• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제65권
• /
• pp.95-116
• /
• 2015

So far several attempts have been made to digitalizing sea transport documents. Three notable examples are SeaDocs, Bolero, e-B/L Korea and Ess-Databridge. Ess-Databridge was established in 2003, with the aim of promoting the use of electronic alternative to shipping documents. The ESS-Databridge system was piloted from 2005 and went live in January 2010. The ESS-Databridge operates under a private legal outline, the Databridge Services and Users Agreement (DSUA). In the Ess-Databridge system, only the user who is in control of the original bill of lading will be able to indorse it on to another user. Once the indorsement is effected and unless the indorsee decide store turn the documents, the indorser loses control and retains access only to an electronic document marked 'copy' for its records. A feature that appears to have been crucial to the success of the CargoDocs service is that visually, e-B/Ls produced using ESS-Databridge appear identical to the paper documents. The ESS-Databridge may be even more successful if the legislators take certain steps that will increase uniformity and certainty in electronic transport documentation.

• 항공우주정책ㆍ법학회지
• /
• 제25권2호
• /
• pp.3-42
• /
• 2010

바르샤바협약 제1조에 의하면 국제운송이 아닌 경우, 즉 출발지, 도착지 모두가 체약국이 아닌 경우 및 순수한 국내운송에는 본 조약이 적용되지 않는다. 따라서, 이 경우에는 책임 및 손해배상에 대해서는 국제사법을 따라 준거법이 선택되어 져야 한다. 또한 국제운송의 경우에도 본 조약이 항공운송인과 승객의 모든 관계를 규율하는 것이 아니라, 어느 일정한 규칙의 통일이 목적이다. 이 "어느 규칙"의 적용범위에 없는 사건에는 국내법이 적용된다. 가장 중요한 것은 무엇보다도 제조물책임이다. 항공기제조자의 책임에 관해서는 역시 국제사법을 따라 준거법을 선택하지 않으면 안 된다. 또한 바르샤바협약 제17조가 적용되는 승객의 인신적 손해에 대해서는 제2조 2항 단서에서 명문으로 손해배상의 종류 및 주관적, 객관적 범위에 관해서는 국내법에 맡겨지고 있다. 이 경우에 법정지실질법에 의한다는 견해와, 법정지국제사법에 의한다는 견해가 대립되고 있다. 항공기사고 준거법관련 대표적인 대형사고로 중화항공기 일본 나고야공항 추락사고를 들 수 있다. 이 사고는 Air Bus사가 제조하고 중화항공이 소유 운항하는 타이완(타이베이)발 일본(나고야) 도착예정 항공편인 여객기가 목적지 나고야 공항에 착륙하기 위해 강하하던 중, 나고야 공항 부근에 추락하여 승객, 승무원 등 264명이 사망하고 승객 7명이 부상당하고, 수화물 등이 멸실된 대형 항공기사고이다. 이 사건에서 원고는 사망한 승객 및 승무원의 유족 및 생존 피해자 중 1명이며, 본건 사고항공기의 운항자인 중화항공에 대하여는 "국제항공운송에 대한 규칙의 통일에 관한 조약(헤이그의정서, 1967년 조약 제11호)"에 의해 개정된 바르샤바협약(1953년 조약 제17호; 이하, 개정 바르샤바협약이라 한다) 제17조, 제18조에 의해 손해배상 청구권 및 불법행위에 의한 손해배상청구권에 기초하여, 또한 본건 사고 항공기의 제조사인 Air Bus사에 대해서는 불법행위에 의한 손해배상청구권에 기초하여 연대손해배상을 청구한 사건이다. 생존자 1명과, 일본 내 유족회, 대만의 유족들로 구성된 통일 원고단은 총236명의 손해배상청구에 대한 판결에서 중화항공에 대한 배상제한을 부정하고, 손해전액의 배상책임을 긍정하여 총 50억 2640만여엔의 지급을 명하였다. Air Bus사의 책임에 대해서는 "기체의 설계가 곧바로 결함이라고는 할수 없다"고 하여 청구를 기각하였다. 타이완 거주 피해자의 손해에 있어서 일실이익의 산정에 대해서는 "원칙적으로 사고 전의 현실 수입액에 기초하여 장래에 걸쳐 얻어질 이자수입액을 인정하고, 이것을 기초수입으로 산정해야 함은 일본거주 피해자의 경우와 ... 다른 점이 없다"고 판시한다. 중화항공사측은 이 판결을 받아들여 즉시 "판결을 존중하며, 보험회사에 배상사무를 진행시킨다"는 성명을 발표하였고, 상소하지 않는다는 방침을 표명했다. 당시의 사고지역인 일본경제신문 조간에 의하면 상소한 원고의 대부분이 상소취하에 의한 판결의 확정을 바라고 있었으며, 동 소송은 제소시부터 8년여가 지나면서 대부분의 원고에 대해서 마무리 될 전망이었다. 상소하지 않는 이유에 대해서는 중화항공의 대리인이 "재판에 오랜 시간이 소요되고, 유족이나 관계자에게 심적 부담을 주는 것 이었다. 판결에서는 받아들여지지 않은 점도 있지만, 더 이상 중화항공측과 다투는 것은 피하고 싶다"고 했다. 판결에까지 이른 항공사고소송으로서는 원고수로 보나 청구액에서 최대 규모라 할 수 있다. 이러한 대규모적 손해배상청구사건에서는 항공회사의 책임에 대하여, 항공운송계약의 위반으로 계약준거법을 결정하는 것이 아주 복잡하다. 개별적인 사정에 기초한 계약체결지나 출발지, 도달지 등을 감안하여 각각 결정하여야 하기 때문이다.

• 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
• /
• 제43권
• /
• pp.53-74
• /
• 2009

INCOTERMS have been changed almost every 10 years since ICC established INCOTERMS as trade terms for International transaction. Recently transportation has become bigger, and modernized by means of electronic appliances such as RFID, IT, and containerization. FRC, FOR/FOT, FOA were added in INCOTERMS1980 and every conditions are unified into three alphabets in INCOTERMS1990. The best features of INCOTERMS2000 are that FCA substitute FRC, FOR/FOT, FOA and customs formalities were simplified to make clear for each party of contract. It seems that business circles still stick to old customs of their trade like FOB or CIF not only in Korea but in an international practice even though there have been several revisions of INCOTERMS until now. ICC have tried to provide INCOTERMS3000 to solve problems between a theory and an actual condition of international trade. This study has tried to suggest opinions against INCOTERMS3000 and has surveyed a recognition, an actual using situation and issues of INCOTERMS to get improvements. For a recognition of INCOTERMS has been spread as you can find at tables many kinds of business circles still stick to old customs of their trade terms FOB and CIF. Now there are two alternative plans. Firstly, we need to suggest improvements against inconsistency of INCOTERMS to be applied on newly revised INCOTERMS3000 and educating business circles to use proper conditions of INCOTERMS for their doing business. Secondly, we shall participate in revising INCOTERMS to activate multimodal transport conditions of INCOTERMS and provide solutions to fill gap between a theory and an actual condition of international trade. It seems that terms of multimodal transport such as FCA, CPT, or CIP can be a perfect condition for each party of contract. We have examined the inconsistent features of Ship's rail and notions of on board, and observed how to activate multimodal transport terms. These would be hot issues of next revision of INCOTERMS and we provided improvements on each trade terms, THC charges, or others against INCOTERMS.

• 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
• /
• 제28권2호
• /
• pp.97-115
• /
• 2013

항공기 운항의 가장 기본이 되는 규정은 ICAO Annex 6. Operations of Aircraft(항공기 운항)이다. 이 중 Part I은 상업항공운송용 항공기에 대한 것이며, 민간항공의 대부분을 차지하고 있다. ICAO에서는 항공기 운항에 관한 표준과 권고사항(SARPs: Standards and Recommended Practices)을 제정하여 체약국(Contracting States)이 어느 정도 국내규정에 반영하여 적용하고 있는지를 평가하고 있는데 이를 항공안전평가(USOAP)라고 한다. 기존의 ICAO 항공안전평가는 순간포착(Snap-shop) 방식으로 평가하였으나, 2013년부터 항공안전상시평가(USOAP-CMA) 방식으로 바뀌게 되어 시행된다. ICAO 항공안전평가 결과는 국적사의 노선, 보험료, 항공사간 제휴 등 국가항공산업 전반에 큰 영향을 미친다. 낮은 등급으로 판정 시, 국제사회에서 집중 주목이 되고 우리나라 국적사들이 운항정지, 노선제한, 항공사간 제휴 제한, 보험료 등 직/간접적으로 영향을 받을 수 있다. 따라서 우리나라 항공산업의 글로벌 경쟁력을 위해서는 ICAO 항공안전평가에서 '우수국가' 지위를 유지하여 높은 신인도를 이어나가는 것이 매우 중요하다. 우리나라는 2008년 실시된 ICAO 항공안전평가에서 종합 평점 98.89점을 획득, 세계 1위를 차지한 바 있으나, 2008년 이후 개정된 사항이 제대로 반영되지 못하고 있는 실정이다. 이에 따라 본 논문에서는 가장 최신의 개정판을 이용하여 ICAO Annex 6 Part I의 국내 항공법규 반영정도를 파악해보고자 한다. 아울러 미반영된 부분과 부분반영된 부분에 대한 반영방안도 같이 제시하고자 한다.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제54권
• /
• pp.99-122
• /
• 2012

According to the United Nations Convention on the International Sale of Goods, the Seller must deliver the goods, hand over any documents relating to the them and transfer the property the to the goods as required by the contract, and buyer must pay the price for the goods and take delivery of them as required by the contract. In particular, the seller provides the documents is important. If the documents are discrepancies in credit, the beneficiary may not receive the payment. So It is important to study on conditions of documents in international trade. Documents provided by the seller shall be determined by express terms. If there is no agreement on the express terms, it shall be determined by the implied terms or governing law terms. In practice Seller shall provide the documents are as follows, For example, transport documents, commercial invoice, certificate of origin, insurance policy, packing list, inspection certificate etc. As stated above if it can not be determined by express terms, it is determined by the implied terms. In international trade, leading to the implied terms is incoterms(R) 2010 and UCP 600. Incoterms(R) 2010 define the seller must provide the goods and the commercial in conformity with the sales contract and any other evidence of conformity that may be required by the contract and UCP 600 are rules that apply to documentary credit. This paper, the practical utility between Incoterms(R) 2010 and UCP 600 is studied.

• 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.

• 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.

• 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.