• 정보처리학회논문지:소프트웨어 및 데이터공학
• /
• 제11권7호
• /
• pp.283-290
• /
• 2022

블록체인 기술은 거래를 투명하게 관리함으로써 중앙통제 없이 신뢰 가능한 P2P 거래를 가능하게 한다. 최근에는 금전적 가치를 지닌 선하증권(Bill of Lading, B/L서류)의 무결성을 확보하기 위해 블록체인을 적용한 연구가 진행되고 있다. 본 논문에서는 사용성 개선을 위한 블록체인 기반의 선하증권 시스템을 제안한다. 수출자는 선사로부터 발급 받은 선하증권을 블록체인에 저장하고, 은행에서 이를 조회하여 신용장 거래를 수행한다. 수입자는 선하증권 서류의 지문이 담긴 QR코드(Quick Response code)로 신원증명을 완료한 뒤 화물을 인도 받게 된다. 수출자는 우편으로 보낼 시간과 비용을 절약하고, 물품의 보안을 강화할 수 있다는 점에서 큰 효과를 거둘 수 있다. 수입자의 경우 선적 서류가 블록체인 네트워크에 등록되자 마자 서류를 열람할 수 있고, 신뢰를 바탕으로 거래를 수행할 수 있다는 이점을 갖는다. 뿐만 아니라 은행에서는 선적서류에 대한 검증을 더욱 신속하게 수행할 수 있다.

• Journal of Korea Trade
• /
• 제24권2호
• /
• pp.31-52
• /
• 2020

Purpose - This study mainly investigates two potential legal regimes expected to govern the use of electronic bills of lading: the Rotterdam Rules (2009) and the UNCITRAL Model Law on Electronic Transferable Records (2017). Widespread use of electronic bills of lading has been unsuccessful partly due to the absence of a uniform legal regime and protracted uncertainties. This paper aims to carry out an assessment of the possibilities where either of two potential legal regimes could provide certainty to the effect and validity of the use of electronic bills of lading, and contribute to the facilitation of electronically transferring the rights to goods carried by sea. Design/methodology - This paper first introduces two legal instruments and the relevance to electronic bills of lading. Since neither of these legal instruments has yet entered into force, the following section looks into the ratification or enactment possibilities based on a literature review and track records of the past legal regimes of the same kind. Assessment of the different adoption possibilities further requires comparative work of the two legal instruments, which will be based on an analysis of relevant provisions and a literature review. The literature review on the Rotterdam Rules delves into various studies and data produced since the UNCITRAL's adoption in 2009. The literature review on the UNCITRAL Model Law on Electronic Transferable Records heavily relies on UNCITRAL working group documents from 2011 to 2017 together with the final explanatory note. Findings - The main findings can be summarized as follows. Application of the Rotterdam Rules would negate the role of the UNCITRAL Model Law on Electronic Transferable Records assisting in the implementation of the Rotterdam Rules due to some conflicting issues. Enactment of the UNCITRAL Model Law alone can sufficiently provide a higher level of certainty in the use and effect of electronic bills of lading so long as lawmakers and parties are aware of some issues with the application. What concerns potential users most is the extension of the status quo, where neither of the legal instruments have any effect. It is necessary to take a number of alternatives into consideration, such as promotion of standard clauses and confirmation by a court ruling. Originality/value - Existing studies focus either on the Rotterdam Rules or on the UNCITRAL Model Law, but not both. Not many papers have yet dealt with the Model Law, which was adopted by UNCITRAL only 2 years ago, particularly in the context of a potential legal regime for electronic bills of lading. This paper attempts to introduce the differences between the two legal instruments in regulating the use of electronic bills of lading while providing an assessment of the various possibilities for which parties involved in international trade can be better prepared for the changing legal environment.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제45권
• /
• pp.111-136
• /
• 2010

Bill of lading means the transport document ("marine", "ocean" or "port-to-port" or similar), however named, covering sea shipment only. Data in a bill of lading, when read in context with the credit, the document itself and international standard banking practice, need not be identical to, but must not conflict with, data in that document, any other stipulated document or the credit, according to UCP 600 and ISBP. This article has provided the general guideline of the discrepancies on the basis of UCP 600, ISBP 681 and the ICC Banking Commission Opinions, for the solution of the unpaid problems of the credit transactions. I have studied especially the ICC Banking Commission Opinions and the DOCDEX Decisions on the bill of lading after UCP 600, the international standard banking practice (ISBP 681), and the recent Korean cases. As such, this article would fill a need gap in the market between the general principles in the UCP provisions and the daily job of the practitioner. The credit practitioners are suggested to this resulting guidance whenever doubts arise as to how to check the credit documents in daily practice.

• 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
• /
• 제68권
• /
• pp.1-21
• /
• 2015

The purpose of this study is to propose a new mechanism for the global transmission of electronic trade documents and to promote them using it. Trade settlement methods are changed from L/C bases to non-L/C bases and in particular, the telegraphic transfer is dramatically increased since mid 1990. But the status of transmission of electronic trade documents still rely on the letter of credit and bill of lading. So it need to change the process of transmission of electronic trade documents utilizing non-negotiable sea waybill instead of bill of lading. In this study, I pointed out two problems as obstacle factors in global transmission of electronic trade documents. First is the system connection problem between domestic and foreign banks and second is the electronic right transfer problem in the bill of lading. Electronic bill of lading has already been made, but are not used and e-Nego has also not been activated under the above issues. Therefore, it should be solved previously the above problems for the global transmission of electronic trade documents under the letters of credit. However, in transactions of transfer, it does not need the inter-bank connection and also does not occur the electronic right transfer problem of bill of lading if using the non-negotiable seaway bill instead of bill of lading. In this paper, I recommend the global transmission strategies of e-trade documents using the non-negotiable sea waybill in transactions of transfer. Hopefully, I expect the activation of global transmission of e-trade documents through the utilization of electronic non-negotiable sea waybill as suggested by this study.

• 한국항만경제학회지
• /
• 제29권1호
• /
• pp.47-66
• /
• 2013

본 논문은 정기용선한 선박에 적재된 화물에 대해 선하증권이 발행되고, 그 선하증권을 송하인 또는 선의의 소지자가 소지하고 있는 경우에 선장에 의한 선하증권의 서명으로 인하여 이들 관련당사자들 간에 발생할 수 있는 책임문제와 선장의 선하증권서명의무의 성질 및 선장의 권리에 대해서 지도적 판례로 간주되어 온 사례를 중심으로 하여 분석하였다. 정기용선자는 선박을 사용할 권리가 있고 또한 선장에게 지시할 권한도 가지고 있어, 그가 제시한 선하증권에 서명하도록 선장에게 요구할 수 있다. 계약에서 용선자에게 주어진 이러한 권리에 따라 용선계약의 내용과 일치하지 않은 내용이 기재된 선하증권이 제시되어도 선장은 그 선하증권에 서명해야 하지만, 판례에서는 명백하게 용선계약과 불일치한 조항이 선하증권에 포함되어 있거나, 용선계약에서 선하증권에 삽입하도록 요구한 조항이 포함되어 있지 않은 경우, 화물의 상태 및 수량에 관해 허위로 기재한 선하증권이 제시된 경우에는 서명을 거부할 수 있을 뿐만 아니라 기재사항에 의심이 있는 경우에는 조사할 권리도 인정하고 있어 그러한 선하증권에 서명함으로 인해 초래된 손해에 대해서는 용선자에게 책임을 전가할 수 없다.

• 한국항만경제학회지
• /
• 제25권1호
• /
• pp.169-190
• /
• 2009

용선계약상 특정 조건이 선하증권에 유효하게 편입되었는가를 판단하기 위해서는 우선적으로 선하증권의 편입조항이 언급하고 있는 용선계약을 특정해야 한다. 그러나 선하증권 전면에 용선계약 체결일자가 기재되지 않고, 화물운송에 다수의 용선계약이 관여된 경우에는 용선계약의 특정이 문제된다. 이 문제는 오랫동안 영국법원에서 쟁점으로 다투어져 왔으며, 현재까지도 분쟁의 소지가 되고 있다. 본 연구는 선하증권에 편입된 용선계약의 특정이 쟁점으로 되었던 영국의 주요 판례들을 비교 분석하여, 이에 관한 명확한 해석원칙이 존재하고 있지 않다는 점을 규명하였다. 따라서 본 연구는 용선계약의 특정 문제에 적용될 수 있는 네 가지 해석원칙을 제시하였는 바, 즉 문면강조의 원칙, 주변정황의 고려원칙, 적절성의 원칙, 작성자불이익의 원칙이 그것이다. 특히, 이 중에서 문면 강조의 원칙이 선하증권의 유통성 확보와 거래의 안전을 도모할 수 있다는 점에서 가장 우선적으로 고려되어야 할 해석원칙이 된다.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제47권
• /
• pp.49-78
• /
• 2010

The seller has to deliver goods and hand over documents as required by the contract. It is very important that ownership of goods shall be transferred by the documents from the seller to the buyer. Where terms of payments is made under documentary payment such as negotiable order Bill of lading or any transport documents for symbolic delivery of goods shall be more important between the parties concerned. The buyer may withdraw or cancel the contract where the buyer accept the foul Bill of Lading and demand damages where the buyer accept the other documents which are not in accordance with requirements by the buyer. Withdraw or cancel of contract can be made where discrepancy of documents comes into fundamental breach of contract. In conclusion transport documents by the seller will be used to determine appropriation of transport document to the contract. Therefore the seller has to deliver the proper shipping documents to the buyer. Where the breach of the seller's obligations to deliver documents the buyer has the right of requiring performance, contract avoided, claiming damage to recover the contract under CISG. The significance of transport documents has been focused in this study and careful examination of documents shall be needed to prevent any dispute or differences between the parties.

• 무역학회지
• /
• 제47권3호
• /
• pp.191-209
• /
• 2022

Whether or not insurance policies are securities has been debated for nearly a century. The position of claiming that an insurance policy has securities properties is premised on the concomitant nature of the maritime cargo insurance policy to the bill of lading. However, in reality today, marine cargo insurance policies are transferred between parties involved in international trade as an integral part of the bill of lading, and the two securities go through the same distribution process. The issue of recognizing the securities properties of an insurance policy is particularly debated when the insurance policy is issued in a order or bearer form. In a normal insurance policy, the name of the right holder, such as the claimant, is written on the insurance policy, and it is not usually transferred by endorsement. In principle, insurance policies are interpreted as neither securities nor negotiable securities. Sometimes, research is being done on legal reform to respond to digitalization of securities, and bills of lading are the subject of research. If marine cargo insurance policies, which are sometimes premised on distribution, have securities properties, the status of the regulations on digitization of bills of lading currently being studied may be helpful for digitization of marine cargo insurance policies. Under these circumstances, the securities of marine cargo insurance policies are reviewed based on recent practices.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제51권
• /
• pp.285-313
• /
• 2011

There can be analyzed severally on the acceptance conditions of freight forwarder's transport document under UCP. First, Bills of Lading issued by forwarding agents will be refused. This can be seen in the article 20 of 1933 Revision UCP(Brochure 82) and the article 20 of 1951 Revision UCP(Brochure 151). Second, Unless specifically authorized in the credit, Bills of Lading issued by forwarding agent will be rejected. It is prescribed in the front part (a) of article 17 of 1962 Revision UCP(Brochure 222) and the article 19 of 1974 Revision UCP(Publication No. 290). Third, Acceptance conditions are different according to the type of transport documents, that is either Bill of Lading or not. It is prescribed in the art 25 and article 26 of 1983 Revision UCP. Unless otherwise stipulated in the credit, transport document issued by a freight forwarder will be rejected unless it is the FIATA Combined Transport Bill of Lading approved by the International Chamber of Commerce or otherwise indicates that it is issued by a freight forwarder acting as a carrier or agent of a named carrier. On the other hand, unless otherwise stipulated in the credit, marine bill of lading issued by a freight forwarder will be rejected, unless it indicates that it is issued by such freight forwarder acting as a carrier, or as the agent of a named carrier. Fourth, transport documents issued by a freight forwarder will be accepted. This can be found in the article 30 of 1993 Revision UCP(ICC Publication No. 500) and the article 14 l of 2007 Revision UCP(ICC Publication No. 600). According to the former unless otherwise authorized in the Credit, transport document issued by a freight forwarder will only be accepted if it is appears on its face to indicate the name of the freight forwarder as a carrier or multimodal transport operator or its agent. The latter prescribed that a transport document will be accepted if it is issued by a freight forwarder by a agent of carrier or freight forwarder itself.