• Proceedings of the Korean Society of Marine Engineers Conference
• /
• 2005.11a
• /
• pp.94-97
• /
• 2005

Seaworthiness is an important part of the carrier's obligation in the carriage of goods by sea. Especially seaworthiness of the ship is one of the most important obligations of the carrier in the field of international transport law. Therefore it will be important to examine the expected impacts by adopting a continuing duty of seaworthiness in UNCITRAL Draft Instrument from the Korea point of view because Korean Commercial Act provides that carriers are only obliged to exercise due diligence to make the ship seaworthy before and at the beginning of the voyage. This paper examines the concept of the seaworthiness and analyses the provisions of the Draft Instrument for the duty of seaworthiness in comparison with the Korean Commercial Act.

• The Journal of Information Technology
• /
• v.8 no.2
• /
• pp.27-42
• /
• 2005

The S.G. Policy form contains the words "the good ship or vessel called the.....". The words "good ship" mean that the ship is deemed to be seaworthy at the commencement of the voyage and this was very necessary in the day when a separate policy was issued for each voyage. In fact the warranty do seaworthiness still applies to all voyage policies. Nevertheless, the law does not apply an absolute warranty of seaworthiness to a time policy, so a ship is not required to be seaworthy at the time the hull policy is effected. The implied warranty of seaworthiness does not extend to good, for the underwriter is not responsible for their condition, apart fro the action of the perils insured against. The implied warranty of seaworthiness is limited to the vessel herself, and does not extend to a lighter or other craft used to convey the goods to the ship. The underwriters waive any breach of the implied warranties of the seaworthiness of the ship and fitness of the ship to carry the subject-matter insured to destination, unless the assured or their servants are privy to such unseaworthiness of unfitness.

• Journal of Fisheries and Marine Sciences Education
• /
• v.6 no.1
• /
• pp.45-57
• /
• 1994

One of the fundamental duty of the assured in a marine insurance contract is maintaining seaworthiness of the ship insured. Since duty of the seaworthiness of ship is a shipowners implied warranty in the marine insurance, the breach of the duty of seaworthiness by assured is recognized as immunity for the underwriter. This is a measure to protect the underwriter through prevention of unexpected casualties which may be occurred from the unseaworthiness. In the Korean Marine Insurance Act the legal character of the assured's duty of seaworthiness is not clear whether it is a legal duty or contracted one. Accordingly, in this paper the author pointed out that the duty of seaworthiness of the ship should be interpreted according to the English Law. As a conclusion, the hull insurance does not require even implied warranty concerning seaworthiness, since it is recognized as one of implied fundamental warranty of the English Marine Insurance Act. Especially, this issue pointed out is very meaningful and advisable under the consideration of the existing conditions of the marine insurance regime for the distant-water fishing vessels and the catch carriers in Korea.

• Journal of Korea Port Economic Association
• /
• v.22 no.2
• /
• pp.83-108
• /
• 2006

Regarding the ocean carrier's responsibility for damage indemnification, both his or her duty of care and reason of legal exemption have been considered important. The International Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules relating to Bills of Lading also provides that the ocean carrier indemnifies for the loss or damage of freight on the basis of the principle of liability with fault. In other words, the carrier assumes responsibility only for the loss or damage of freight which is under his or her control and whose safety must be carefully maintained by him or her. The carrier's duty of care which is required for freight safety in accordance with the convention is associated with two themes, seaworthiness of vessel and freight itself. To make ocean freight shipping effective necessities the seaworthiness of the ship that will conduct the shipping service under its responsibility. This will ultimately lead to making the service impressive to the shipper as freight owner. Thus the purpose of this study is to contribute to more reasonable shipping by the shipowner or the carrier who needs to ensure seaworthiness of vessel, and prevent unseaworthiness that may be incurred in accordance with freight characteristics. For the purpose, this paper reviewed the meaning of seaworthiness of vessel through a juridical approach to its causal relationship with ocean freight shipping.

• Journal of the Society of Naval Architects of Korea
• /
• v.45 no.4
• /
• pp.455-461
• /
• 2008

This article describes a part of collaborative research between industry and academy to develop an initial hull form of 46 feet motor yacht. Hydrodynamic performances such as stability, resistance and seaworthiness were estimated after completing the procedure of hull form design in the initial design stage.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.8
• /
• pp.48-83
• /
• 1995

• Journal of Korea Trade
• /
• v.25 no.2
• /
• 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.

• Journal of the Korea Safety Management & Science
• /
• v.16 no.3
• /
• pp.307-316
• /
• 2014

In view of the increased threat arising terrorism, the International Maritime Organization(IMO) adopted the International Ship and Port Facility Security Code (ISPS Code) which attached to the SOLAS Convention. The ISPS Code requires a comprehensive set of measures to enhance the security of ships and port facilities. For example, a shipowner must obtain the International Ship Security Certificate(ISSC). If the carrying vessel has not ISSC, the ship may be detained by the contracting governments. The Joint Cargo Committee(JCC) in London adopted the Cargo ISPS Endorsement, in which the assured who knowingly ships the cargoes on a non-ISPS Code compliant vessel will have no cover. However, where there is no the Cargo ISPS Endorsement in a Marine Cargo Insurance Policy and the cargo is carried by a non-ISPS Code certified vessel, the legal problem is whether or not it would constitute a breach of an implied warranty of seaworthiness and/or an implied warranty of legality. The purpose of this article is to analyze the potential legal issue on the relations between non-ISPS Code compliant vessel and two implied warranties under Marine Insurance Act(1906) in U.K.

• Proceedings of the Korean Institute of Navigation and Port Research Conference
• /
• 2019.11a
• /
• pp.270-270
• /
• 2019

Although the Inertial Measurement Unit is applied to a variety of applications such as ships, submarines, and aircrafts, it is mainly used in the attitude measurement area. But since such equipment is expensive, it has been used only in special fields. In this study, the ship's seaworthiness is verified by measuring the speed, direction, gravity, and acceleration of the ship in real time using a low-cost Inertial Measurement Unit. A research method for estimating fIuid force coefficients was devised. Therefore, this study measured ship motion factors at sea, processed and analyzed the measured data, and evaluated the overall safety of the ship and estimated the resistance and steering performance of the ship.

• Journal of the Korean Society of Marine Environment & Safety
• /
• v.24 no.1
• /
• pp.43-55
• /
• 2018

The biggest change in the field of coastal ship safety control since the accident of passenger ship Sewol has been the introduction of the maritime safety supervisor system. With its introduction, the safety control system in coastal passenger ships was changed from consisting of operation managers and marine police to operation managers and a newly-introduced maritime safety supervisor. The safety control system for coastal cargo ships was also converted from relying on ship inspection officers to having a maritime safety supervisor and ship inspection officers. However some negative elements have surfaced due to confusion related to the scope of work in the coastal cargo shipping field. These have been caused by dividing the supervisory agency, a lack of work continuity given non-permanent public official status, low supervisor qualifications overlooking reality, and limitations of the order for improvement to secure seaworthiness. It is essential that the maritime safety supervisor system be solidified to reinforce coastal ship safety control. Therefore, systematic safety control in the coastal cargo shipping industry should be conducted by a single, integrated government agency, and the area covered by the order for improvement to secure seaworthiness should be extended. Also limitations of the supervisor recruitment system due to non-permanent public official status should be simultaneously improved. In addition, it is necessary to upgrade supervisor qualifications to require experience with surveyors of international class, ship captains, and chief engineers.