• 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.

• 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.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제45권
• /
• pp.85-109
• /
• 2010

L/C provides the exporter and the importer with safe assurance in the exchange of goods for payment in international trade. It involves a number of parties. Although the parties may have confidence in their client, bad faith or ignorance of international banking practice by any of these parties could cause the failure of transaction, which makes international trade a risky business. Most of the risks are found in transport document, which can cause disputes. There are many factors in the risk of transport documents under L/C transaction. One most common risk factor for the beneficiary in all transport documents is even if there is no discrepancy in document, the issuing bank or the applicant refuses to pay or delay payment insisting there is a discrepancy. In some very rare cases, the beneficiary may not get paid due to unfair injunction of the local court of the applicant. For the applicant, most common risk factors are fake bill and fraud. Risks classified according to the sorts of transport documents are as follows. 1. In B/L, payment can be refused because it is regarded as charter party B/L, although there is no real charter party contract. And the applicant can bear the potential risk of the loss or deterioration of cargo through transhipment of the cargo loaded on board in container if transhipment is prohibited without excluding of UCP 600 article 20 (c). 2. In charter party B/L, the applicant may take delivery without paying when charter party B/L is signed by charterer, which can result in a big loss for the beneficiary and the negotiating bank. And risks may arise when cargo is seized because the charterer does not pay the hire. The applicant and the issuing bank are also vulnerable to a risk - Against whom should they file a suit when cargo gets damaged during transportation? 3. In multimodal transport document, which is subject to a conflict because there is a big difference in viewpoints between transport industry and banks, conflicts may also arise when L/C requires ocean B/L and accepts multimodal transport document at the same time, but does not specify the details. 4. In air waybill, where the consignee is not the issuing bank but the applicant, risks may take place to the beneficiary when the applicant takes delivery but refuses to pay asserting minor discrepancies in document. The applicant may also bear the risk when cargo may not be loaded because air waybill is a received bill. Another risk may arise when although the applicant prohibits transhipment without excluding UCP 600 article 23 (c), the cargo may be transhipped, provided that the entire carriage is covered by one and the same air waybill.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제35권
• /
• pp.71-98
• /
• 2007

UCP 600 approved at the Banking Commission Meeting of ICC at the end of October, 2006 comes into effect from July 1, 2007. The main revision of the UCP 600 concerning the sea transport document are as follows. First, if the bill of lading contains an on-board-notation, with the date of shipment, the date stated in the on-board-notation will be deemed the date of shipment. Secondly, phrases "on its face" and "otherwise authenticated" should be eliminated. Thirdly, when an agent signs for or signs on behalf of the master, there is no longer a need for the name of master to be quoted. Fourthly, the terminology "loading on-board or shipped on a named vessel" is changed to "shipped on-board a named vessel." Fifthly, phrases "the rejection of the documents transported only by sail" is removed. Finally, new rule in UCP is the signing of a charter party bill of lading by the charterer or a named agent on behalf of the charterer. My assessment of the revision in UCP 600 is as follows: Because a freight forwarder transport document is a weaker form than a liner bill of lading as collateral, banks may need a secure measure as to protect themselves from such a weak collateral effect. we recognize that Such a weak collateral effect stemmed from the elimination of rules in UCP 500 article 30, and the admission of transport documents issued by the freight forwarder as long as any one besides carrier, shipper, and charterer satisfies the requirements of transport document clauses in UCP 600. Finally, I hope the Commentary on UCP 600 will serve to explain the ambiguities remaining in the new rules.

• 한국항해항만학회지
• /
• 제37권6호
• /
• pp.689-697
• /
• 2013

체선료는 운임의 일종으로서 항만에서 선박의 체항에 따른 시간적 손실에 대한 보상이다. 통상적인 항해용선계약에 따르면 체선료의 책임은 반대의 문언이 없는 한 용선자에게 있는 것으로 추정된다. 그러나 실무에서는 용선자의 책임이 제한되거나 송하인 또는 수하인 등 제3자에게 이전되어 선주가 체선료 확보에 어려운 상황에 직면하게 되는 경우가 빈번하게 발생되고 있다. 본 연구에서는 용선자, 송하인, 수하인, 선하증권의 배서인, 기타 이해당사자 간의 체선료지불 책임에 관한 문제를 영미법의 사례를 중심으로 살펴보고, 그 결과에 따른 시사점을 도출하여 선주나 용선자의 실무에 도움이 되는 방안을 제시한다.

• 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.