## 2 Critical Literature Review
### Legal Issues Related to Data Ownership  
[PERSON] wrote that the Japanese Meiji Civil Code, and Japanese legal study before WWII, significantly influenced the Korean Civil Code [43]. In turn, the Japanese Meiji Civil Code, the product of various comparative legal studies, was affected by the draft of the German Civil Code, French Civil Code, and other civil codes of the time. One outstanding historical challenge in Korean civil studies is the lack of clarity concerning the distortions and undue influences of the Japanese Meiji Civil Code and Japanese legal studies on the Korean Civil Code, and the independent development of Korean civil law studies to resolve the legal conflicts [43]. [PERSON] stated that the German Civil Code aptly distinguishes between \"object\" (_Gegenstand_) and \"thing\" (_Sache_) [44]. An \"object\" is a generic concept comprising any possible subject matter--corporeal or incorporeal--in a legal relationship, except strictly personal relations. However, \"things\" are only corporeal objects of an impersonal nature and are susceptible to appropriation. [PERSON] sketched the fuzzy contours of data ownership and related IPR, to show how ownership is ill-suited for governing rights regarding big data, necessitating an alternative normative framework [45]. [PERSON] et al. mapped the ethical and legal challenges posed by AI in healthcare--many of which could apply to MASS data [46]. The primary ethical challenges were: (1) informed consent to use (share); (2) safety and transparency; (3) algorithmic fairness and biases; and (4) data privacy. The primary legal challenges in the United States and Europe were: (1) safety and effectiveness; (2) liability; (3) data protection and privacy; (4) cybersecurity; and (5) intellectual property law [45]. As a way of highlighting the need for social and legal tools for controlling AI systems' functions and outcomes, [PERSON] addressed the copyright issues surrounding artworks generated by AI systems: ownership and accountability [47]. She asked who should enjoy the benefits of copyright protection, and who should be responsible for the infringement of rights and damages caused by AI systems that independently produce creative works. She also discussed the need for accountability for AI systems in such legal regimes as tort and criminal law, and in various industries [47]. [PERSON] used recent literature and case law to examine various interpretations of the word \"ship\" [48]. He sought to determine which interpretations might have a bearing on autonomous vessels and whether the foreseeable technological incorporation might be challenging, by showcasing the definitions across jurisdictions [48]. [PERSON] et al. argued that a shift in mindset would be essential to make manufacturers direct more attention and resources toward cybersecurity, noting that shipping systems currently remain vulnerable to cyber criminals [3]. [PERSON]'s theoretical examination of the differences between common and civil laws focused on their distinctive features and consequential differences in both substantive and procedural laws [49].  
The current study uses a systematic approach to analyze its subject--the use of data and the legal stability of transactions regarding the commercial operation of autonomous vessels--against the backdrop of digital ownership in Korean civil law.