• 통상정보연구
• /
• 제8권4호
• /
• pp.147-156
• /
• 2006

In all cargo cases one of the first things the person handling the claim must do is decide who is potentially liable as a carrier of the goods. This issue arises because bills of lading often do not identify the carrier. The "carrier" could be the shipowner or the charterer or both. The issue of the identity of the "carrier" is a question of fact. The question to ask in each case is who undertook or agreed to carry and deliver the goods. The answer to this question will largely depend on the facts. The shipowner is almost always liable as a carrier under Common law provided there is no demise charter of the ship. The more recent case law, however, suggests that in the usual situation both the charterer and shipowner will be liable. Accordingly, both the owner and charterer should be put on notice of any claim and, in the event an extension of suit time is required, the extension should be obtained from both. An alternative method by which the charterer can avoid liability is to insert and 'Identity of Carrier' clause in the bill of lading.

• 한국항만경제학회지
• /
• 제21권1호
• /
• pp.1-21
• /
• 2005

It has been more recent trends in container trade to make bogger ship from shipowners that many more parties concerned are getting involved. Well, it is natural to swift these situations if we have looked into container trade market in present time, which a lot of trade volumes has increased in world economy. Thus, supply side of shipping service needs to employ more capacity in the shipping market, then newbuilding may be compulsory options, that is deployment of larger ships. To cope with market situations as able shipowner, some alternatives can be also adopted, such as newbuilding, chartering and securing the space by strategic alliance. But whatever he does, shipowner has to keep in mind to prepare for the future. This is much more important factor considered to make investment decision in case of newbuilding and then he can make more efficient decision as well. However, there has been a little problems arisen due to larger ship employed on the trade route, which is linked with seaport, shipping companies and freight rates as well. Although shipowner decides to build new larger vessel as one of corporate strategic decision, there are many questions to be considered in advance. Therefore, in order to take more efficient decision, shipowner has to take into an account various situations surrounded, and then it can lead truly thoughtful decision making process.

• 무역학회지
• /
• 제45권4호
• /
• pp.125-136
• /
• 2020

Freight charges are one of the major clauses in the voyage charter. However, in case of unexpected delays at loading and discharging ports, the owner of the ship would not be willing to cover the various costs he should bear by paying the freight receives from the charterer. Therefore, the shipowner, whose time and the ship would be both considered to be an expense, would try to reduce the laytime as least as possible when signing the charter party and to receive compensation such as demurrage and damage for detention from the charterer, just waiting for the agreed laytime to pass. In this study, we review the differences between demurrage and damage for detention and examine the acknowledgeable circumstances through the actual cases. Since the shipowner and the charterer do not often agree on the damage for detention from the respective contract, it is necessary to examine each. Besides, the shipowner and the charterer must acquaint the damage for detention and specify in a contract, to compensate for the actual loss of the shipowner.

• 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.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제30권4호
• /
• pp.163-177
• /
• 2020

There are several ways to implement charter parties in the operation of the vessel. Under the time charter party, the charterer borrows the vessel from the shipowner and uses the vessel to benefit his business. The time charter party's legal relationship can be divided into internal and external relationships. This article deals with an internal relationship. The legal matters between the shipowner and charterer are regulated by the agreement. The NYPE is the most widely circulated type of time charter party. According to the NYPE, navigational matters fall upon the shipowner while business matter falls upon the time charterer. There are vague parts in interpreting NYPE articles. NYPE Art. 8, called the employment clause, is one of them. The Master employed by the shipowner should follow the order of the charterer. Whether the charterer has the right to order the Master of the vessel to follow the navigating route recommended by him was addressed in the Hill Harmony case by the UK Supreme Court. The court was affirmative. Under the Ocean Victory case, whether the time charterer has an obligation to order the Master to go out to escape heavy weather from the berth at the port was at issue. The Japanese lower court decided negatively. There is a tendency that many countries insert default rule in the maritime law to apply it to the case at issue in a case where there is no agreement. It serves the enhancement of legal stability; China, Japan, and Germany are such countries. The author thinks that Korea should follow the above three countries' revision of their maritime law.

• 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
• /
• 제8권
• /
• pp.84-120
• /
• 1995

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제11권
• /
• pp.205-223
• /
• 1998

• 한국항해항만학회:학술대회논문집
• /
• 한국항해항만학회 2007년도 추계학술대회 및 제23회 정기총회
• /
• pp.117-118
• /
• 2007

이 연구는 침몰사고를 일으킨 선박의 사고에 대한 해양안전심판원의 사고 판례를 분석하고, 선박침몰사고에 따른 선체보험약관인 ITC약관 및 ISM Code의 적용에 관하여 검토하고자 한다. 이를 위하여 실제 해양사고의 사례 연구를 통하여 사고의 원인에 대한 보험사측의 주장과 선주측의 주장을 다루었다. 선주측이 보험금을 노린 고의 침몰이라 주장한 보험사측의 주장과 선원의 과실에 따른 해양사고임을 주장한 선주측의 주장에 대하여 ITC보험약관을 적용해 본 결과, 이 사고의 원인은 선박 운용상 승무원들의 과실에 기인한 인위적인 원인(선원의 악행)에 의해 발생한 것으로 결론을 내렸다. 그러나 선주가 ISM 코드에 따른 상당한 주의의무를 태만히 한 사실이 인정되어 보험 회사측의 주장이 정당한 것으로 판결되었다. 따라서 이 사고에 대한 전반적인 고찰을 통해 알 수 있는 것은 선주는 그 선박에 적절한 자격있는 선원을 승선시켜야 할뿐만 아니라 선박의 안전 확보를 위한 ISM코드의 구축과 시행을 형식적이 아닌 실제적으로 철저하게 수행해야함을 알 수 있었다.

• 한국항해항만학회지
• /
• 제32권3호
• /
• pp.229-235
• /
• 2008

이 연구는 침몰사고를 일으킨 선박의 사고에 대한 해양안전심판원의 사고판례와 검정인의 검사보고서를 중심으로 사고를 분석하고, 선박침몰사고에 따른 선체보험약관인 ITC협회약관 및 ISM코드의 적용에 관하여 검토하고자 하였다. 이를 위하여 실제 해양사고의 사례연구를 통하여 사고의 원인에 대한 보험사측의 주장과 선주측의 주장을 다루었다. 선주측이 보험금을 노린 고의침몰이라 주장한 보험사측의 주장과 선원의 과실에 따른 일반적인 해양사고임을 주장한 선주측의 주장에 대하여 ITC협회약관과 ISM코드 내용을 적용해 본 결과, 이 사고의 원인은 선박 운용상 승무원들의 과실에 기인한 인위적인 원인(선원의 악행)에 의해 발생한 것으로 판단되었다. 그러나 선주가 ISM 코드에 따른 상당한 주의의무를 태만히 한 사실이 인정되어 보험회사 측의 주장이 더 설득력이 있는 것으로 받아들여졌다. 따라서 이 사고에 대한 전반적인 고찰을 통해 알 수 있는 것은 선주는 그 선박에 적절한 자격있는 선원을 승선시켜야 할 뿐만 아니라 선박의 안전확보를 위한 ISM Code에 의거한 안전관리시스템 구축과 시행을 형식적이 아닌 실제적으로 철저하게 수행하여 비상사태 시에 적절히 대응할 수 있는 능력을 확보해야 함을 알 수 있었다.