• Korea Trade Review
• /
• v.47 no.5
• /
• pp.59-74
• /
• 2022

The exemption clause of recurring shipments refers to the insurer's exemption in Short-term Export Credit Insurance for the additional shipment which was shipped on board while any foregoing shipment was unpaid beyond its due date over 30 days. The recurring shipments are constituted with two factors: the due date of the foregoing shipment and the shipment date of the additional export. The exemption clause of recurring shipments has been eased by extending the grace period for payment up to 60 days from 30 days for the transactions between exporters and importers having the history of payments which were made customarily in delay. This research argues that the current grace period is for the buyers who customarily delay their payments, and that the insurer introduce a grace period for shipment in favor of exporters for the additional shipment which was delayed in on-boarding due to reasons beyond the control of exporters. In consideration of the waiting time and the on-boarding time at ports for container freight, shipments are frequently delayed, which entails those shipments to be indemnified by the exemption clause of recurring shipments. Roll-overs and Blank Sailings also cause the container freight to be delayed in on-boarding. This research is expected to contribute to further development of Short-term Export Credit Insurance in K-SURE.

• Journal of IKEEE
• /
• v.23 no.1
• /
• pp.346-349
• /
• 2019

Product liability is an important regulation factor in automotive industry. ISO 26262 international standard was established as an exemption clause of product liability. In autonomous car, product liability becomes more important, and ISO/PAS international standard was additionally established, but it can be applied to only sensing stage, which can partly make the autonomous car companies exempt the product liability but not completely. Therefore, reform of current legal system is absolutely necessary to commercialize autonomous car until a new international standard is established as a complete exemptions clause.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.48
• /
• pp.57-76
• /
• 2010

This study reviews maritime transport policy regarding liner conference and the changes in the liner market over the decades. Liner shipping industry has long been protected from competition by block exemption. To prevent excessive competition in punctual operation and its inelastic market structure, liner shipping companies formed conferences that are protected to fix the prices under the law. In the US, deregulation in transport sector began from 80's and continuing with OSRA 1998, conferences were dissolving. On the other hand, the EU with close conference system, Regulation 4056/86 contained block exemption remained in force for unlimited time without review clause. However, in Oct 2008, the EU has announced its removal, and conferences were no longer permitted to fix the price nor exchange information. Although OSRA 1998 has already broken up conferences by allowing individual service contracts, but the repeal of the immunity for price fixing will alter significantly the rule on cooperation in the industry since it is a unilateral move by the EU, especially in transatlantic lane. There are rapid changes in shipping market getting much more complicated, and with removal of 4056/86 allowing the market to be more competitive, opening up the industry with far more diverse strategic options. Hence this paper reviews on liner shipping industry and its changes of policies over the years from protected market to open competition market of today.

• Proceedings of the Korean Society of Marine Engineers Conference
• /
• 2011.10a
• /
• pp.114-116
• /
• 2011

By 33 CFR 154.828 regulation, a liquid seal must be installed on the inlet to vapor destruction unit in vapor control system. However, install and maintenance of liquid seal are subject to many problems in ship environment. Therefore, US Coastguard, which is the governing body of the regulation, have prepared another clause in the regulation for the exemption from previous clauses. In this paper, relevent regulation is reviewed, together with the requirements for exemption from liquid seal installation. A previous example case is also studied to propose how safety assessment for the alternative safety devices replacing liquid seal should be performed.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.53
• /
• pp.181-206
• /
• 2012

The straight bill of lading is regarded as the documents of title except in American law after The Rafaela S case. The Carewins case also decided that the exclusion clause of bill of lading did not exempt carriers from liability when the carriers delivered the cargo to the consignee without the production of original bill of lading. And the court said that the carrier was responsible for delivering the goods against a forged bill of lading regardless of exemption clause of bill of lading in the Motis case. It may be assumed through these cases that the straight bill of lading as a document of title gives documentary security to the banks in trade finance. However, there can be some downside to the efficacy of the straight bill of lading as collateral. First, when it is subject to the English law, the shipper can arbitrarily change the consignee different from the one named in the document. Second, some bills of lading bear provisions relating to the carrier delivering the goods upon reasonable proof of identity without the surrender of an original and/or genuine bill of lading.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.19 no.2
• /
• pp.49-72
• /
• 2009

Korea Fair Trade Commission (KFTC), one of the Government agencies, has been preparing a standard model form of Exclusive Contract for Entertainment Management (hereinafter referred to as "Exclusive Contract") to eliminate some types of unfairness that placed entertainers at disadvantage such as forced PR activities or activities without payment, excessive privacy infringement, and exemption of payment after the termination of the exclusive contract. The said Exclusive Contract was drafted by The Korean Commercial Arbitration Board (the "KCAB") in association with the Korean Entertainment Law Society (the "KELS") and KCAB has persistently persuaded Corea Entertainment Management Association (the "CEMA"; mainly actors management) and Korea Entertainment Producers' Association (the "KEPA"; mainly singers management) to adopt the above-mentioned Exclusive Contract, respectively, and especially arbitration clause instead of litigation. After KCAB's tens of meetings and persuasion, they finally decided to accept KCAB's offer and they have submitted the Exclusive Contract drafted by KCAB and KELS to KFTC on April 17, 2009. The arbitration clause drafted by KCAB was already accepted by unfair contract examination division and unfair contract advisory committee and the final standard model contract was supposed to be publicly announced on June 30, 2009 after final examination of unfair contract standing committee, but the announcement has been delayed owing to severe controversies between the concerned parties, such as CEMA, KAU (Korea Artists' Union), KEPA and KSA (Korea Singers' Association) related to delicate issues like contract period and ownership of intellectual properties, etc. But it is expected the announcement will be made very soon by which the contract will include the originally drafted arbitration clause by KCAB. Therefore, it is very timely to examine the various legal issues which can be arisen out of disputes, and arbitration appropriateness with Exclusive Contract of Entertainment Management on this paper.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.69
• /
• pp.179-199
• /
• 2016

There is legal relation between both parties after contract formation. The parties are liable for performing each duties but a party is not liable for a failure to perform the duties if party proves that the failure was due to the force majeure. The forec majeure has different concepts and legal principles such as change circumstance, hardship, frustration, impediment and so on. Therefore, it need to analyze a historical background and their presence in various domestic legal systems. Although the CISG describes Art. 79 impediment instead of using the force majeure, the impediment has several interpretative limitation. The CISG pursue to harmonize divergent legal concepts and principles from various national laws and legal systems but the harmonization of legal systems make the impediment more confused. The article goes on to analyzes about limitation of the impediment and reviews to examine the force majeure and hardship in PICC. Thus both parties of international contract insert hardship clause in order to prevent the problem of judgment in a court or a court of arbitration under impediment of CISG.

• Journal of Korea Port Economic Association
• /
• v.22 no.4
• /
• pp.1-17
• /
• 2006

In the Bill of Lading of The Irbenskiy Proliv is not subject to the Hague-Visby Rules in accordance with paragraphs (A) and/or (E) of cl.1 or to the Hague Rules in accordance with paragraphs (B) and/or (D) of cl.1. The Irbenskiy Proliv is very rare case that is effective to exempt the carrier as literal words of Bill of Lading. The action concerns cargoes of perishable goods shipped from Brazil to Japan, under Bills of Lading each of which contained an extensive carrier's exemption clause. A preliminary issue was ordered to be determined on the question whether c1.4 is effective to exempt the ralliers from any potential liability for the claims in this case. The court held that there is no reason to reject c1.4 as part of each of the contracts contained in or evidenced by the bills of lading; and it protects the carrier where damage to the goods shipped results from such causes. It is therefore effective to exempt the carriers from any potential liability for those claims.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.21 no.1
• /
• pp.169-189
• /
• 2006

In 2007, KSLV(Korea Small Launching Vehicle) that we made at Goheung National Space Center is going to launch and promotes of our space exploration systematically and 'Space Exploration Promotion Act' was enter into force. 'Space Exploration Promotion Act' article 3, section 1, as is prescribing "Korean government keeps the space treaties contracted with other countries and international organizations and pursues after peaceful uses of outer space." The representative international treaties are Outer Space Treaty (1967) and Liability Convention (1972) etc. In Liability convention article 2, "A launching State shall be absolutely liable to pay compensation for damage caused by its space object on the surface of the earth or to aircraft in flight. The important content of the art. 2 is the responsible entity is the 'State' not the 'Company'. According by Korean Space Exploration Act art. 14, person who launches space objects according to art. 8 and art. 11 must bear the liability for damages owing to space accidents of the space objects. Could Korean government apply the Products Liability Act which is enter into force from July 1, 2002 to space launching person? And what is the contact type between Korea Aerospace Research Institute(KARl) and Russia manufacturer. Is that a Co-Development contract or Licence Product contract? And there is no exemption clause to waive the Russia manufacturer's liability which we could find it from other similar contract condition. If there is no exemption clause to the Russia manufacturer, could we apply the Korean Products Liability Act to Russia one? The most important legal point is whether we could apply the Korean Products Liability Act to the main component company. According by the art. 17 of the contract between KARl and the company, KARl already apply the Products Liability Act to the main component company. For reference, we need to examine the Appalachian Insurance co. v. McDonnell Douglas case, this case is that long distance electricity communication satellite of Western Union Telegraph company possessions fails on track entry. In Western Union's insurance company supplied to Western Union with insurance of $ 105 millions, which has the satellite regard as entirely damage. Five insurance companies -Appalachian insurance company, Commonwealth insurance company, Industrial Indemnity, Mutual Marine Office, Northbrook Excess & Surplus insurance company- went to court against McDonnell Douglases, Morton Thiokol and Hitco company to inquire for fault and strict liability of product. By the Appalachian Insurance co. v. McDonnell Douglas case, KARl should waiver the main component's product liability burden. And we could study the possibility of the adapt 'Government Contractor Defense' theory to the main component company.

• Journal of the Korean Society of Marine Environment & Safety
• /
• v.28 no.1
• /
• pp.54-63
• /
• 2022

The Marine Accident Investigation and Tribunal System is intended to provide a credible solution to prevent the recurrence of similar accidents. When a marine accident occurs, the Korea Maritime Safety Tribunal seeks to find its root causes through an analysis of what provoked the accident. It also contributes to the development of safety policies or practices by making a decision based on the findings. However, if the decision presented as the root cause of a marine accident is ambiguous or unclear, it may be difficult to achieve its intended goal. Hence, if we read some of the decisions of the Maritime Safety Tribunal, it is selective to directly apply the cause of an accident as a source of the measures that can prevent its recurrence. A typical example of this is the expression: "when a seafarer neglects ordinary practice of seaman." The term "ordinary practice of seaman" has been criticized for being used in some decisions like a master key where it is not easy to determine which specific rules or regulations were violated or blame the involved seafarers. Such term is present in Article 2 of the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea 1972. For the proper use of the term, this paper seeks to compare and establish the concepts of "ordinary practice of seaman" and the duty of care by providing a systematic interpretation of the original text. In addition, the duty of care was reviewed from the perspective of administrative, civil, and criminal laws. Furthermore, relevant legal precedents were reviewed and presented in the study. Accordingly, it is expected that the term "ordinary practice of seaman" would be properly used in decisions that contribute to the prevention of the recurrence of similar marine accidents.