• 한국컴퓨터정보학회:학술대회논문집
• /
• 한국컴퓨터정보학회 2021년도 제63차 동계학술대회논문집 29권1호
• /
• pp.325-326
• /
• 2021

LNG는 환경규제에 따라 화석에너지에서 친환경 재생에너지로 전환되는데 중요한 역할을 하는 에너지원이다. UN산하 세계해사기구(IMO)의 MARPOL협약에 따라 선박 황산화물 배출가스규제로 LNG추진 선박에 대한 수요가 증가되고 있을 뿐만 아니라 미국의 쉐일혁명으로 LNG를 수출함에 따라 공급의 변화가 급격하게 이뤄지고 있다. 과거 국가 주도의 프로젝트 성격이 강한 LNG 운송시장은 장기정기용선계약이 대부분이었으나 수요와 공급시장의 급격한 변화로 스팟시장의 중요성이 커지고 있다. 따라서 본 논문은 LNG 운송시장에서 시장참여자들의 스팟거래에 합리적인 의사결정이 이뤄지도록 과학적인 예측방법을 제시하고자 한다. LNG 스팟운임 예측에 기계학습모델 중 인공신경망 모델을 적용할 것이며 기존의 시계열분석 방법인 ARIMA모델과 비교하여 본문에서 제시된 모델의 예측성능의 우수성을 확인하였다. 본 논문은 LNG 스팟운임을 다룬 최초의 연구로서 학문적인 차별성이 기대된다.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제28권4호
• /
• pp.153-172
• /
• 2018

In solving international commercial disputes, arbitration has a unique advantage. Therefore, when most parties sign a charter party, they contain arbitration clauses. Whether the arbitration clause in the charter party can be effectively incorporated into the bill of lading and bind to the third party-bill holder becomes an important issue. Based on the problem above, this paper compares the arbitration system between Korea and China, and discusses the composition of the Chinese Maritime Court and the Chinese court's adjudication of arbitration for foreign countries, which are recognized and enforced in China. What is most important in this study is observing the Chinese case from the beginning of 2000 to the present in order to rule whether the Chinese court can effectively incorporate the arbitration clause in the charter party into the bill of lading, as well as whether it constitutes an effective binding force for third parties and changes in standard of recognition. Finally, through comparative analysis, the study concludes that in China, the arbitration clause in the charter party can be effectively incorporated into the bill of lading, and that the conditions for the third parties can be effectively restrained. There must be several points to be noted when recording the bill of lading. This would then help reduce the legal risks and promote the sustainable development of international transactions.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제39권
• /
• pp.251-280
• /
• 2008

A party to the charter will not be able to rely upon the doctrine of frustration if an event which makes further performance impossible has been caused by his breach of the charter. Strictly speaking, this is not a situation of frustration at all but rather a case of discharge of the contract by breach. In the Sea Angel case, the defendant entered into a Lloyd's Standard Form of Salvage Agreement with owners of the casualty on the LOF 2000 form, incorporating the SCOPIC clause. The time charter was on the terms of the Shelltime 4 form. This case the trial of the action brought by the claimants owners of the vessel Sea Angel claiming outstanding hire from the defendant charterers. This Case was issued whether charterparty frustrated by refusal of port authorities to issue "No Demand Certificate" allowing port clearance pending payment of oil spillage clean-up costs. The court concluded that no attempt had yet been made to invoke the assistance of the Pakistani court to obtain the release of the vessel. There was not so radical or fundamental a change in the obligation assumed by defendant as to establish frustration. The purpose of this study aims to analyse frustration and time charter in the Sea Angel case.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제14권2호
• /
• pp.281-300
• /
• 2004

This paper is about a case on the arbitration of disputes between the parties of charter party. 'B' vessel owner on the original charter party first made a charter party with 'L' cargo owner on the original charter party. Then, 'B' entered into another charter party with 'D' vessel owner, who will actually take charge of carriage of the cargoes which is described on the original charter party. Therefore, 'B' is a carrier of cargoes of 'L' and 'D' is a carrier of cargoes of 'B', according to the contracts. The cargoes of 'B' is cargoes of 'L', by nature. In these circumstances, damages to the cargoes occurred in the transit by the vessel of 'D'. Who should take the responsibility for the damage of cargoes? Who must be liable for those, 'B' or 'D'？. According to the original charter party, 'L' signed 'as Charterers' and 'B' was the counterpart of 'L'. But 'B' signed as 'for and on behalf of 'B',' without 'as Owners'. Tribunal of arbitration award that 'B' should take the responsibility for the damage to the cargoes, because 'B' is the vessel owner. Although 'B' is a contract carrier, 'B' must bear the liability of transport of the cargoes. The counterpart of charterer, 'L' is 'B' who is presumed to be the vessel owner by the original charter party. 'D', actual carrier is not the privy of 'L', cargo owner. This case teach us that signature on the contract is the matter of great importance.

• 한국항만경제학회지
• /
• 제21권4호
• /
• pp.75-101
• /
• 2005

Every time charter must have a final terminal date, that is a date by which the charterer is contractually obliged to redeliver the vessel. Where the law implies a margin or tolerance beyond an expiry date stipulated in the charter party, the final terminal date comes at the end of such implied extension. When the parties have agreed in the charter party on the margin or tolerance to be allowed, the final terminal date comes at the end of such agreed period. But the nature of a time charter is that the charter is for a finite period of time and when the final terminal date arrives the charterer is contractually bound to redeliver the vessel to the owner References to delivery and redelivery are strictly inaccurate since the vessel never leaves the possession of the shipowner, but the expression are conventionally used to describe the time when the period of the charter begins and ends. The legitimacy or otherwise of what is to be regarded as a vessel's final voyage must be judged at the time when the charterers give an order for the vessel to carry out the voyage in question, and then by reference to what they order her to do. The purpose of this paper aims to analyse cases on the final voyage of time charter, and specially to explore implications of the final voyage in time charter through the Gregos case.

• 무역학회지
• /
• 제45권4호
• /
• pp.125-136
• /
• 2020

Freight charges are one of the major clauses in the voyage charter. However, in case of unexpected delays at loading and discharging ports, the owner of the ship would not be willing to cover the various costs he should bear by paying the freight receives from the charterer. Therefore, the shipowner, whose time and the ship would be both considered to be an expense, would try to reduce the laytime as least as possible when signing the charter party and to receive compensation such as demurrage and damage for detention from the charterer, just waiting for the agreed laytime to pass. In this study, we review the differences between demurrage and damage for detention and examine the acknowledgeable circumstances through the actual cases. Since the shipowner and the charterer do not often agree on the damage for detention from the respective contract, it is necessary to examine each. Besides, the shipowner and the charterer must acquaint the damage for detention and specify in a contract, to compensate for the actual loss of the shipowner.

• 무역학회지
• /
• 제42권2호
• /
• pp.205-225
• /
• 2017

본 연구는 신용장거래에서 불일치서류에 대한 은행의 지급거절통지의 절차를 한·중 판례를 중심으로 고찰한다. 한·중 무역거래 비중이 높은 상황에서 한국 기업과 신용장을 개설하는 우리나라 은행들이 서류심사 결과로서 지급거절을 통지함에 있어 주의해야 하는 사항들과 신용장 관련 분쟁을 해결하기 위한 방안에 대한 제언을 목적으로 한다. 본 연구에서 고찰한 판례는 중국 매도인이 개설은행을 상대로 중국법원에 소를 제기한 것으로, 개설은행의 지급거절통지가 UCP 600 제16조 (c)항 (ii) (iii)의 내용적인 요건을 충족하지 못한다고 판시한 중국법원의 판결이다. 본 판결을 볼 때, 우리나라 기업들과 신용장 개설은행들은 첫째, UCP 600 제16조 (c)항의 규정에 근거하여 하자에 대한 통지의 내용을 자세하게 기재해야 한다. 둘째, 신용장 계약에서도 무역계약 마찬가지로 준거법에 대한 합의를 명확히 하는 것이 필요하다. 셋째, 한·중거래에서 중국법원의 편파적인 판결과 더불어 외국법원의 판결이 중국에서 집행이 어려운 점을 감안해서 분쟁해결 방식으로 중재를 활용하는 것이다. 신용장 개설 시 중재조항을 삽입하여 법적인 효력을 갖도록 하고, 국제신용장중재센터나 DOCDEX 시스템을 활용하는 것을 권고한다.

• 해양환경안전학회지
• /
• 제25권6호
• /
• pp.708-716
• /
• 2019

세월호 사고 이후 내항선 분야의 해사안전관리를 강화하기 위하여 해사안전감독관 제도가 도입되었다. 이들은 선박에 대한 정기 및 수시 지도·감독 중 선박의 시설 분야에서 중대한 결함사항이 발견되면 시정이 완료될 때 까지 선박의 항행을 정지하는 행정처분을 하고 있다. 항행정지명령은 내항선박에 대하여 해사안전감독관이 행사하는 강장 강력한 규제행위의 일종이다. 선박의 안전과 해양환경보호를 위한 해사안전감독관에 의한 내항선박의 지도·감독의 중요성은 아무리 강조해도 지나치지 않을 것이다. 그러나 각 지방해양수산청의 선박에 대한 규제의 정도는 이를 집행하는 사람에 따라 다소의 개인차가 있을 수 있으며, 집행과정에서 개인의 고의 또는 과실이 발생할 수가 있다. 지방해양수산청에 의한 선박의 억류는 선박운항 상의 지체를 가져오기 쉽고, 용선계약의 정지에 의하여 선박의 소유자는 많은 경제적 손실을 입을 수 있다. 그럼에도 불구하고 해사안전법에서는 해사안전감독관에 의한 항행정지명령의 행정처분에 대하여 이의신청과 같은 불복절차를 규정하지 않고 있다. 따라서 이러한 문제점을 극복하기 위하여 지도·감독의 근거가 되는 해사안전법 상에 개인의 고의 또는 과실에 의한 부당한 항행정지 행정처분에 대하여 이의신청을 통한 권리의 구제가 가능하도록 제도를 개선해야 한다.

• 통상정보연구
• /
• 제11권1호
• /
• pp.291-308
• /
• 2009

The implied obligation under the contract of affreightment not to carry dangerous goods without prior notice to the carrier applies to the contractual relationship between the charterer and the owner under charterparties. The charterers will be in breach of an implied undertaking under the common law if they load dangerous cargoes without making notice of dangerous nature of them to the owner. It is indicated to be necessary to change the term "shipper" to "charterer", with relation to such implied obligation, where the Hague/Hague-Visby Rules are incorporated into the charter, however, it is not so apparent where an actual shipper is involved. So long as an actual shipper could be identified, the shipper rather than the charterer shall be responsible for damages arising from the dangerous nature of the cargo itself. In this case, the actual shipper is interpreted to have an implied contractual relationship with the carrier just by the act of delivering the cargo to the carrier for loading. If the vessel were damaged by shipment of the dangerous cargo under charterparty, the carrier can claim against such damages based on the contractual obligations under charterparties: "implied and expressed duty not to ship dangerous cargo without notice to the carrier"; "Art.IV.6 of the Hague/Hague-Visby Rules"; "Indemnity Clause" and "Redelivery Clause". The carrier has the conventional right under the Hague/Hague-Visby Rules to land, destroy or render the goods innocuous where the dangerous cargo threatens the means of transport or other interests on board. When the carrier has not consented to make the shipment, the carrier's disposal right could be exercised without limitation. However, where the carrier has consented to make the shipment of the dangerous goods with the knowledge concerned, the right of disposal of such goods should be exercised with limitation.

• 대한안전경영과학회지
• /
• 제14권1호
• /
• pp.109-116
• /
• 2012

It could be debated that the owners were indemnified from the charterers even in respect of the loss of deck cargo caused by the negligence on the part of the owners' servants by a clause 13(b) of NYPE(1993) form, where NYPE(1993) incorporated the Hague/Visby Rules by a paramount clause and did not contained an on deck statement to state or identify what or how much deck cargo was being carried, however the relevant bills of lading all had such statement. The socol 3 of U.K. is a very helpful decision on (1) an on deck statement in bill of lading was sufficient to exclude application of the Hague/Visby Rules to the carriage of deck cargo, as a result, the clause 13(b) should not be null and void by the clause 3(8) of the Hague/Visby Rules (3) the clause 13(b) could not protect the owners from the loss and/or liability caused by negligence and/or breach of the obligation of seaworthiness on the part of the owners, their servants and agents. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to critically analyze the decision in the socol 3, and provide the decision's practical implications in order to prevent legal disputes as to the on deck carriage between the owners and the charterters.