• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제71권
• /
• pp.147-170
• /
• 2016

International maritime law conventions concerned with cargo liabilities have sought to achieve solutions which will be acceptable to a wide range of states. The Rotterdam Rules was approved by the UN Assembly on 11 December 2008. The Rotterdam Rules are intended to replace The Hague and Hamburg Rules. This paper is comparing The Rotterdam Rules with The Hague and Hamburg Rules for the carrier' liabilities and exceptions in order to find carrier' liability System, the burden of proof and exceptions in the International maritime Rules. The purpose of this paper is considering the carrier's principal recourse for defending himself inmost cargo claims. The first area analyze the transfer of carrier's fundamental Liability system in the International Rules. The second is the matter on the appointment of proof in order to establish liability or to be relieve of liability. And the third is the change of the carrier's possible exclusions from liability in the International maritime Rules. From the result of the said analysis, my paper suggests differences of the exclusions in the Rotterdam Rules comparing with the Hague and Hamburg Rules, and features of the Rotterdam Rules appling exceptions on the basis of the Hague and Hamburg Rules with regard to carrier's liability and burden of proof. The former is the inclusion of three exclusions, the deleted natural fault, and The provision making the carrier responsible for the acts of its servants or agents in the 'fire on the ship' of the Rotterdam Rules. The latter is deleting the principle of overriding obligation related to carrier's obligation of seaworthiness in the Rotterdam Rules, the burden of proof being diverted from the carrier to the carrier and the shipper in the cargo damage caused by two factors(one for which the carrier was liable and the other for which it was excusable) in the new rules.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제8권
• /
• pp.121-149
• /
• 1995

• 한국항해학회지
• /
• 제25권3호
• /
• pp.269-281
• /
• 2001

실제운송인은 해상물건운송 법률관계의 특수한 주체이다. 함부르크 규칙은 실제운송인 제도를 설립하였다. 중국해상법은 함부르크 규칙을 참조하고 실제운송인 제도를 도입하여 제4장에서 실제운송인에 관하여 규정하고 있다. 그러나 실제운송인에 대한 법리 해설과 사법실무에는 문제가 많이 생긴다. 본 논문은 중국해상법상 실제운송인의 의의, 실제운송인의 인정, 실제운송인의 책임에 관하여 연구하고자 한다.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제77권
• /
• pp.145-168
• /
• 2018

The purpose of this paper is to introduce the limitation of liabilities of multimodal transport operators(MTO) in Korea. Also, this paper reviews the revised draft of Korean Commercial Code in 2015. This paper analyzes Korean multimodal transport systemand the limitation of liabilities of MTO by analyzing articles, regulations and practices of Korean Commercial Code and it's the draft in 2015. The paper, also, studies multimodal transport rules by comparing specifically international treaty, rules, or practices. In Korea, Article 816 of Commercial Code treats multimodal transportation adopting the network liability regime. The Article describes only the case of the multimodal transportation where the maritime carriage is engaged. Korea proposed the draft of multimodal transport regulation of Commercial Code in 2015 because present law could not apply for the multimodal transportation involved in the air or land carriage. This paper support the draft of Korean Commercial Code in 2015 because it is necessary to make a predictable legal system of multimodal transport and the limitation of liability reflecting practices or customs.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제12권
• /
• pp.377-401
• /
• 1999

This study is focused on the privity of the contract of carriage of goods by sea, so to speak, privity between B/L holder and carrier by transfer of bill of lading, privity by attornment to delivery order and conflict between bills of lading and charterparty terms. Under a CIF contract, possession of the bill of lading is equivalent to possession of the goods, and delivery of the bill of lading to the buyer or to a third party may be effective to pass the property in the goods to such person. The bill of lading is a document of title enabling the holder to obtain credit from banks before the arrival of the goods, for the transfer of the bill of lading can operate as a pledge of the goods themselves. In addition, it is by virtue of the bill of lading that the buyer or his assignee can obtain redress against the carrier for any breach of its terms and of the contract of carriage that it evidences. In other words the bill of lading creates a privity between its holder and the carrier as if the contract was made between them. The use of delivery orders in overseas sales is commen where bulk cargoes are split into more parcels than there are bills of lading, and this practice gives rise to considerable difficulties. For example, where the holder of a bill of lading transferred one of the delivery orders to the buyer who presented it to the carrier and paid the freight of the goods to which the order related, it was held that there was a contract between the buyer and the carrier under which the carrier could be made liable in repect of damage to the goods. The contract was on the same terms as that evidenced by, or contained in, the bill of lading, which was expressly incorporated by reference in the delivery order. If the transferee of the delivery order presents it and claims the goods, he may also be taken to have offered to enter into an implied contract incorporating some of the terms of the contract of carriage ; and he will, on the carrier's acceptance of that offer, not only acquire rights, but also incur liabilities under that contract. Where the terms of the charterparties conflict with those of the bills of lading, it is interpreted as below. First, goods may be shipped in a ship chartered by the shipper directly from the shipowner. In that case any bill of lading issued by the shipowner operates, as between shipowner and charterer, as a mere receipt. But if the bill of lading has been indorsed to a third party, between that third party and carrier, the bill of lading will normally be the contract of carriage. Secondly, goods may be shipped by a seller on a ship chartered by the buyer for taking delivery of the goods under the contract of sale. If the seller takes a bill of lading in his own name and to his own order, the terms of that bill of lading would govern the contractual relations between seller and carrier. Thirdly, a ship may be chartered by her owner to a charterer and then subchartered by the chaterer to a shipper, to whom a bill of lading may later be issued by the shipowner. In such a case, the bill of lading is regarded as evidencing a contract of carriage between the shipowner and cargo-owners.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제43권
• /
• pp.297-336
• /
• 2009

In modern industrial society carriage of dangerous goods by sea becomes more increasing than ever before. Dangerous goods are required for special care and handling in that shipment of dangerous goods could affect safety of the vessel and other cargoes. It is also true that dangerous goods could be used as a means of terrorism. his article investigates allocation of risk and liabilities between parties involved in the carriage of dangerous goods by sea. More specifically, this study examines principles of strict liability of the shipper in shipment of dangerous goods with some limitations based upon recent cases. Furthermore this article investigates the issues on identity of shipper who bears strict liability to the carrier where there exist actual or documentary shipper other than the contractual shipper. Lastly, whether it is reasonable that the transfer of strict liability to the transferee, who does not have opportunity to verify dangerous nature of the goods before shipment, by endorsing bills of lading will be discussed critically.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제14권
• /
• pp.7-35
• /
• 2000

The purpose of this paper is to examine the meanings of delivery of each trade term in INCOTERMS 2000, to investigate various kinds of transport document as a proof of delivery, and finally to find their problems. As a result of examination, following problems are considered to happen practically. First, a multimodal transport document referred in FOB term seems to be unappropriate because FOB term can be used in sea or inland waterway transport. Second, Assuming resale in transit in CFR or CIF term, non-negotiable Sea Waybill seems to be inappropriate. Third, As Sea Waybill is not a document of title, it can not be a security when the bank negotiate seller's draft. Fourth, INCOTERMS 2000 deleted the reference to charter party in CFR or CIF term. This deletion may raise any legal problems for the liabilities of carrier when the contradictions happen between the charter party B/L and charter party. Finally, if CFR or CIF means symbolic delivery, other documents besides B/L can not be a symbols of goods.

• 통상정보연구
• /
• 제15권2호
• /
• pp.285-313
• /
• 2013

우리나라의 정기용선 관련법은 2007년에 상법의 기존 규정에 대해 근본적으로 바꾸지 않고 유지하는 방향으로 개정함으로써 본 계약에서 중요한 제3자에 관한 권리 의무의 문제는 제외하였다. 따라서 현재, 정기용선과 관련하여 제3자에 대한 책임 문제를 해결하는데 상법을 통한 해결 방법의 도출보다는 법적 실무적인 사례들의 검토를 통해 논의하는 것이 적절하다 판단되고 있다. 정기용선계약은 당사자인 선주와 용선자 간에 이뤄지는 사적계약이며 계약의 특수성에 의해 제3자의 운송물에 손해가 발생하였을 때에 책임 주체를 명확히 하는 것이 어렵다. 이에, 선의의 제3자에 대한 운송물의 재산적 권리 보호를 위해 정기용선계약 하에서 선주와 용선자 중 누가 운송인인지를 구분 확정하는 것에 대한 법적 실무적인 기준의 정립이 필요하다. 현재, 정기용선 계약에서 당사자 간의 유책자 판단에 대해 법적 성질을 이용한 확정 방법은 그 명확성에 대해 논쟁 중인 실정이다. 이에 본 연구에서는 정기용선계약의 특성에 입각하여 제3자의 화물 손해에 대한 책임 주체의 자격확정을 어떻게 할 것인가에 목적을 두고, 이에 따라 제3자 손해의 책임 주체를 찾아내기 위해 정기용선계약에서 논란이 되어 온 법적 성질을 검토 고찰하고 운송인의 자격을 확정할 수 있는 이외의 방법이 있는지, 또 운송 계약 하에서 책임 주체로서 운송인 확정을 위한 방법이 무엇이 있는지 검토 한다. 본 연구는 제3자 손해에 대한 구제 방안으로 당사자 간의 운송인 확정의 방법, 용선계약 내에 Inter-Club Agreement의 포함을 통한 제3자의 손해에 대한 책임 분담의 방법, 제3자의 구제 방안에 대한 규정의 상법에의 도입 또는 개정을 통한 방법을 검토하며 이러한 방법들이 정기용선계약 하에서 발생한 제3자의 손해 처리에 용이한 도움이 될 것이라 제시해 본다.

• 무역학회지
• /
• 제41권2호
• /
• pp.231-250
• /
• 2016

본 연구는 선하증권이 발행된 국제무역거래에서 화물이 서류보다 일찍 도착하여 원본 선하증권 없이 화물을 인도 받기 위해 국제적으로 통용되고 있는 상관행인 수입화물선취보증서를 기존 연구와 다른 관점에서 고찰하고자 한다. 혼합결제방식 하에서 발행된 수입화물선취보증서의 보증책임 범위를 판례를 통해 분석하고 국제적인 상관행으로 자리잡고 있는 수입화물선취보증서의 원활한 활용을 위한 다음 두 개의 대안을 제언한다. 첫째, 혼합결제방식을 이용한 경우, 수출업자는 상업송장을 발행함에 있어 결제방식의 결제대금을 각각 분리해서 발급해야 수입화물선취보증서의 보증책임 한도에 대한 명확한 의사표시가 이루어질 수 있을 것이다. 둘째, 수입화물선취보증서의 발행은행은 보증서 발행의 보증책임 범위를 명확히 하기 위해 기존 양식에 책임한도를 제한한다는 취지의 문구를 추가한 새로운 수입화물선취보증서 양식의 구축이 필요하다.

• 항공우주정책ㆍ법학회지
• /
• 제23권2호
• /
• pp.3-29
• /
• 2008

항공운송과 관련하여 우리나라는 1955년 헤이그 의정서에 의하여 개정된 바르샤바협약과 1999년 몬트리올 협약에 가입하여 국제운송에 관하여는 적용할 법률을 가지고 있지만, 현재 국내항공운송에 관하여는 적용될 법률이 없는 실정이다. 법무부는 상법 내에 항공운송편을 제정하기로 결정하고, 항공운송편제정 특별위원회를 구성하였다. 동 위원회는 2008년 여름 항공운송편 초안을 완성하여 동 초안은 현재 법제처의 심의를 받고 있다. 항공운송편을 제정함에 있어서는 현재까지 성립된 항공운송관련 대부분의 조약을 수용하였다. 항공운송법의 편제는 1장 통칙, 제2장 운송, 제3장 지상 제3자의 손해에 대한 책임 등 총 3개의 장을 두었다. 우리나라가 항공운송에 관한 단행법을 제정하지 않고 상법 제6편에 항공운송편을 두어 제2편 상행위편에 육상운송을 규정하곤 제5편에 해상운송에 관한 규정을 둔 것과 함께! 통합적인 운송법체계를 가진 것은 입법례가 없는 매우 독특한 입법형식을 취한 것이다. 특히 항공기운항자의 지상 제3자의 손해에 대한 책임에 관한 로마조약체계까지도 수용하여 함께 규정한 것은 국내항공운송법체계를 완성한 것으로서 매우 의미 있는 일이라고 생각한다.