판례를 중심으로 검토하여 논함을 이 연구의 목적으로 삼고자 한다.

There are some crimes that requires more than two individuals who participate in committing such crimes in two opposite ways and criminal code provides that the performer is punished for committing them(one- sided criminality). It is one of the controversial issues whether it is possible to apply general provisions on accomplice liability to such crimes. Korean Supreme Court is taking a stance that only the performer can be punished for committing those crimes and it is not allowed to punish the accomplice through application of general rules on accomplice liability. For example Supreme Court decision 2011Do6287 decided November 13, 2011 applied that principle judging two-way criminality between doctors who issued false prescriptions and a taker who instigated the doctors to issues false prescriptions and ruled that the doctors(the issuers) are the only criminal and the other part(the taker) is free from that crime. But the Supreme Court rulings is facing some heavy criticisms that it is not resonable that the taker who instigated the doctors to divulge issued false prescriptions should be punished as an instigator and the Supreme Court’s stance will result in inequality between the principal offender and others actively involved.This article deals with problems concerning the liability of accomplice in one-sided criminality and proposes some solutions for them.

In case of injury during a sports game, to punish the offender without exception might lead to withering of sports activities, whereas to get the offender exempted on the mere ground that injury occurred in the course of a sports game might cause plummeting of either legal stability or law-abiding spirit. So, it is vital to draw a bright line between criminal liability and moral obligation with regard to injury during a sports game. Scholars suggest the theory of victim's consent, the theory of tolerated danger, the theory of social reasonableness or the theory of non-legal issue as sources of justification to limit criminal liability. Each theory has its own merits and demerits. In order to punish the offender who inflicted injury by negligence during a sports game, general requirements of 'infliction of injury by negligence' occurrence of injury, ― causal relationship between offender's act and injury, breach of objective duty of care, etc.― should be met. Objective duty of care can be derived from statutes, past practices, social norm, logic, empirical rule or court decisions. In a sports game however, rules of the game may be the most important source of objective duty of care. As rules of the game enumerate matters that require attention in the entire course of a sports game, player's act against these rules can be treated breach of objective duty of care. It is excessive to deem all of the acts against rules of the game, including minor ones, breach of objective duty of care in light of the way a sports game is played as well as autonomy enjoyed in the sports field. Unless injury resulted from the act that had gone against rules of the game beyond reasonable expectation, the offender should not be found to breach objective duty of care. Rules of the game differ from type to type. In so-called type of rivalry sports games, rules of the game, while allowing the player or the team to make physical attack on the opponent to some extent, focus on diminishing or eliminating the possibility of injury. In so-called type of individual sports games, rules of the game prohibit dangerous act and call the attention of the players to avoid injury. To sum up, breach of rules may be treated more harshly and less flexibly in type of individual sports games than in type of rivalry sports games. The judgment under review in this paper has something to do with golf game, which belongs to type of individual sports games. The judgment thinks highly of rules of the game as source of objective duty of care. It also denies criminal liability in case of injury resulting from minor breach of rules of the game, which would reasonably be expected. On the face of it, the judgment seems to adopt the theory of social reasonableness. However, considering the courts usually dub social rule social reasonableness, the view taken by the judgment might be different from the theory of social reasonableness advocated by the scholars. The theory of social reasonableness relates to negation of applicability of criminal statute, whereas the view taken by the judgment might relate to negation of illegality. In such type of individual sports games as golf, the players enjoy game without physical contact with other participants, expecting reciprocal care to avoid unwanted injury. So it is somewhat improper to adopt the theory of victim's consent as source of justification to limit criminal liability in golf game. The judgment, in similar context, seems to have dismissed defense of 'victim's consent' raised by the accused. Even in case that the offender is held liable for infliction of injury by negligence with regard to injury during a sports game, the possibility to get relief is still open. If the offender reaches an agreement with the victim, he or she is able to avoid criminal punishment according to Art. 266 Para. 2 of the Penal Code.

소득의 증대와 주 5일 근무제의 정착에 따른 여가시간의 확대, 자연휴양림과 같은 새로운 개념의 휴양시설 증가와 2007년 「자연공원법」개정으로 인한 국립공원 입장료의 폐지 등으로 국민들의 산림문화·휴양에 대한 수요가 급증하는 등 야외활동(outdoor activity)에 대한 관심이 고조되고 있다. 특히 최근 웰빙 열풍(well-being trend)이라는 사회적 여건 등의 변화로 국민들의 여가생활의 패턴도 자연 친화적인 형태로 바뀌어, 국립공원 등을 비롯한 자연공원이나 각종 휴양지를 찾는 탐방객의 수가 급증함에 따라 국립공원관리공단과 지방자치단체 등 각종 공원이나 휴양지의 관리책임을 맡고 있는 관련기관의 안전사고 방지를 위한 다양한 예방적 조치에도 불구하고 추락사고, 익사사고, 낙석사고, 시설물이용관련사고 등 공원이나 휴양지 내의 안전사고는 끊이질 않고 있다. 이 연구의 목적은 위험관리의 관점에서 국립공원관리공단, 지방자치단체 등 각종 휴양지 관리주체가 직면하고 있는 안전사고로 인한 손해배상책임을 효과적이고 합리적으로 처리하기 위한 방안을 제시하고자 함에 있다. 관련 법률 규정과 법원 판례를 통해 분석한 결과, 휴양지 관리주체의 손해배상책임은 위험책임법리에 근거하여 포괄적이고 엄격하게 적용되고 있음을 알 수 있었다. 이에 따라 안전사고로 인한 손해배상책임이라는 위험을 통제 가능한 범위에서 관리하기 위해서는 위험관리 주체의 시설에서 발생하는 위험에 대한 인식의 전환, 적극적인 위험관리의식, 그리고 안전사고에 대한 다양한 위험관리 프로그램의 운영이 필요하다. 휴양지 안전사고의 손해배상책임에 대한 위험관리방법으로서 위험통제기법(risk control method)과 위험금융기법(risk financing method)을 찾아 위험관리의 문제점과 해결방안을 제시하였다. 특히, 현재 시행되고 있는 안전사고 발생에 대한 사후적 처리방법으로써 한국지방재정공제회의 손해배상사업은 클레임 발생 시 신속히 처리할 수 있는 업무구조의 개선, 적정한 보험가입조건의 제시, 미가입 휴양지시설에 대한 공제가입의 독려 등 공제회원인 지방자치단체의 1차적 보험자로서의 역할 제고가 필요하다. 향후 국민들의 향상된 권리의식으로 안전사고에 대한 손해배상의 청구건수와 배상액이 점차 증가할 것으로 예상되므로 이 연구가 휴양지 관리주체의 구체적 위험관리방안에 관한 논의의 단초가 되기를 기대한다.

해양사고는 민사법상의 손해배상, 형법상의 책임의 귀속 및 행정상의 제재와 같은 여러 가지 법적 책임 문제를 야기한다. 어떠한 행위에 의하여 결과가 발생하였다고 하여 바로 책임귀속이 되는 것은 아니다. 이러한 책임의 전제로서 해양사고를 야기한 행위와 그 결과 발생사이에 인과관계가 문제된다. 해양사고에 있어서 그 원인 규명은 해양이라는 사고 발생 장소, 증거확보의 어려움, 사고 발생시와 조사 시점과의 시간차 등으로 어려움이 많다. 그러나 정확한 원인 규명은 유사 사고 방지와 책임 소재를 가리는데 매우 중요한 요소이다. 인과관계를 논리학적으로 보면 무한히 확산 가능한 개념이지만 책임귀속에 있어서는 이를 제한할 필요성이 있다. 따라서 이 논문에서는 인과관계 이론을 바탕으로 해양사고에서의 인과관계를 검토하여 책임귀속의 합리적인 판단 기준을 논증한 것이다.

In our society, in which a great variety of risk business transaction are carried, the parties concerned require often untypical mortgage to the contraries to make such transaction easy and effective. According to this requirement, the contraries, members of corporation, should offer assets of their companies as an mortgage arbitrarily. Members, who dare to carry out risk transaction for excessively profitable business, are very likely to commit breach of corporational trust. Accordingly it comes to be very important issue, to what extent criminal law should intervene in attitude of counter partner involved in those cases. If members conducting affairs of business commit jointly breach of trust, they can be punished as accomplice each all, but it is disputable, whether counter partner without status as members can be punished as an accomplice under the same condition, namely the Act Control('Tatherrschaft' in german). Under the precondition of answering this question affirmatively, it becomes an issue to put meaning of the Act Control into shape. Related to what the Act Control means, its constituents, mainly division of execution as an objective condition, mutual connection of intention, should be analysed on after another. If counter partner without status as members can not be punished as accomplice because of lacking the necessary condition, another problem becomes to be posed, whether his conduct leave no room for being punished especially as assistance. Because he assists the principal, member of company, in a way of daily deal activity('alltaegliches Verhalten' in german), he can be probably not punished as assistance of trust breach. The decision concerned(supreme court 2005.10.8. adjudged 2005do4915 sentence) declared 'not guilty' because of lack of illegality based on social adequateness. Despite of proper conclusion, I doubt whether the restriction of the extent of assistance should be made at the second level of illegality, because the first level of elements of constitung the case("Tatbestandsmaessigkeit" in german) can restrict the extent of assistance, by means of normative restriction or objective imputation.

In 1986, the People's Insurance Company of China(hereinafter called PICC) Hull Insurance Clauses, which were amended on the basis of the version 1972, were put into effect. Since PICC is the biggest state-owned insurance company in China, its hull insurance clauses have been used nationwide. In the clauses are included the following contents： scope of cover, exclusions, period of insurance, automatical termination of insurance, duty of assured, claim and indemnity, treatment of disputes and so on. However, this study is only limited to the legal interpretation of the most important clauses relating to indemnity of the insurer. The writers attempt to supply some basic materials necessary for the establishment and enforcement of the Korean hull insurance clauses.

As a matter of fact, the document which has been developed to resolve the obvious conflicts between the interests of buyer and seller is the bill of lading. The bill of lading provides the seller with some security against default by the buyer and the buyer with some assurance of performance of the seller before the buyer is required to make payment. So to speak, the B/L provides some extent protection for both seller and buyer. This is a study on the construction of Liner Bill of Lading(Code name : CONLINEBILL) adopted by BIMCO(The Baltic and International Maritime Conference) and is using a basic bill of lading in the liner ship's operation. In this study, the writer makes a wider and deeper study of rights and obligations of Contract Parties by means of the rules of construction, specially focusing the Carrier's liability under Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1971(COGSA 1971), Hague-Visby Rules and Korea Commercial Law.