Earticle

The current neighbor relationship regulations in our civil law focus on water-related, and many articles were enacted 60 years ago and have been invalidated as a whole. Therefore, there is a point that is not suitable for the vertical and three-dimensional use control required according to the progress of industrialization and urbanization today. In addition, despite the emergence of a new Neighbor Relationship of Apartment Houses, the civil law of Korea did not provide a solution, so it was intensively reviewed in relation to the Neighbor Relationship of Apartment Houses. In Korea, many problems can occur between neighbors as the type of apartment housing accounts for 75% of the total. In recent years, the desire to escape from neighbor relationship has become a social problem, e.g. interfloor noise, png, companion animal, right to sunshine and view etc. Due to Corona 19, interfloor noise increased by more than 50% from the same period last year, but the reality is that dispute resolution is not easy. Conflicts related to parking are appearing in apartment houses. Although the number of vehicles owned per household is increasing, there are few places to park, and neighboring conflicts are occurring due to the dinged-my-door accident arising from “parking difficulties”. In addition, it was found that out of all households in Korea, one household out of four has companion animals. There are many disputes related to raising companion animals in apartment houses, but the procedure for resolving such disputes has not been legalized yet and is simply classified as one of the noise disputes between floors. In the case of right to view sunshine, it has been a problem for more than 30 years as a case of dispute in earnest, and now it is an era in which victims are looking for a remedy after examining the law about the blocking of sunlight and the blocking of good prospects. In light of this increasing number of disputes, Korean civil law is not playing its role, so we will review it so that it can play a role in civil law. But, there are few domestic and foreign research papers on the Neighbor Relationship of Apartment Houses, there are limitations to the research of the issue in depth. However, by studying the Neighbor Relationship of Apartment Houses in civil law, I intend to lay the foundation for solving various problems that arise among neighbors.

The Paris Agreement, which urges countries around the world to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and participate in climate change, has begun, and various policies are being implemented to solve environmental problems around the world. India has implemented several environmental policies early on to solve the environmental pollution problem. The National Green Tribunal, also known as the Environmental Court, is one of them. However, the environmental courts in India have less authority than the environmental courts in the West, which have been concerned about environmental conservation for a long time, because tourism based on environmental resources and natural scenery are major national resources such as New Zealand, England, and Austria. In Korea, the Environmental Dispute Mediation Committee is being operated as an environmental dispute mediation system, but it is difficult to prepare for environmental problems that are gradually increasing in size and complexity. In this case, I think that the environmental court of India can be considered as a model that can improve the realistic environmental solution for Korea compared to the environmental courts of the western world. Also, when thinking a little later, it would be a good way to introduce an environmental court as an opportunity to strengthen the method of resolving environmental disputes.

Anyone who collects and uses other people’s data must meet legal requirements such as prior consent from the data subject. Data controllers who can legally process other people’s data must comply with the corresponding rules. In this context, controllers also disclose and inform all matters related to the processing of such data subject. After the OECD adopted the privacy principle of transparent and fair processing, most countries have accepted it, including the EU and Korea. The data subject must know who, for what purpose, and how their data is processed in order to control their data. The data subject’s right to basic information on data processing is the prerequisite for exercising their rights to rectification, erasure, etc. However, this basic principle has been mitigated as Korea revised the Personal Information Protection Act in February 2020. The PIPA introduced an exceptional case of data processing, pseudonymization. When data controllers process pseudonymized personal data, they can process it without prior consent from the data subject and without notifying the data subject of relevant information related to the processing. Korea publicly announced it would revise the PIPA by referring to European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation. Still, GDPR does not eliminate the data controller’s obligation to notify when pseudonymized processing. Only consent is exempted if the data initially collected is pseudonymized for compatible purposes such as statistical, scientific research, or archiving purposes in the public interest. This inconsistency appears because the systems of both laws do not match perfectly even though they are much similar. This paper suggests how the PIPA guarantees the data subject’s right to basic information when processing by a comparative study between Korea’s PIPA and the EU’s GDPR. Notification of data processing is crucial in ensuring the right to informational self-determination that the PIPA should accomplish as the ultimate goal.

The purpose of this paper is to discuss whether the principle of Ex Post Facto can be applied in statute of limitations, a procedural rule abolishes the prosecution right in case of not being prosecuted during a certain period after criminal acts are committed. Article 13(1) of the Constitution stipulates this principle by declaring: “No citizen shall be prosecuted for an act which does not constitute a crime under the Act in force at the time it was committed.” Although it is undeniable that this principle, one of legal norms derived from the Principle of Legality which usually described as “Nulla poena sine lege” is fundamental principle of substantive criminal law, whether the same can be said for the legal rules of criminal proceedings is neither crystal clear nor actively discussed. However, since the retrospective application of suspension, extension and exclusion to statute of limitations might cause adverse outcomes to criminal defendant in many cases, whether the principle of Ex Post Facto can also be applied in these regulations is matter which is theoretically important and practically consequential. In this article, therefore, the author attempts to clarify the legal characteristics of statutes of limitation(whether it is procedural or substantive); provides analysis whether or not the regulations on suspension, extension and exclusion of it recognize the retroactive effect; introduces two Supreme Court cases regarding the subject.

Incidents of damage claims due to aircraft noise (including airfields and noises from surrounding areas), account for the highest percentage of environmental lawsuits in Korea, as the degree of damage is severe and has broad characteristics. Even though the very first lawsuits of the past were filed by residents around the Maehyang-ri Air Force Shooting Range area, residents of the affected region have been appealing about ceaseless damage. It is correct to resolve noise complaints from residents around airports with public law regulations. However, not only are those regulations insufficient, but the legislation that does regulate support for local residents affected by aircraft noise in principle excludes airports, which also serve as flight operators, from their scope of application. In particular, there is a limit to compensation for residents of areas affected by noises from military aircraft (including noises in the area from airfields, shooting ranges, etc.) Civil remedies for residents of areas affected by aircraft noise include injunctive relief and liability claims for damages. The prior remedy of injunctive relief has contents on preventing aircraft noise, but the attitude toward this is a very passive, perhaps due to concern about being ostracized over public concern related to whether or not a civil lawsuit can be filed. Accordingly, victims of aircraft noise violations have to file compensation claims for damages as an ex-post remedy. In practice, the existence of a problem due to noise, etc. from aircraft or military aircraft from take-off or landing, etc. is determined by whether or not the degree of damage from aircraft noise exceeds the acceptable limit according to social norms. Although precedents list various requirements to determine the extent to which damage is tolerable when there is an infringement of environmental rights, many problems have been raised regarding the criteria for determining this acceptable extent. In addition, since a short-term statute of limitation is applied to victims of aircraft noise infringement, the problem arises that victims cannot receive relief if noise infringement has exceeded three years. The purpose of this paper is to analyze and present solutions to civil claims of victims of aircraft noise for ① prior injunctive relief and ② compensation for damages as an ex-post remedy i) standards for determining each criterion for the extent to which damage is tolerable when there is an infringement of environmental rights, ii) the approach to risk that is considered when determining liability damages and the monetary amount of compensation and iii) problems of liability claims for damage that will arise in the future.