• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제34권
• /
• pp.77-108
• /
• 2007

The traditional name given to the insurance of third party liabilities and certain contractual liabilities which arise in connection with the operation of ships is protection and indemnity(P & I) insurance. P & I insurance is very different from traditional hull and machinery insurance in that shipowners' hull and machinery insurance is designed primarily to protect the assured against losses to his vessel, whereas P & I insurance seeks to indemnify an shipowner in respect of the discharge of legal liabilities he has incurred in operating his own vessels. This study is to examine the background of establishment of British P & I clubs md, therefore, the identity of P & I insurance. The present British P & I clubs are the remote descendants of the many small and local hull mutual insurance clubs that were formed by British shipowners in the end of 18th century. At that time, British shipowners were dissatified with the state of marine insurance market and, therefore, established clubs together in mutual hull insurance clubs. After the removal of the company monopoly in 1824, greater competition had a good effect on the rates, terms of cover and service offered by the commercial marine insurance market and by Lloyd's underwriters, and the hull clubs became less necessary and went into decline. The burden of British shipowners on liabilities to third parties was steadily increased after the middle of the 19th century, but the amount insured under hull policy was limited in the insured value of the ship. Eventually, the first protection club, that is, the Shipowners' Mutual Protection Society was formed in 1855. It was designed to like past mutual hull clubs, but to cover liabilities for loss of life and personal injury and also the collision risks excluded from the current marine policies, particularly the excess above the limits in hull policies. In 1870, the risks of liability for loss of or damage to cargo carried on board the insured ship was first awarded by the British shipowners. After 1874, many protection clubs formed indemnity club to cover the risk of liability for loss or damage to cargo. As mentioned above, British P & I clubs have been steadily changed according to the response of shipowners under the rapidly changing law of British shipowners' liability, and so on in the future.

• Journal of Advanced Marine Engineering and Technology
• /
• 제40권9호
• /
• pp.859-867
• /
• 2016

선박연료유는 운항비의 높은 비율을 차지하는 필수적인 요소이다. 그러므로 기준에 적합한 적정량의 연료유를 수급 받는 것은 운항손실을 예방하기 위해서도 중요한 작업이라 할 수 있다. 하지만 연료유 수급 시 발생되는 분쟁은 연료유 공급항을 중심으로 매년 지속적으로 발생되고 있으며, 선박소유자는 이러한 분쟁을 예방하고 효과적으로 대응하기 위하여 검정업체와의 계약을 통해 독립적 제3자인 선박연료유 검정인을 연료유 수급과정에 참여시켜 사실관계에 대한 증명서 발급을 요청한다. 하지만 현재 연료유 수급분쟁 발생 시 선박연료유 검정원의 지위와 역할이 명확하지 않아 효과적으로 대응하지 못하고 있다. 따라서 이 논문에서 과연 선박연료유 검정인이 가지는 법적지위 및 책임을 규명해보고 선박연료유 검정인이 수급분쟁에 있어서 실질적인 역할을 할 수 있는 대책에 대하여 논하고자 한다.

• 수산경영론집
• /
• 제25권2호
• /
• pp.59-87
• /
• 1994

While overall input of oil into the sea has actually declined over the years 1975-92, major spills have regularly occurred in certain locations which have had serious effects upon local environments and hence caused public outcry. The purpose of this paper is to suggest the scheme for maximizing the compensation for oil pollution, which can be adopted in Korea, by analysing the mandatory 1969 Civil Liability Convention(CLC), the 1971 Fund Convention and two voluntary schemes (TOVALOP andCRISTAL). The paper examines the major subjects which are as follows : major pollution incidents and international response, the present situation of oil pollution in Korea, the role of flag of convenience tankers in oil pollution, the mode of oil pollution damages and tanker owner's liability, international compensation system fer oil pollution, Korean compensation system for oil pollution damage, and its problems to be tackled.

• 수산해양교육연구
• /
• 제5권2호
• /
• pp.98-109
• /
• 1993

By the Article 28 of the Korean Fishing Vessels Act and the Article 47-1 of the Enforcement Ordinance of the Act, fishing vessels over 5 gross tone must be insured the fishing vessels mutual insurance or marine insurance. Therefore the distant-water fishing vessels and vessels registered with Classification Society can be insured to the marine insurance, and non-registered vessels and the small fishing vessels can be insured to the fishing vessels mutual insurance of Fisheries Co-operatives. Moreover, the shipowners of fishing vessels over 5 gross tons to be insured a liability insurance for their crew, and it is to compensate effectively the crewman's accidents prescribed in the Seaman's Act. The shipowner's Liability Insurance to be insured the seaman's Compensation Insurance or the seaman's mutual insurance of the Fisheries Co-operatives and the Protection and Indemnity but they still involve lots of problems to cover the crewman's accidents reasonably. The author's views on the improvement way of the fisheries mutual insurance system are as follows. 1. The size of fishing vessels over 5 gross tons prescribed by the Article 28 of the Fishing Vessels Act must be revised into over 1 gross tons. And the regulations concerning penalties against nonfulfilment of the regulation must be strengthened in order to have legal effectiveness. 2. The level of the government subsidy for the fisheries mutual insurance must be raised up from the large point of view for protection of fishermen. It is concluded that the Government have to take charge of the remutual insurance in order to develop the fisheries mutual insurance system. 3. The mutual insurance system of fish catch have to be executed in order to guarantee the stable income for fishermen on the base of the amount of money by fish catch in the previous year.

• 해양환경안전학회지
• /
• 제28권4호
• /
• pp.567-576
• /
• 2022

선원은 해상이라는 노동환경의 공간적 특수성으로 말미암아 예측할 수 없는 다양한 해상위험에 노출되어 있어 이를 고려해 재해선원에 대한 충분한 보상이 필요하다. 그러나 우리나라의 선원법은 육상근로자와 비교했을 경우 재해선원에 대한 보상이 미흡한 상태이다. 이에 본 연구에서는 유럽의 사회보험 선진국인 독일의 해양노동법, 산재보험법을 살펴보고 우리나라와 비교하여 시사점을 도출하고자 하였다. 먼저 선원재해 발생 시의 보상 주체에 대해서 독일은 공적 성격의 기관에서 관리하는 반면 우리나라는 선박소유자가 전적으로 보상하고 있는 것으로 조사되었다. 두 번째로 재해보상의 내용에 대해서 독일은 다양한 지원제도를 통해 연속적인 치료와 요양을 제공할 뿐 아니라 선박 업무 복귀를 위한 다양한 프로그램을 운영하고 있다. 그러나 우리나라는 선박소유자가 재해보상의 책임을 면할 수 있도록 하는 일시보상제도를 두고 있어 재해선원에게 불리한 상황인 것으로 분석되었다. 마지막으로 선원재해의 원인을 판단하는 주체는 독일의 경우 공적 성격의 산재보험조합이 업무 기인성에 대해 판단하고 있으나, 우리나라는 선박소유자나 보험회사에 의해서 결정되고 있는 것으로 나타났다. 따라서 우리나라의 재해선원에 대한 적절한 보상을 위해서 선원재해보상을 주관하는 공공기관을 설립하여 역할을 부여할 필요가 있으며, 재요양, 장해연금, 재활급여 등을 보상받을 수 있도록 선원법 정비 또는 관련 제도의 개선이 필요하다.