• Journal of Korea Trade
• /
• 제25권2호
• /
• pp.152-177
• /
• 2021

Purpose - This study analyses the excepted requirement and burden of proof of the carrier due to unseaworthiness through comparison between the marine transport contract and marine insurance contract. Design/methodology - This study uses the legal analytical normative approach. The juridical approach involves reviewing and examining theories, concepts, legal doctrines and legislation that are related to the problems. In this study a literature analysis using academic literature and internet data is conducted. Findings - The burden of proof in case of seaworthiness should be based on presumed fault, not proved fault. The burden of proving unseaworthiness/seaworthiness should shift to the carrier, and should be exercised before seeking the protections of the law or carriage contract. In other words, the insurer cannot escape coverage for unfitness of a vessel which arises while the vessel is at sea, which the assured could not have prevented in the exercise of due diligence. The insurer bears the burden of proving unseaworthiness. The warranty of seaworthiness is implied in hull, but not protection and indemnity policies. The 2015 Act repeals ss. 33(3) and 34 of MIA 1906. Otherwise the provisions of the MIA 1906 remain in force, including the definition of a promissory warranty and the recognition of implied warranties. There is less clarity about the position when the source of the loss occurs before the breach of warranty but the actual loss is suffered after the breach. Nonetheless, by s.10(2) of the 2015 Act the insurer appears not to be liable for any loss occurring after the breach of warranty and before there has been a remedy. Originality/value - When unseaworthiness is identified after the sailing of the vessel, mere acceptance of the ship does not mean the party waives any claims for damages or the right to terminate the contract, provided that failure to comply with the contractual obligations is of critical importance. The burden of proof with regards to loss of damage to a cargo caused by unseaworthiness is regulated by the applicable law. For instance, under the common law, if the cargo claimant alleges that the loss or damage has been caused by unseaworthiness, then he has the burden of proof to establish the followings: (i) that the vessel was unseaworthy at the beginning of the voyage; and that, (ii) that the loss or damage has been caused by such unseaworthiness. In other words, if the warranty of seaworthiness at the inception of the voyage is breached, the breach voids the policy if the ship owner had prior knowledge of the unseaworthy condition. By contrast, knowingly permitting the vessel to break ground in an unseaworthy condition denies liability only for loss or damage proximately caused by the unseaworthiness. Such a breach does not, therefore, void the entire policy, but only serves to exonerate the insurer for loss or damage proximately caused by the unseaworthy condition.

• 해양환경안전학회지
• /
• 제28권4호
• /
• pp.567-576
• /
• 2022

선원은 해상이라는 노동환경의 공간적 특수성으로 말미암아 예측할 수 없는 다양한 해상위험에 노출되어 있어 이를 고려해 재해선원에 대한 충분한 보상이 필요하다. 그러나 우리나라의 선원법은 육상근로자와 비교했을 경우 재해선원에 대한 보상이 미흡한 상태이다. 이에 본 연구에서는 유럽의 사회보험 선진국인 독일의 해양노동법, 산재보험법을 살펴보고 우리나라와 비교하여 시사점을 도출하고자 하였다. 먼저 선원재해 발생 시의 보상 주체에 대해서 독일은 공적 성격의 기관에서 관리하는 반면 우리나라는 선박소유자가 전적으로 보상하고 있는 것으로 조사되었다. 두 번째로 재해보상의 내용에 대해서 독일은 다양한 지원제도를 통해 연속적인 치료와 요양을 제공할 뿐 아니라 선박 업무 복귀를 위한 다양한 프로그램을 운영하고 있다. 그러나 우리나라는 선박소유자가 재해보상의 책임을 면할 수 있도록 하는 일시보상제도를 두고 있어 재해선원에게 불리한 상황인 것으로 분석되었다. 마지막으로 선원재해의 원인을 판단하는 주체는 독일의 경우 공적 성격의 산재보험조합이 업무 기인성에 대해 판단하고 있으나, 우리나라는 선박소유자나 보험회사에 의해서 결정되고 있는 것으로 나타났다. 따라서 우리나라의 재해선원에 대한 적절한 보상을 위해서 선원재해보상을 주관하는 공공기관을 설립하여 역할을 부여할 필요가 있으며, 재요양, 장해연금, 재활급여 등을 보상받을 수 있도록 선원법 정비 또는 관련 제도의 개선이 필요하다.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제26권
• /
• pp.173-199
• /
• 2005

The MIA 1906, s.78(4) provides that it is the duty of the assured and his agents, in all cases, to take such measures as may be reasonable for the purpose of averting or minimising a loss. In many cases the statutory duty will be unimportant, since rights, duties and liabilities declared by the Act or implied into marine insurance contracts by law may be modified by agreement, and many contracts contains a sue and labour clause which effectively reproduces and/or to modifies the statutory duty. The effect of such contractual provisions will, of course, be a matter of construction, though modern sue and labour clauses tend to reflect the principles contains in section 78. However, it must not be assumed that the terms of all contractual sue and labour clauses are, or will remain, identical, either with each other or with the statutory duty. The purpose of this study is to clarify the ambit of sue and labour.

• 항공우주정책ㆍ법학회지
• /
• 제21권1호
• /
• pp.169-189
• /
• 2006

2007년 고흥 우주센타에서 우리가 만든 KSLV(Korea Small Launching Vehicle)이 발사될 예정이며, 우리나라의 우주개발을 체계적으로 진흥하고 우주물체를 효율적으로 이용관리하기 위하여'우주개발진흥법'이 제정되었고 효력을 발휘하고 있다. '우주개발진흥법'제3조 (1)항에서"정부는 다른 국가 및 국제기구와 대한민국이 맺은 우주 관련 조약을 지키며 우주공간의 평화적 이용을 도모한다."라고 규정하고 있는바, 대표적으로 우주조약(1967)과 책임협약(1972)등이 그 대표적인 국제협약들이다. 우주물체로 야기된 손해에 대한 책임협약 제2조에서 발사국은 자국의 우주물체에 대하여"지상(on the surface of the earth) 또는 비행중인 항공기(aircraft in flight)에서 발생된 손해에 대하여 절대적(absolutely liable)으로 배상할 책임이 있다고 규정하고 있다. 우주개발진흥법 제14조 (우주사고에 따른 손해배상책임)에는"우주물체를 발사한 자는 그 우주물체로 인한 우주사고에 따른 손해배상책임을 부담하여야 한다."는 규정은 발사허가의 문제를 넘어, 우주발사자에게 명백하게 책임을 부담하고 있는 것이다. 또한 우주책임협약(1972) 제2조에는 발사국(A launching State)이 배상책임의 주체가 되어 있다. 따라서, 현재 다른 나라의 사례에서 보면, 우주발사자는 제3자 피해 등에 대한 책임보험까지만 배상을 하고 그 보다 많은 배상액이 요구될 때에는 국가가 손해배상을 부담하는 체재로 수행하고 있다. 여기서, 우주발사자에게 제조물책임법을 적용시킬 수 있느냐의 문제가 제기된다. 우리나라는 2002년 7월 1일부터 시행하고 있다. KSLV개발에 있어서 KARl와 러시아제작사간 계약은 공동개발인지 기술이전개발 인지에 대한 명확한 이해가 부족하다. 특히, 러시아 회사들에 대한 책임면책에 대한 규정들이 없는 것으로 알고 있는데, 우주개발의 통념상 상호면책을 한다는 인식만으로 러시아 회사들의 제작 및 개발책임들을 면책할 수 있는 방안은 없다고 판단된다. 따라서, 명백한 책임면책 조항이 없다면, 러시아 회사들에 대하여, 한국의 제조물책임법이 적용될 수 있다고 판단된다. 가장 중요한 법적논점은 KARl와 주요부품업체간에 제조물책임법을 적용할 수 있는가에 대한 문제이다. KARl는 모 주요부품업체간의 물품구매계약특수조건에 대한 합의서 제17조에 제조물책임법에 대한 규정을 하고 있다. 참고로, Appalachian Insurance co. v. McDonnell Douglas 사례를 검토할 필요가 있는데, 본 사건은 Western Union Telegraph사 소유의 원거리 전기통신위성이 본 궤도 진입에 실패한 사례이다. Western Union의 보험회사는 완전한 손실로 간주하여 그 위성에 대해 Western Union 사에 1억 5백만 달러의 보험금을 지급하였다. 5개의 보험회사- Appalachian 보험 회사, Commonwealth 보험회사, Industrial Indemnity, Mutual Marine Office, Northbrook Excess & Surplus 보험회사 - 는 McDonnell Douglas와 Morton Thiokol 그리고 Hitco사를 상대로 과실과 제품에 대한 엄격한 책임을 물어 고소를 했다. Appalachian Insurance co. v. McDonnell Douglas사례를 참고로, KARl는 주요 제작업체의 제조물책임을 면책시켜주는 계약을 맺어야 한다. 주요제작업체가 제조물 책임을 면하기 위하여, 자비로 보험을 들게 되면 곧 KSLV 제작비만 증가하게 되기 때문이다. 따라서, Government Contractor Defense(정부계약자 항변)'의 법적개념을 적용시킬 수 있는지 여부에 대한 연구가 필요하다.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제13권
• /
• pp.365-387
• /
• 2000

One of the central and primary doctrine of the law of marine insurance is that the contract of indemnity entered into by assured and insurer is a contract of the utmost good faith. The notion of utmost good faith is a well established doctrine derived from the celebrated case of Carter v. Boehm(1766), decided long before the inception of the Marine Insurance Act(MIA). With the codification of the law, the principle found expression in sections $17{\sim}20$ of the MIA 1906. In section 17 is presented the general duty to observe the utmost good faith, with the following sections introducing particular aspects of the doctrine, namely, the duty of the assured and brokers to disclose material circumstances, and to avoid making misrepresentations. It is somewhat surprising that section 17, being a long founded doctrine, has not attracted the attention of the courts until very recently. Given that the most significant manifestations of uberrimae fidei are non-disclosure and misrepresentations, fulfillment of the obligation of utmost good faith was, not unreasonably, for a long time perceived in terms of the duty to disclose and not to misrepresent. However, Black King Shipping Corporation v. Massie, 'Litsion Pride'(1985) has clarified that the duty of disclosure stems from the duty of utmost good faith, and not vice versa. The duty of utmost good faith is an independent and overriding duty, with the ensuring sections on disclosure and representations providing mere illustrations of that duty. It is now clear that there are important questions with regard to the general doctrine and as to the nature and scope of any duty of good faith continuing after the contract of insurance is made which require separate and fuller discussion. The purpose of this paper is to review the nature and scope of the duty of utmost good faith.

• 한국항해학회지
• /
• 제18권2호
• /
• pp.129-149
• /
• 1994

Sea casualties may happen in ship, cargo and the others concerned with sea transportation. : the shipo-wer, marine insurer and salvage company have been endeavored to compensate salvage award with some rule and regulation such as Marine Insurance Act, York Antwerp Rules and Average adjustment rules. Once sea casualties happened, the salvage contract is established between the owners, marine insurance and salvage company, the contract are divided into so many kinds of them. In this paper, we have an analysis on the character of the salvage contract whether the characteristic contents of them are in benefit to any party or not. In this connection with these positive or negative character of the contract, it is worthwhile to compare the actual salvage expenses contract with no cure no pay contract. LOF 1990 has been revised recently, which is based on no cure no pay, expecially, the special compensation, safety net clause of LOF 1990 could be understood in the view of the prevention of sea pollution and the preservation of sea circumstances in the world. Salvage has the complicated and quality, because the adjustment of almost salvage charges have been treated through the other sea casualties which is accompanied by and mixed with. Besides of the importance of salvage contracts, we are in need to understand that what the diversified character of salvage charges are. Furthermore the owners should carefully select the insured conditions on Hull Insurance according to the type of his company, operating ocean route, loading cargo and etc. In this paper, we would try to analyze the character of the salvage award such as General Average, Sue and Labour Charges and Particular charges. We would like to propose that the uniformed system of the salvage award. Compensation should be built up for the effective and efficient salvage operation and for reducing the claims and conflicts from the concerned parties. To this end, we could expect that the uniformed system for salvage award compensation will come to be the benefit of all owners, insurers, salvage company.

• Ocean Systems Engineering
• /
• 제9권3호
• /
• pp.261-285
• /
• 2019

Nowadays in offshore industry there are emerging hazards with vague property such as act of terrorism, act of war, unforeseen natural disasters such as tsunami, etc. Therefore industry professionals such as offshore energy insurers, safety engineers and risk managers in order to determine the failure rates and frequencies for the potential hazards where there is no data available, they need to use an appropriate method to overcome this difficulty. Furthermore in conventional risk based analysis models such as when using a fault tree analysis, hazards with vague properties are normally waived and ignored. In other word in previous situations only a traditional probability based fault tree analysis could be implemented. To overcome this shortcoming fuzzy set theory is applied to fault tree analysis to combine the known and unknown data in which the pre-combined result will be determined under a fuzzy environment. This has been fulfilled by integration of a generic bow-tie based risk analysis model into the risk assessment phase of the Risk Management (RM) cycles as a backbone of the phase. For this reason Fault Tree Analysis (FTA) and Event Tree Analysis (ETA) are used to analyse one of the significant risk factors associated in offshore terminals. This process will eventually help the insurers and risk managers in marine and offshore industries to investigate the potential hazards more in detail if there is vagueness. For this purpose a case study of offshore terminal while coinciding with the nature of the Caspian Sea was decided to be examined.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제21권
• /
• pp.41-54
• /
• 2003

The MIA 1906 is a very important rule for the practitioner in Korea since it is often selected as the governing law under the contract of cargo insurance. And we are using both the S.G policy and the new MAR policy. The new MAR policy has the basically different form of cover compared with the S.G policy. So we are a little confused whether some risks are covered or not under the selected clauses. The author considers which risks are covered or not under the specific clauses and compares the Institute cargo clauses with the MIA 1906.

• 한국항만경제학회지
• /
• 제31권2호
• /
• pp.41-53
• /
• 2015

Paracomon Inc. v. Telus Communication사건('Realice호 사건')에서 Realice호의 닻이 항해과정에서 해저광섬유케이블에 얽히는 사고가 발생하자, 선주사의 대표이사이자 선장은 사용 중인 케이블을 절단해 버렸다. 케이블 소유회사는 선주에게 수리비를 청구하였고, 선주는 케이블 소유회사의 청구액을 책임보험자에게 청구하였다. 그런데 캐나다 대법원은, 선주는 1976년 해사채권에 대한 책임제한에 관한 조약('1976년 책임제한조약')에 따라 케이블 소유회사에 대한 손해배상책임을 일정 한도로 제한할 수 있으나, 케이블을 절단한 선주의 비행은 1993년 캐나다 해상보험법(Canada Marine Insurance Act)상 보험자의 면책사유인 피보험자의 고의적 불법행위(wilful misconduct)에 해당되어 책임보험자에게 보험금을 청구할 수 없다고 판결하였다. 결국 이번 판결로 선주는, 케이블소유회사에 대한 책임제한권은 인정받았으나, 책임보험자에 대한 보험금청구권은 상실하게 되었다. Realice호 사건은 국제조약상 선주에게 인정되는 책임제한과 그에 대한 책임보험의 보상 간의 상호 관계를 최초로 다루고 있다는 점에서 우리에게 시사하는 바가 크다. 따라서 본 논문의 목적은 Realice호 사건에서 대법원의 판결 이유를 분석하고, 해운 보험업계 이해와 지금까지 확립된 해상법에 기초하여 판결의 정당성을 평가하는데 있다. 본 논문은 1976년 책임제한조약의 입법 연혁을 고려할 때 선주가 책임제한권을 갖는다는 대법원의 판결은 타당하지만, 해운 및 보험업계의 이해, 제3자의 직접청구권의 도입취지, 책임제한 배제사유의 입법 과정 등을 고려할 때 책임보험자가 면책된다는 대법원의 판결은 적절하지 않다는 결론을 내린다. 끝으로, 본 논문은 이번 대법원 판결에 기초하여 2014년 세월호 사건에서 선주의 책임제한과 책임보험자의 보상 문제를 검토한다.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제33권
• /
• pp.191-219
• /
• 2007

Section 39(5) of Marine Insurance Act 1906 concerns the case where with the privity of the assured, the ship is sent to sea in an unseaworthy state. The underwriters argue that the assured had"blind-eye knowledge" of the particular respect in which the ship was unseaworthy. Blind-eye knowledge requires a conscious reason for blinding the eye. There must be at least a suspicion of a truth about which one do not want to know and which one refuse to investigate. What has caused greater difficulty is the broad provision in s.17 which appears to be unlimited in its scope. The expression "utmost good faith" appears to derive from the idea of uberrimae fidei, words which indeed appear in the sidenote. The concept of uberrima fides does not appear to have derived from civil law and it has been regarded as unnecessary in civilian systems. S.17 raises many questions. But only two of them are critical to the decision of the present appeal-the fraudulent claim question and the litigation question. It is however necessary to discuss them in the context of a consideration of the problematic character of s.17. In the Star Sea Case, for the defendants to succeed in their defence under this part of the case the defendants have to show that claim was made fraudulently. They have failed to obtain a finding of fraud. It is not enough that until part of the way through the trial the owners failed to disclose to the defendants would have wished to see in order to provide them with some, albeit inadequate, evidential support for their alleged defence under s.39(5). The defence under s.17 fails. The Purpose of this work is to analyze the Star Sea Case, and to explore problems of the MIA relating to the judgement of this case.