• Journal of Korea Trade
• /
• 제25권1호
• /
• pp.203-219
• /
• 2021

Purpose - The purpose of this study is to review and analyzes the contract of carriage and delivery/transport document in light of the major changes made to the Incoterms^® 2020 rules forced into effect on January 1st, 2020. Design/methodology - This study analyzed responsibility for the loading and unloading of goods under the contract of carriage in Incoterms 2020^® rules forced into effect by the ICC from January 1, 2020, and what document must be presented as evidence of delivery by the seller. Findings - A review revealed that in Rule C, the costs of unloading at the place of destination are determined by the terms of the contract of carriage, and in the DAP and DDP rules, if the seller bears the unloading costs, such unloading costs cannot be recovered from the buyer. To settle this issue, the seller needs to make a contract of carriage by sea with the carrier on FI terms. Furthermore, in the case of containerized goods that the FCA should be used, FOB was misused because the seller could not present an on-board bill of lading in the L/C transaction. However, it was confirmed that in FCA, the parties can use an optional mechanism to issue an on-board bill of lading. Originality/value - Incoterms 2020^® rules are still widely used in international trade by parties to contract sales around the world, just like Incoterms 2010^® rules. This study attempts to reduce or eliminate disputes that may arise from interpretative misunderstandings between the parties in the contract of sales concluded by the seller and the buyer.

• 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.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제42권
• /
• pp.189-210
• /
• 2009

The United Nations General Assembly adopted the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Carriage of Goods Wholly or Partly by Sea(hereinafter referred to as "The Rotterdam Rules") on 11 December 2008. Rotterdam Rules aims to create a contemporary and uniform law providing for modern door-to-door container transport including an international sea leg. but not limited to port-to port carriage of goods. The structure of the liability regime in Rotterdam Rules are globally close to that of the Hague-Visby Rule even though it differs from that of the Hague-Visby Rules in some significant aspects. The Rotterdam Rules are very long. Therefore the Rotterdam Rules will be difficult to understand for even the skilled ship operator or owner or charterer or shipper or consignee or receiver because they are so complicated. This paper only seeks to highlight the salient features of the liability and limitation of liability regime under the Rotterdam Rules. It is expected that the harmonization and modernization of the international legal regime. coupled with the bold attempt to balance the carrier and cargo interests should lead to an overall reduction in transaction costs. increased predictability and greater commercial confidence for international business transactions.

• 한국항해학회지
• /
• 제20권2호
• /
• pp.15-32
• /
• 1996

The Internation Maritime Organization (IMO) has required that ships other than cellular-ships which carry cargo units and other entities should be provided with a cargo securing manual. A number of serious accidents has resulted from improper stowage and insufficient securing of heavy cargo. The cargo claims caused by the accidents stated above not only reduce the number of shippers but also reduce their benefits. The following four basic safe items should be considered carefully in the carriage by sea in case of two tiers loading of heavy cargoes packed with wooden case if it is a general cargo ship. a) Safe stowing place b) Safe lashing c) Protecting crushing goods d) Adequate dunnage. All operators of cargoes must be reminded that only the proper stowge and securing of heavy cargos can prevent from the occurrence of such accidents in the future. This paper intends to analyze the unigue damage mechanism for two tiers loading of heavy cargoes on the general cargo ships encountered in the rough sea, and suggest the countermeusere to prevent the identical accidents in the future.

• 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.

• 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.

• 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
• /
• 제37권
• /
• pp.61-85
• /
• 2008

Bills of lading are crucial in international sales on shipment terms since they guard buyers against loss of or damage to the goods in transit by giving them the rights against carriers. A bill of lading, as document of title, gives the buyer the right to demand physical possession of the goods from the carrier and enables the buyer who is in possession of damaged or short-delivered goods to sue the carrier. In this context the buyer in sales on CIF or CFR terms or FOB terms with additional services benefits from the bill of lading which functions as a receipt of goods and a evidence of the terms of the contract of carriage. Protection of such buyer's interests can be provided in the sale contract through appropriate express or implied terms on the seller's documentary obligations: Which transport document, a bill of lading or a sea waybill, is required? Who should be named as the consignee in the transport document and, in case of bill of lading, by whom should the bill be endorsed? What should be stated in the bill of lading for the quantity of the goods? How about a bill of lading that contains so called "unknown clause"? How many bills of lading for the entire contract goods should be tendered? Can a bill of lading stating that the goods have been shipped in apparent good order and condition also state that the goods were damaged after shipment? This paper seeks to provide answers for these particular questions.

• 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.

• 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.