• 한국마린엔지니어링학회:학술대회논문집
• /
• 한국마린엔지니어링학회 2005년도 후기학술대회논문집
• /
• 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.

• 정보학연구
• /
• 제8권2호
• /
• 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.

• 수산해양교육연구
• /
• 제6권1호
• /
• 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.

• 한국항만경제학회지
• /
• 제22권2호
• /
• 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.

• 대한조선학회논문집
• /
• 제45권4호
• /
• 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.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제8권
• /
• pp.48-83
• /
• 1995

• Journal of Korea Trade
• /
• 제25권2호
• /
• 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.

• 대한안전경영과학회지
• /
• 제16권3호
• /
• 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.

• 한국항해항만학회:학술대회논문집
• /
• 한국항해항만학회 2019년도 추계학술대회
• /
• pp.270-270
• /
• 2019

관성측정장치(Inertial Measurement Unit)는 선박, 잠수함, 항공기 등 여러 응용분야에서 적용되어 자세 측정 영역에 주로 사용되고 있지만, 이런 장비는 고가의 장비이기 때문에 특수 분야에서만 한정적으로 이용되어 왔다. 본 연구에서는 저가의 관성측정장치(Inertial Measurement Unit)를 이용하여 실시간으로 선박의 속도와 방향, 중력, 가속도를 측정함으로써 선박의 감항성을 확인하며, 더 나아가 실선 선박의 저항 및 조종성능 추정을 위한 유체력 미계수 추정을 위한 연구방법을 고안하였다. 이에 본 연구는 실제 해상에서 선체 운동요소를 계측하고, 계측된 데이터의 처리 및 해석을 통하여 선박의 종합적인 안전성 평가 및 실선의 저항 및 조종성능 추정을 행하였다.

• 해양환경안전학회지
• /
• 제24권1호
• /
• pp.43-55
• /
• 2018

세월호 사고 이후 내항선 안전관리분야에서의 가장 큰 변화는 해사안전감독관 제도의 도입이라 할 수 있다. 이 제도의 도입으로 내항여객선의 안전관리는 운항관리자와 해양경찰로부터 운항관리자와 새로이 도입된 해사안전감독관으로 변경되었다. 또한 내항화물선의 안전관리도 선박검사관으로부터 해사안전감독관과 선박검사관에 의한 안전관리의 체계로 전환되었다. 그러나 새로이 도입된 이 제도는 전문임기제에 따른 감독관의 신분상의 불안으로 인한 업무연속성 부족, 감독대상의 현실을 무시한 감독관의 자격요건 설정, 내항화물선에 대한 심사와 지도 감독기관의 분리로 인한 업무혼선 및 감항성 확보를 위한 항행정지 개선명령 분야의 한계 등에 대한 문제점이 여전히 남아 있다. 내항선의 안전관리를 보다 강화하기 위해서는 내항선 안전관리 업무를 실질적으로 수행하고 있는 해사안전 감독관 제도의 정착이 필수적이라 아니할 수 없다. 따라서 이러한 문제점을 개선하기 위해서는, 내항화물선에 대해서 통합된 단일기관에 의한 체계적인 안전관리가 이루어져야 하며, 전문임기제인 감독관의 신분상의 제약에 대한 개선이 동시에 이루어져야 한다. 또한 항행정지 개선명령의 분야를 확대하고, 선장 기관장 및 국제선급의 검사원 경험자 위주로 감독관의 자격을 강화해서 보다 체계적이고 실질적인 내항선의 안전관리가 되도록 해야 할 것이다.