• Journal of Korea Trade
• /
• 제25권1호
• /
• pp.203-219
• /
• 2021

Purpose - The purpose of this study is to review and analyzes the contract of carriage and delivery/transport document in light of the major changes made to the Incoterms^® 2020 rules forced into effect on January 1st, 2020. Design/methodology - This study analyzed responsibility for the loading and unloading of goods under the contract of carriage in Incoterms 2020^® rules forced into effect by the ICC from January 1, 2020, and what document must be presented as evidence of delivery by the seller. Findings - A review revealed that in Rule C, the costs of unloading at the place of destination are determined by the terms of the contract of carriage, and in the DAP and DDP rules, if the seller bears the unloading costs, such unloading costs cannot be recovered from the buyer. To settle this issue, the seller needs to make a contract of carriage by sea with the carrier on FI terms. Furthermore, in the case of containerized goods that the FCA should be used, FOB was misused because the seller could not present an on-board bill of lading in the L/C transaction. However, it was confirmed that in FCA, the parties can use an optional mechanism to issue an on-board bill of lading. Originality/value - Incoterms 2020^® rules are still widely used in international trade by parties to contract sales around the world, just like Incoterms 2010^® rules. This study attempts to reduce or eliminate disputes that may arise from interpretative misunderstandings between the parties in the contract of sales concluded by the seller and the buyer.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제35권
• /
• pp.3-38
• /
• 2007

As we know, D-terms which are constituted with DAF delivered the goods in a border place, DES delivered the goods on board a vessel at a vessel specified port on the buyer's side, DEQ delivered the goods on the quay on the buyer's side as the specified place, DDU and DDP delivered the good at the stipulated place at the agreed place or point, mean arrival contracts. DAF is designed mainly for railway carriage, DES and DEQ are designed mainly for vessel shipment, DDU and DDP are designed mainly for multimodal transportation. In spite of their original purpose of revision. They have in themselves many problems on notable points on application in practice. Therefore, in order to magnify their use, through revision of Incoterms, DAF is restricted to railway carriage, DES and DEQ are restricted to be used only for charter shipments. Particularly transport documents which seller should supply the buyer with under DDU and DDP are documents for ownership and possession rights to the goods loaded when executed in negotiable form like as CIF.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제51권
• /
• pp.317-358
• /
• 2011

The purpose of this study aims to analyse the key differences of the sea waybill and electronic B/L in the international transport documents. Sea waybills look remarkably like ordinary bills of lading. Indeed, in two important ways, they are just like bills of lading: the front of the document will near a description of the quantity and apparent condition of the goods; and the back of the document provides evidence of the terms of the contract of carriage. They differ from bills of lading in that, far from indicating that the goods described are deliverable to the order of the shipper or of the consignee, they will make it explicit that the goods are deliverable only to the consignee. Again, different carries will do thai in a variety of ways. For example, the document may call itself non-negotiable, omitting the word order from the consignee box on the front of the document, and stating explicitly that the goods will be deliverable to the consignee or his authorised representative on proper proof of identity and authorisation. The Hague-Visby Rules and Hamburg Rules give no guidance as to any right to instruct the carrier in respect of goods while they are in transit. However, in applying Article 50 of the Rotterdam Rules, in particular when applying it in the context of seawaybills, straight bills of lading or ship's delivery orders, regard would need to be had to preserve the shipper's rights under any of those three documents even after the buyer of goods covered by them has acquired rights of its own. And, the right of control is defined at Article 1.12 of the Rotterdam Rules. The right to give instruction is further limited by the terms of Article 50.1 to three particular types of instruction in respect of the goods, relating broadly to the goods, their delivery en route, and the identity of the consignee. And, the CMI formulated the CMI Uniform Rules for Sea Waybills for voluntary incorporation into any contract of carriage covered by such a document. Recognising that neither the Hague nor the Hague-Visby Rules are applicable to sea waybills, the CMI Rules provide that a contract of carriage covered by a waybill shall be governed by whichever international or national law, if any, would have been compulsorily applicable if the contract had in fact been covered by a bill of lading or similar document of title.

• 항공우주정책ㆍ법학회지
• /
• 제21권2호
• /
• pp.71-96
• /
• 2006

본고에서는 국제항공화물운송에 있어서 운송인의 화물의 인도의무와 불법인도에 대한 책임에 관하여 몬트리올 협약, lATA 화물운송약관 및 법원판례를 중심으로 고찰하고자 한다. 몬트리올 협약 제13조에 의하면, 수하인은 화물이 도착지에 도착하였을 때에 운송인에 대하여 채무액을 지급하고 운송의 조건에 따랐을 경우에는 자기에게 화물의 인도를 요구할 수 있는 권리를 가지게 된다. 한편 운송인은 별도의 약정이 없는 한 화물이 도착하자마자 수하인에게 통지를 하여줄 의무가 있다. 몬트리올 협약 제18조에 의하면, 운송인은 화물의 파괴, 분실 또는 훼손으로 인하여 입은 손실에 대하여 그 손해의 원인이 되었던 사실이 항공운송 중에 발생되었다는 것을 유일한 조건으로 하여 책임을 부담하게 된다. 여기서 항공운송이라 함은 그 화물이 운송인의 보관하에 있는 기간을 포함한다. lATA 화물운송약관 제11조에 의하면, 운송인은 화물의 운송 중에 파괴, 멸실, 손상 또는 지연의 경우 입은 손해에 대하여 오직 그렇게 입은 손해의 원인된 사고가 제1조에 정의된 운송 중에 발생한 경우에만 송하인, 수하인 또는 기타인에게 책임을 진다. 여기서 운송이라함은 무상이든 또는 보수를 위한 것이든 간에 항공 또는 기타 운송수단에 의한 화물의 운송을 의미한다. 우리 대법원 판례(2004. 7. 22 선고)에 의하면, 운송인으로서 운송주선인은 보세창고에 입고된 화물이 실수입자에게 불법 인도된 경우에 보세창고를 지정한 자는 운송주선인 이나 그의 운송대리점이 아니라 실수입자이며, 운송주선인은 보세창고업자에 대하여 사용자로서의 지위에 있다고 볼 수 없으므로 보세창고업자의 화물의 무단반출에 대하여 손해배상책임을 지지 아니한다고 판시하였다. 결론적으로 운송인 또는 운송주선인이 항공화물의 불법인도로 인한 손해배상책임을 부담하지 않기 위하여는 항상 회물의 동향이나 상태에 대하여 주의를 기울여 화물이 불법인도 되지 않도록 선량한 관리자로서의 주의를 다하여야 할 것이다. 한편 우리 정부는 이미 발효된 몬트리올 협약에 가입하여 국제항공화물운송인의 권리, 의무 및 책임에 관하여 몬트리올 협약이 적용되도록 하여야 할 것이다.

• 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.

• 항공우주정책ㆍ법학회지
• /
• 제6권
• /
• pp.149-164
• /
• 1994

• 항공우주정책ㆍ법학회지
• /
• 제11권
• /
• pp.143-168
• /
• 1999

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제77권
• /
• pp.145-168
• /
• 2018

The purpose of this paper is to introduce the limitation of liabilities of multimodal transport operators(MTO) in Korea. Also, this paper reviews the revised draft of Korean Commercial Code in 2015. This paper analyzes Korean multimodal transport systemand the limitation of liabilities of MTO by analyzing articles, regulations and practices of Korean Commercial Code and it's the draft in 2015. The paper, also, studies multimodal transport rules by comparing specifically international treaty, rules, or practices. In Korea, Article 816 of Commercial Code treats multimodal transportation adopting the network liability regime. The Article describes only the case of the multimodal transportation where the maritime carriage is engaged. Korea proposed the draft of multimodal transport regulation of Commercial Code in 2015 because present law could not apply for the multimodal transportation involved in the air or land carriage. This paper support the draft of Korean Commercial Code in 2015 because it is necessary to make a predictable legal system of multimodal transport and the limitation of liability reflecting practices or customs.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제75권
• /
• pp.71-94
• /
• 2017

The Rotterdam Rules is the first international maritime carriage of goods Convention that acknowledge electronic records of contracts of carriage. The Rules have developed separate chapter in relation to electronic transport records' issuing, transfer, etc. This paper aims to evaluate Rotterdam Rules' contribution to the use of electronic transport records. To achieve the aims firstly this paper have examined the related articles of Rotterdam Rules, Secondly in practical aspects, this paper explores the opportunities and obstacles which could be happened in practical procedures, applicable to transport industry, shipper and holder of electronic transport records. Findings could be summarized as follows, first the Rules shows high acceptability to whom it may involved in transport industry by simplify the contents of the Rules to avoid conflict with each countries' national laws. The Rules acknowledge the functional equivalence between paper and electronic transport records in specific provisions. This could be important development to facilitate the use of electronic transport records. But the Rules have not mentioned liability limit of transport industry when the problems arise from issuing, tele-transmission, transfer of the records. And the secure of the functional equivalence between paper and electronic transport records also could be remained in uncertain regime due to different stance of each national laws.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제49권
• /
• pp.325-358
• /
• 2011

The purpose of this study aims to analyse the implications of volume contract clause with Rotterdam Rules. The Hague-Visby Rules have been in force this jurisdiction for over 30 years. In those three decades they have performed valiant service, both for the development of maritime law in this country and for the countless parties from around the world who have chosen courts and arbitral tribunals in London for the resolution of disputes arising under bills of lading or under charterparties incorporating the Hague-Visby Rules. While the Hague-Visby Rules apply only to bills of lading or any other similar documents of title and hence all other contracts of carriage are not subject to the current regime, this is not the case for the Rotterdam Rules which, broadly speaking, apply to contracts of carriage whether or not a shipping document or electronic transport record is issued. To preserve freedom of contract where necessary, however, a number of significant concessions were made and Article 80 represents one of the most controversial: that of volume contracts. However, the provision lends itself to abuse under each one of the elements as there is no minimum quantity, period of time or frequency and the minimum number of shipments is clearly just two. This means that important contracts of affreighment concluded pursuant to, for example, oil supply agreements have the same right to be excluded from the scope of application of the Rotterdam Rules. The fact that a volume contract may incorporate by reference the carrier's public schedule of services and the transport document or other similar documents as terms of the contract would make a carefully drafted booking note for consecutive shipments a potential volume contract as well.