• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제20권
• /
• pp.213-239
• /
• 2003

This paper intends to describe the liability regime of the air carrier under the Montreal Convention of 1999 for the international cargo, comparing to those of the existing Warsaw Convention system. Also this paper deals with main issues of the Montreal Convention which are relevant for the carrier's liability in the carriage by air of cargo. The Warsaw Convention was adopted in 1929 and modified successively in 1955, 1961, 1971, 1975, and 1999. The Montreal Convention of 1999 modernized and consolidated the Warsaw Convention and related instruments. International air carrier is liable by application of principle of strict liability as stated in the Montreal Convention : The carrier is liable for the destruction or loss of, or damage to cargo and delay during the carriage by air, and the carrier's liability is limited to a sum of 17 Special Drawing Rights per kilogramme. However, the Montreal Convention has main outstanding issues with respect to the liability of the air carrier : potential conflicts between the Montreal Convention and the Warsaw Convention, the amounts of limits of the carrier's liability, the duration of the carrier's liability, the exessive litigation, and the aviation insurance. Therefore, the conditions and limits of the carrier's liability under the Montreal Convention should be readjusted and regulated in detail.

• 항공우주정책ㆍ법학회지
• /
• 제17권
• /
• pp.9-28
• /
• 2003

1929년 바르샤바조약은 그 후속 개정조약들을 포함해 국제항공운송분야에서 70년 이상 중요한 역할을 해왔다. 동조약은 2003년 11월 4일 몬트리올조약을 대체될 예정이다. 몬트리올조약은 운송인의 책임의 범위에 있어서 많은 변화를 가져왔고 운송인이 제소될 수 있는 법원의 범위를 확대하였다. 그리고 운송인의 책임을 인정함에 있어 코드쉐어의 영향을 반영하였다. 몬트리올조약은 1920년대 국제항공운송에 있어서의 국제적 노력이 시작된 이후 가장 커다란 변화가 야기된 조약이다. 몬트리올조약은 그 동안 수많은 조약들이 채택했던 원칙들을 집대성하여 국제항공운송의 통일성을 단일조약에 체계화하였다. 바르샤바조약체계의 문제점으로 지적되었던 낮은 배상한도액이 몬트리올조약에서 상향조정되었다. 항공운송인들의 입장을 보호하기 위한 조약으로서 특성지워졌던 바르샤바조약은 이제 몬트리올조약을 통해 승객의 입장을 반영한 조약이 되었다. 한국정부가 몬트리올조약을 비준한다면 한국의 승객들은 그로 인한 이익을 향유하게 될 것이다. 몬트리올조약의 비준은 승객들과 항공사 모두의 이익이 될 것이다.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제40권
• /
• pp.97-144
• /
• 2008

The purpose of this paper is to review the text of national legislation relating to the carrier's liability in respect of the carriage of passengers, baggage and cargo by air in major states such as United Kingdom, Germany, France, Canada, Russia and China, and to compare the air carrier's liability under the national legislations of above states with them under the Warsaw System relating to the international carriage by air. Also this paper reviews the text of the draft legislation relating to the carrier's liability in respect of the carriage by air in Korea. The Warsaw Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to International Carriage was adopted in 1929. In 1999, the ICAO adopted the Montreal Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air vastly modernizing the unification of private air law. The Montreal Convention replaced the instruments of the “Warsaw System”, and came into force on 4 November 2003. The Montreal Convention is not only an international convention. It has also exercised a considerable influence on national legislation. A the Convention, or certain of its principles, with the object of regulating their national air transport. The main feature of the liability regime of the air carrier under the Montreal Convention is the two-tier liability system for death or injury of the passenger with strict liability up to 100,000 SDR and presumptive liability with a reversed burden of proof without any limit above that threshold. The principles of the liability of the air carrier under the Montreal Convention have been adopted into national legislations by the United Kingdom, Germany, France, Canada, Russia and China. Now the Ministry of Justice of Korea is proceeding to make a new national legislation relating to the liability of the air carrier in respect of the carriage by air. The draft legislation of the Part VI the Carriage by Air of the Commercial Code of Korea has adopted the main principles of the liability of the air carrier under the Montreal Convention. In conclusion, the national legislation relating to the liability of the air carrier in Korea will contribute to settle efficiently the dispute on the carrier's liability in respect of the carriage of passengers, baggage and cargo by air.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제78권
• /
• pp.1-29
• /
• 2018

This article demonstrates that both the Warsaw Convention Systemand the Montreal Convention are not designed for multimodal transport, let alone for "Door to Door" transport. The polemic directed against the "Door to Door" application of the Warsaw Convention systemand the Montreal Convention is predominantly driven by the text and the drafting philosophy of the said Contentions that since 1929 support unimodalism-with the rule that "the period of the carriage by air does not expend to any carriage by land, by sea or by inland waterway performed outside an airport" playing a profound role in restricting their multimodal aspirations. The drafters of the Montreal Convention were more adventurous than their predecessors with respect to the boundaries of the Montreal Convention. They amended Art. 18(3) by removing the phrase "whether in an aerodrome or on board an aircraft, or, in the case of landing outside an aerodrome, in any place whatsoever", however, they retained the first sentence of Art. 18(4). The deletion of the airport limitation fromArt. 18(3) creates its own paradox. The carrier can be held liable under the Montreal Convention for the loss or damage to cargo while it is in its charge in a warehouse outside an airport. Yet, damage or loss of the same cargo that occurs during its surface transportation to the aforementioned warehouse and vice versa is not covered by the Montreal Convention fromthe moment the cargo crosses the airport's perimeter. Surely, this result could not have been the intention of its drafters: it certainly does not make any commercial sense. I think that a better solution to the paradox is to apply the "functional interpretation" of the term"airport". This would retain the integrity of the text of the Montreal Convention, make sense of the change in the wording of Art. 18(3), and nevertheless retain the Convention's unimodal philosophy. English courts so far remain loyal to the judgment of the Court of Appeal in Quantum, which constitutes bad news for the supporters of the multimodal scope of the Montreal Convention. According the US cases, any losses occurring during Door to Door transportation under an air waybill which involves a dominant air segment are subject to the international air law conventions. Any domestic rules that might be applicable to the road segment are blatantly overlooked. Undoubtedly, the approach of the US makes commercial. But this policy decision by arguing that the intention of the drafters of the Warsaw Convention was to cover Door to Door transportation is mistaken. Any expansion to multimodal transport would require an amendment to the Montreal Convention, Arts 18 and 38, one that is not in the plans for the foreseeable future. Yet there is no doubt that air carriers and freight forwarders will continue to push hard for such expansion, especially in the USA, where courts are more accommodating.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제49권
• /
• pp.283-324
• /
• 2011

The purpose of this paper is to research the air waybill and the carrier's liability in respect of the carriage of cargo by air under the Montreal Convention of 1999. The Warsaw Convention for the unification of certain rules for international carriage by air was adopted in 1929 and modified successively in 1955, 1961, 1971, 1975 and 1999. The Montreal Convention of 1999 modernized and consolidated the Warsaw Convention and related instruments. Under the Montreal Convention, in respect of the carriage of cargo, the air waybill shall be made out by the consignor. If, at the request of the consignor, the carrier makes it out, the carrier shall be deemed to have done so on behalf of the consignor. The air waybill shall be made out in three orignal parts. Under the Montreal Convention, the consignor shall indemnify the carrier against all damages suffered by the carrier or any other person to whom the carrier is liable, by reason of the irregularity, incorrectness or incompleteness of the particulars and statement furnished by the consignor or on its behalf. The air waybill is not a document of title or negotiable instrument. Under the Montreal Convention, the air waybill is prima facie evidence of the conclusion of the contract, of the acceptance of the cargo and of the conditions of carriage. If the carrier carries out the instructions of the consignor for the disposition of the cargo without requiring the production of the part of the air waybill, the carrier will be liable, for any damage which may be accused thereby to any person who is lawfully in possession of the part of the air waybill. Under the Montreal Convention, the carrier is liable by application of principle of strict liability for the damage sustained during the carriage of cargo by air. The carrier is liable for the destruction or loss of, or damage to cargo and delay during the carriage by air. The period of the carriage by air does not extend to any carriage by land, by sea or by inland waterway performed outside an airport. Under the Montreal Convention, the carrier's liability is limited to a sum of 17 Special Drawing Rights per kilogramme. Any provision tending to relieve the carrier of liability or to fix a lower limit than that which is laid down in this Convention shall be and void. Under the Montreal Convention, if the carrier proves that the damage was caused by the negligence or other wrongful act or omission of the person claiming compensation, or the person from whom he derives his rights, the carrier shall be wholly or partly exonerated from ist liability to the claimant to the extent that such negligence or wrongful act or omission caused the damage. Under the Montreal Convention, any action for damages, however founded, whether under this Convention or in contract or in tort or otherwise, can only be brought subject to the conditions and such limits of liability as are set out in this Convention. Under the Montreal Convention, in the case of damage the person entitled to delivery must complain to the carrier forthwith after the discovery of the damage, and at the latest, within fourteen days from the date of receipt of cargo. In the case of delay, the complaint must be made at the latest within twenty-one days from the date on which the cargo has been placed at his disposal. if no complaint is made within the times aforesaid, no action shall lie against the carrier, save in the case of fraud on its part. Under the Montreal Convention, the right to damage shall be extinguished if an action is not brought within a period of two years, reckoned from the date of arrival at the destination, or from the date on which the aircraft ought to have arrived, or from the date on which the carriage stopped. In conclusion, the Montreal Convention has main outstanding issues with respect to the carrier's liability in respect of the carriage of cargo by air as follows : The amounts of limits of the carrier's liability, the duration of the carrier's liability, and the aviation liability insurance. Therefore, the conditions and limits of the carrier's liability under the Montreal Convention should be readjusted and regulated in detail.

• 항공우주정책ㆍ법학회지
• /
• 제32권2호
• /
• pp.33-66
• /
• 2017

우리나라는 급증하는 항공운송과 그에 따른 분쟁의 신속하고도 합리적인 처리를 위하여 지난 2007년 상법 중 항공운송편에 대한 제정작업에 들어간 이래 2011. 4. 29에 "상법 중 항공운송편 제정(안)"이 국회를 통과하여 같은 해 11. 24부터 시행에 들어가게 되었다. 항공운송은 그 특성상 국내선을 이용한 운송보다는 국제선을 이용한 운송이 절대적이다. 따라서 국내뿐만 아니라 국제적으로도 이러한 항공운송의 특성에 기하여 이미 오래 전부터 많은 국제협약을 탄생시켜 왔다. 그 중에 하나가 몬트리올 협약인데, 우리나라는 항공운송편 제정작업을 본격적으로 시행하던 때인 2007년에 이 협약에 가입하였다. 몬트리올 협약은 지난 1999. 5. 10부터 5. 28까지 국제민간항공기구의 본부가 있는 캐나다 몬트리올에서 열린 외교회의에서 채택된 국제조약이다. 몬트리올 협약은 30개국 이상이 비준하면 그 효력이 발생토록 하였는데, 지난 2003. 9. 5. 미국과 카메룬이 30번째와 31번째로 이를 비준함으로써 효력이 발생하였고, 2017. 11. 28. 우간다가 협약에 가입함으로써 현재 지역경제공동체로서 유럽연합 (European Union)을 포함하여 129개 국가가 가입하여 총 130개 당사국이 가입한 상태이다. 이에 따라 우리나라와 몬트리올 협약 가입국 130개국 중 어느 나라와 발생한 항공운송에 관한 분쟁은 원칙적으로 이 몬트리올 협약이 적용되게 된다. 그러나 국제항공운송계약에 따른 국제항공운송에 있어 이 기본적인 원칙의 적용이 문제가 되는 경우가 왕왕 발생한다. 이글에서 다루게 될 2016년의 대법원 판결도 바로 국제항공운송계약에 있어 이 몬트리올 협약이 적용되는지가 쟁점이 된 사건이다. 사실 우리나라가 2007년 몬트리올 협약에 가입한 이후 만 10년이 되는 2017년 현재까지 국제항공운송계약에 있어 몬트리올 협약이 적용되어야 하는지 여부가 문제가 되어 대법원에서 판단한 사건으로는 이 사건이 유일해 보인다. 따라서 이 글에서는 국제항공운송계약에 있어 몬트리올 협약의 적용여부를 상법의 기준에서 살펴보고 국제항공운송인의 책임, 특히 화물에 대한 책임을 중심으로 몬트리올 협약과 우리 상법상 항공운송편의 내용도 함께 다루어 보고자 한다. 이 글을 계기로 우리나라에서 효력을 갖게 된 몬트리올 협약의 지난 10년을 되돌아보고 몬트리올 협약과 우리 상법간의 차이가 있다면 합리적인 범위내에서 이를 수정할 수 있는 계기가 되었으면 한다.

• 항공우주정책ㆍ법학회지
• /
• 제18권
• /
• pp.41-64
• /
• 2003

본고는 새로 발효된 1999년의 몬트리올 조약상 국제항공화물에 관한 항공운송인의 책임제도를 종전의 바르샤바 조약과 비교하여 고찰하고 있으며, 또한 항공화물은송인의 책임에 관련된 몬트리올 조약 규정의 주요 문제점들을 다루고 있다. 바르샤바 조약은 1929년에 채택되어 1955년, 1961년, 1971년, 1975년, 1999년에 계속적으로 개정되어 왔으며, 1999년의 몬트리올 조약은 바르샤바 조약 및 관련조약들을 통합하고 현대화한 것이다. 항공운송인은 몬트리올 조약에 규정된 바와 같이 엄격책임주의에 따라 책임을 지며, 항공운송중의 화물의 파괴, 멸실, 손상 및 지연에 대하여 책임을 지되, 운송인의 책임은 1킬로그램당 17특별인출권(SDR)으로 제한된다. 결론적으로 몬트라올 조약은 화물에 관한 항공운송인의 책임과 관련하여 몇가지 현존하는 문제점들이 있는데, 몬트리올 조약과 바르샤바 조약간의 충돌 가능성, 낮은 운송인의 책임한도액, 운송인의 책임기간의 불명확, 과도한 소송제기, 항공보험의 가입 등의 문제들이 그것이다. 따라서 몬트리올 조약상 운송인의 책임조건 및 한도는 재조정되고 보다 구체적으로 규정되어야 한다.

• 통상정보연구
• /
• 제12권2호
• /
• pp.385-405
• /
• 2010

The purpose of this study is to investigate liability risk of air cargo carrier and suggests ideas for solving problems which could be happen to air transporters on the future. because of Air transport remains one of the world's fastest growing and most important industries. And important treaties and contracts specifying transporters' responsibility regarding big scale aircraft accidents are such as Warsaw Convention in 1929, Hague Protocol in 1955, Montreal Convention in 1999. The Montreal Convention, formally the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage, is a treaty adopted by Diplomatic meeting of ICAO member states in 1999. It amended important provisions of the Warsaw Convention's concerning compensation for the victims of air disasters. In conclusion, suggests to the method of air cargo security and cargo legal liability insurance which is for air cargo carrier's risk management.

• 항공우주정책ㆍ법학회지
• /
• 제27권2호
• /
• pp.3-27
• /
• 2012

국제항공운송에 관한 규칙의 통일을 위한 바르샤바 협약이 1929년에 채택되었다. 1999년에 국제민간항공기구(ICAO)는 항공사법의 통일을 광범위하게 현대화하는 국제항공운송을 위한 규칙의 통일을 위한 몬트리올 협약을 채택하였다. 몬트리올 협약은 바르샤바 체제 조약 문서를 대체하였으며, 2003년 11월 4일 발효되었다. 몬트리올 협약은 다만 국제협약일 뿐만 아니라, 또한 국내입법에 상당한 영향을 주었다. 한국은 2011년 4월 29일 상법 제6편 항공운송편의 국내 입법을 하였으며, 2011년 11월 24일 발효되었다. 한국 상법 제6편 항공운송편의 국내 입법은 여객에게 생긴 손해에 대한 책임, 수하물에 생긴 손해에 대한 책임, 화물에 생긴 손해에 대한 책임에 관한 규정들을 두고 있다. 몬트리올 협약상 항공운송인의 책임제도의 주요특징은 100,000 특별인출권(SDR)까지 절대책임을 지는 여객의 사망 또는 상해에 대한 2단계 책임제도이며, 그 절대책임액 이상은 아무런 제한없이 반대의 입증부담을 지는 추정적 책임이다. 한국 상법 제6편 항공운송편의 국내 입법은 몬트리올 협약상 항공운송인의 주요책임원칙을 수용하고 있다. 결론적으로, 한국 정부에 의한 항공운송인의 책임에 관한 국내입법은 여객, 수하물 및 화물의 항공운송에 대한 운송인의 책임에 관한 분쟁을 효과적으로 해결하고, 동법이 규정하는 방어와 책임제한에 따라 손해를 입은 여객 또는 송하인에게 적절한 보상을 제공하는데 기여할 것이다.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제13권2호
• /
• pp.377-401
• /
• 2004

Delay in the air transport occurs when passengers, baggage or cargo do not arrive at their destination at the time indicated in the contract of carriage. The causes of delay in the carriage of cargo are no reservation, lack of space, failure to load the cargo on board, loading the cargo on the wrong plane, failure to off-load the cargo at the right place, or to deliver the covering documents at the right place. The Montreal Convention of 1999 Article 19 provides that "The carrier is liable for damage occasioned by delay in the carriage by air of cargo. Nevertheless, the carrier shall not be liable for damage occasioned by delay if it proves that it and its servants and agents took all measures that could reasonably be required to avoid the damage or that it was impossible for it or them to take such measures." The Montreal Convention Article 22 provides liability limits of the carrier in case of delay for cargo. In the carriage of cargo, the liability of the carrier is limited to 17 SDR per kilogram unless a special declaration as to the value of the cargo has been made. The Montreal Convention Article 19 has shortcomings: it is silent on the duration of the liability for carriage. It does not give any indication concerning the circumstances to be taken into account in cases of delay, and about the length of delay. In conclusion, it is desirable to define the period of carriage with accuracy, and to insert the word 'unreasonable' in Article 19.