## 4 Discussion
### Topics for Future Research  
#### 4.2.1 Is Maritime Data Subject to Ownership under Korean Civil Law? Article 211 of the Civil Act of the Republic of Korea (\"Contents of Ownership\") grants owners the right to use, profit from, or dispose of property within the scope of the Act. To constitute ownership under Korean civil law, \"possession\" must be specified for an object. To verify the ownership of dissolution data from a legal perspective, the owner must demonstrate exclusive control, specificity, and independence of the property, and meet the conditions for objectification that are suitable for the transaction [26]. Maritime data are classified as intangible under the Civil Act. Therefore, it is critical to understand whether data are included in \"corporeal things, electricity, and other natural forces which can be managed\" as defined under Article 98 (\"Definition of Things\") of the Civil Act. This concept extends beyond the concept of limited things as corporeal things, as stated in Article 85 of the Japan Civil Code, which described \"things\" as tangible objects. The Civil Act of Korea was heavily influenced by Japanese civil law, which was in turn heavily influenced by German civil law [43]. It is important to determine whether maritime data are included in the scope of manageable natural forces, under Article 98 of Korea's Civil Act, because \"natural forces\"--electricity, heat, light, radioactivity, wind, sound, and scent--do not have mass or volume, as is similar to how they were defined under the German Civil Act [44]. If various maritime data were produced to operate a ship owner's autonomous vessel, the maritime data would be the object of rights corresponding to the ownership of the vessel owner. Consequently, regarding the recognition of the ownership of maritime data, its application should be checked for exclusive controllability, specificity, and independence, to meet the conditions as a right object in the future [32]. First, there is the issue of whether there is the possibility of exclusive control of maritime data as an object of ownership. Unlike conventional fax, telephone, and telex data, maritime data are most likely electronic data using blockchain encryption, where exclusive dominance is secured digitally [40]. Nevertheless, when these maritime data are transmitted and traded on a \"digital platform for maritime data transactions (tentative name),\" domination is allowed within a limited range, given the nature of the digitized data--the possibility of \(n\)th replications and cybersecurity vulnerabilities [58; 59]. That is, maritime data do not meet the standards for exclusive possession. Second, there has been no definitive answer regarding whether maritime data have specificity as an object of ownership. It would seem that the requirements have not been met because of the potential for \(n\)th replications and distributions, since MASS data ship-to-ship and ship-to-shore interchanges are conducted digitally. Therefore, the specificity of the maritime data has not been acknowledged [33]. Third, it is not clear whether maritime data are independent of ownership. For maritime data to be recognized as an independent form and an object of rights, we must apply the principle of the real rights of one thing, recognizing one right. However, maritime data are often transmitted in the form of sensor-based unit elements during MASS operations; therefore, it is not appropriate to separate them from the subject and make them independent objects. In addition, judging whether maritime data are independent is problematic because independence as an object of rights requires decisions based on social conventions, trading ideas, and physical forms. Finally, maritime data occupy part of the space that Article 98 was intended for and are not a solid, gas, or liquid that human senses can perceive. Moreover, they cannot be controlled or naturally disposed of [34]. Thus, they can only be accepted as conceptual objects.