• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제14권
• /
• pp.153-176
• /
• 2000

The U.K. Bills of Lading Act 1855 had sought to circumvent the problems arising from the doctrine of privity of contracts. Among the principal factors in the introduction of the Act was the exceptional decision of the court in the case of Grant Norway. The Act 1855 was intended to reverse Grant Norway, but has no effect whatever. As it was not properly drafted, there had been a lot of situations where the Act 1855 was not applicable. In those cases, the courts have implied a contract between cosignee and carrier. This is the effect of the common law Brandt v. Liverpool doctrine. With the enactment of the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1992, all of the problems shall be resolved. It repeals the Act 1855 and replaces it with provisions covering not only B/L but also sea waybills and ship's delivery orders. According to the new law, title to sue is now vested in the lawful holder of a bill of lading, the consignee identified in a sea waybill or the person entitled to delivery under a ship's delivery order, irrespective of whether or not they are owners of the goods covered by the document.

• 항공우주정책ㆍ법학회지
• /
• 제6권
• /
• pp.191-215
• /
• 1994

The concept of 'wilful misconduct" was initally used in article 25 of the Warsaw Convention of 1929. The concept was defined in the Hague Protocol, 1955, as having the following two differing concepts: i) "with the intent to cause damage" and ii) "recklessly and with the knowledge that damage would probably result." The concepts contained in the Hague Protocol were used in various international Conventions on carriage by sea, such as Article 2(e) and Article 3(4) of the Protocol adopted at Brussels on Feb. 23, 1968 to amend the International Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules of Law relating to Bills of Lading, signed at Brussels, Aug. 25, 1929(Hague-Visby Rules), Article 13 of the Athens Convention relating to the Carriage of Passengers and their Luggage by Sea, Dec. 13. 1974, Article 4 of the Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims, 1976, Article 8(1) of the U.N. Convention on the Carriage of Goods by Sea, 1978(Hamburg Rules) and Article 21 (1) of the U.N. Convention on International Multimodal Transport of Goods, Geneva, 1980. The same concepts were also adopted in Article 746, 789-2(1), 789-3(2) of the Korean Maritime Commercial Law, revised in 1991. As of yet, the legal system of Korean Private Law recognizes only the concepts of "Vorsatz" and "grobe Nachlassigkeit", as is the case with German Private Law. The problem is that the concepts in the Convention do not coincide precisely with the concepts of "Vorsatz" and "grobe Nachlassigkeit". The author has conducted a comparative analysis of the treatment of the concepts of wilful misconduct and its varied interpretations, that is, "with the intent to cause damage" and "recklessly and with the knowledge that damage would probably result" in the Anglo-American law and in the continental European law in the following manner: 1. Background in which the concept of wilful misconduct was introduced in the Warsaw Convention. 2. The concept of "dol" in French private law. 3. The concepts of "Vorsatz" and "grobe Nachlassigkeit" in Korean private law. 4. Analysis of the concept of wilful misconduct in Anglo-American case law. 5. Analysis of the cases interpreting the concepts of "with intent to cause damage" and "recklessly and with knowledge that damage would probably result" in various jurisdictions. 6. The need to incorporate the concepts of "with the intent to cause damage" and "recklessly and with the knowledge that damage would probably result." 7. Faute inexcusable in French private law. Based upon the comparative analysis, the author points out the difference between the concepts of "wilful misconduct" or "with the intent to cause damage" and "Vorsatz", and between the concepts of "recklessly and with the knowledge that damage would probably result" and "grobe Nachlassigkeit" in the Convention and that of the Korean Private Law system. Additionally, the author emphasizes the importance of the unification in the interpretation of the provisions of the Conventions world wide.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제46권
• /
• pp.181-210
• /
• 2010

The continuing advance of multimodal transport with the importance for efficient and effective logistics management emphasizes the need for uniform legal approach to international multimodal transport. However, the current fragmented instrument regulating such transport is being an obstacle to development of multimodal transport as it aggravates confusion and uncertainty. The Rotterdam rules, which was adopted in December 2008 by UNCITRAL, expands its scope of application to door-to-door transport. However, the new rules has some problems in its application to multimodal transport operation as it has been conceived not to regulate general multimodal carriage but to regulate contract of carriage by sea that extends its services to the transport by other modes. This article examines conflict of conventions in the Rotterdam Rules. The applicability of the Rotterdam Rules in international multimodal transport contract and possibility of potential conflict with other transport conventions are analyzed with some hypothetical cases. Furthermore, problems arising from application of the Rotterdam Rules under international multimodal transport Contracts are indicated in the chapter IV.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제47권
• /
• pp.337-353
• /
• 2010

On payment of the insurance money the insurer is entitled to be subrogated to all right and remedies of the assured in respect of the interest insured in so far as he has indemnified the insured. The purpose of subrogation is to prevent the assured from recovering more than once for the same loss, e.g. where goods are lost owing to a collision, the assured cannot claim the insurance money from the insurer and then sue the owners of the ship that negligently caused the collision. Under the doctrine of subrogation the right to sue owners of the negligent ship passes from the assured to the insurer on payment of the insurance money. The insurer is subrogated to the assured 'rights against the carrier under the contract of carriage. To defeat the cargo underwriters' subrogation righters, the carriers inserted in their B/L a clause allowing the carriers to have the "benefit of the shipper's insurance. But, in the Hague Rules, Hamburg Rules, Rotterdam Rules, its makes void any clause that assigns a benefit of insurance of the goods in favour of the carrier. In practice the insurer asks the assured to sign a letter of subrogation and retains the documents in order to prosecute the rights subrogated to him.

• 무역학회지
• /
• 제48권4호
• /
• pp.149-168
• /
• 2023

기명식 선하증권과 해상화물운송장을 영미법과 우리나라법 그리고 해상운송관련 국제협약을 고찰하여 분석한 결과 기명식 선하증권은 영국이 1992년 해상화물운송법을 제정하기 전에는 기능에서 국가 간 차이가 있었으나 동법 제정 후 우리나라와 미국, 영국 모두에서 동일한 법적 지위와 기능을 가지게 되었다. 기명식 선하증권은 세 국가 모두에서 화물수취의 영수증, 운송계약의 증거기능 뿐만아니라 지시식 선하증권과 같은 권리증권성을 가지고 있다. 해상화물운송장은 세 국가 모두에서 계약적·법적 지위가 같았다. 즉 위탁화물을 운송인이 수취했다는 영수증이며, 운송계약의 증거이다. 다만 비유통성이고, 수하인의 신분확인만으로 운송인이 화물을 수하인이나 그 대리인에게 인도할 수 있으며, 해상화물운송장 양도·양수를 통해 화물에 대한 소유권을 취득하거나 해상운송인에 대한 법적 권리를 취득할 수는 없다.

• 한국항해학회지
• /
• 제25권3호
• /
• pp.283-296
• /
• 2001

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 ships operation. In this study, the writer makes a wider and deeper study of rights of rights and obligations of Contract Parties by means of the rules of construction, specially focusing the Carriers liability under Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1971(COGSA 1971), Hague-Visby Rules and Korea Commercial Law.

• 한국항해항만학회:학술대회논문집
• /
• 한국항해항만학회 2015년도 추계학술대회
• /
• pp.37-39
• /
• 2015

The ships transiting the Northern Sea Route (NSR) have been gradually increased so that the number of ship-ice collision accidents would be increased. The collision between ship and ice floe can lead to serious damage of hulls and decline of ship's maneuverability. In this study, collision tests that a model ship is forced to collide with disk-shaped synthetic ice floes are conducted in a towing tank. The synthetic ice floes made of polypropylene which has similar density with real ice are used. The ice load is measured by a load cell installed on the carriage rod. The ice floe's motion is measured by a motion sensor installed on the synthetic ice floe. The influences of contact conditions such as hull form and ship speed on the ship-ice collision response are investigated and discussed by measured peak force and ice floe's motion.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제78권
• /
• pp.1-29
• /
• 2018

This article demonstrates that both the Warsaw Convention Systemand the Montreal Convention are not designed for multimodal transport, let alone for "Door to Door" transport. The polemic directed against the "Door to Door" application of the Warsaw Convention systemand the Montreal Convention is predominantly driven by the text and the drafting philosophy of the said Contentions that since 1929 support unimodalism-with the rule that "the period of the carriage by air does not expend to any carriage by land, by sea or by inland waterway performed outside an airport" playing a profound role in restricting their multimodal aspirations. The drafters of the Montreal Convention were more adventurous than their predecessors with respect to the boundaries of the Montreal Convention. They amended Art. 18(3) by removing the phrase "whether in an aerodrome or on board an aircraft, or, in the case of landing outside an aerodrome, in any place whatsoever", however, they retained the first sentence of Art. 18(4). The deletion of the airport limitation fromArt. 18(3) creates its own paradox. The carrier can be held liable under the Montreal Convention for the loss or damage to cargo while it is in its charge in a warehouse outside an airport. Yet, damage or loss of the same cargo that occurs during its surface transportation to the aforementioned warehouse and vice versa is not covered by the Montreal Convention fromthe moment the cargo crosses the airport's perimeter. Surely, this result could not have been the intention of its drafters: it certainly does not make any commercial sense. I think that a better solution to the paradox is to apply the "functional interpretation" of the term"airport". This would retain the integrity of the text of the Montreal Convention, make sense of the change in the wording of Art. 18(3), and nevertheless retain the Convention's unimodal philosophy. English courts so far remain loyal to the judgment of the Court of Appeal in Quantum, which constitutes bad news for the supporters of the multimodal scope of the Montreal Convention. According the US cases, any losses occurring during Door to Door transportation under an air waybill which involves a dominant air segment are subject to the international air law conventions. Any domestic rules that might be applicable to the road segment are blatantly overlooked. Undoubtedly, the approach of the US makes commercial. But this policy decision by arguing that the intention of the drafters of the Warsaw Convention was to cover Door to Door transportation is mistaken. Any expansion to multimodal transport would require an amendment to the Montreal Convention, Arts 18 and 38, one that is not in the plans for the foreseeable future. Yet there is no doubt that air carriers and freight forwarders will continue to push hard for such expansion, especially in the USA, where courts are more accommodating.

• 항공우주정책ㆍ법학회지
• /
• 제31권1호
• /
• pp.3-36
• /
• 2016

사안의 화물은 중국 칭다오를 출발하여 한국으로 수입된 귀금속으로, 사실관계에 따르면 인천공항까지 항공운송된 이후에 공항에서 서울 용산에 소재한 수하인의 주소지까지 육상운송되던 도중에 화물의 일부가 도난당하는 사고가 발생하였다. EXW조건으로 운송된 본건 화물에 대해 항공화물특송업을 영위하는 피고 운송인은 수출지 칭다오에서 수입자와 항공화물운송계약을 체결하였고 그에 관한 증빙으로 항공화물운송장이 발행되었다. 화물분실에 관한 손해배상책임에 관하여, 피고 운송인은 피고의 항공운송약관 및 민법과 상법에 우선하여 몬트리올협약이 적용되어야 함을 주장하면서 그에 따라 자신의 손해배상책임은 협약에 규정된 바와 같이 일정 한도로 제한되어야 한다고 주장하였다. 본 사안의 원고는 수입업자에게 보험금을 지급하고서 수입업자의 손해배상청구권을 대위행사하는 보험자였는데, 원고는 본 사건의 손해가 육상운송구간에서 발생하였으며 몬트리올 협약 제18조 제4항에 따라 항공운송 이외 구간에서 발생한 손해에 대해서는 협약이 적용될 수 없다고 주장하였다. 동 규정에 따르면 항공운송의 기간에는 공항 외부에서 행한 육상, 해상 또는 내륙수로운송은 포함되지 아니하는 것으로 명시되어 있기 때문이다. 또한 그러한 운송이 항공운송계약을 이행함에 있어서, 화물의 적재, 인도 또는 환적을 목적으로 하여 행하여졌을 때에는 반증이 없는 한 어떠한 손해도 항공운송 중에 발생한 사고의 결과라고 추정된다는 규정도 있다. 이에 따라 원고 보험자는 원칙적으로 항공운송 규범은 비(非)항공운송 구간에서 발생한 손해에 대해서는 적용되어서는 아니 되고, 더욱이 본 건과 같이 육상운송 구간에서 손해가 발생한 것으로 추정되고 그에 관한 반대의 입증이 존재하지 않는 경우에는 협약상 항공운송 중에 발생한 손해에 관한 추정규정도 적용되지 않으므로 오로지 육상운송에 관한 규범에 따라 피고 운송인이 손해배상책임을 부담하여야 한다고 주장하였다. 우리 상법상 육상운송에 관한 규정은 어떠한 책임제한원칙도 두지 않고 있으므로 만약 상법이 적용되고 몬트리올 협약과 같은 항공운송규범이 적용되지 않는다면 피고 운송인의 손해배상책임은 실손해배상을 기준으로 산정되어야만 하였다. 사안의 제1심과 원심은 원고 보험자의 주장을 받아들여 항공운송 규범의 적용을 불허하면서 역시 그에 따른 책임제한규정도 적용될 수 없다고 판단하였다. 이에 반해 대법원은 사안에서 체결된 운송계약의 내용으로 항공화물운송장의 이면약관의 적용을 긍정하여 피고 운송인이 책임제한을 원용할 수 있다고 판단하였다. 본 논문은 위와 같은 사실관계를 바탕으로 법원의 판단내용을 재검토하는 것을 주요 내용으로 한다. 특히 복합운송인에 의해 복합운송증권이 발행되는 '단순한 복합운송계약'과 항공운송의 이행과정에서 항공화물의 적재, 인도, 환적을 목적으로 이종의 운송수단이 사용되는 '확장된 항공운송계약'의 구별 필요성에 관해서도 살펴보았다. 본 연구는 기존에 해상운송 중심적이던 복합운송에 관한 연구와 비교하여 항공연계 복합운송에 관한 논의를 전개하였다는 점에서 의의가 있다고 하겠다.

• 한국마린엔지니어링학회:학술대회논문집
• /
• 한국마린엔지니어링학회 2005년도 후기학술대회논문집
• /
• pp.94-97
• /
• 2005

Seaworthiness is an important part of the carrier's obligation in the carriage of goods by sea. Especially seaworthiness of the ship is one of the most important obligations of the carrier in the field of international transport law. Therefore it will be important to examine the expected impacts by adopting a continuing duty of seaworthiness in UNCITRAL Draft Instrument from the Korea point of view because Korean Commercial Act provides that carriers are only obliged to exercise due diligence to make the ship seaworthy before and at the beginning of the voyage. This paper examines the concept of the seaworthiness and analyses the provisions of the Draft Instrument for the duty of seaworthiness in comparison with the Korean Commercial Act.