• 복합운송
• /
• s.129
• /
• pp.12-13
• /
• 2000

• 복합운송
• /
• s.129
• /
• pp.32-33
• /
• 2000

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.7
• /
• pp.235-255
• /
• 1994

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.6
• /
• pp.165-190
• /
• 1994

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.31 no.1
• /
• pp.3-36
• /
• 2016

Recently, the Supreme Court of Korea delivered a milestone judgment about air related multimodal transport. At there, the mattered cargo, some expensive jewellery, was transported from Qingdao, China to downtown office of consignee at Seoul via Incheon airport in Korea. As an air waybill was issued in this case, there was an air transport agreement between consignor and air courier operator. After arriving at Incheon airport, the shipment was transport by land arranged by the air courier operator, who was a defendant in this case. Upon arriving at the final destination, it was found that the jewellery was lost partly and based on circumstantial evidence, the damage presumed to be occurred during the land transport. As a subrogee, the insurance company who paid for consignee filed an action against the air courier operator for damage compensation. Defendant contended that Montreal convention should be applicable in this case mainly for limited liability. The lower court of this case confirmed that applying the limited liability clause under Montreal Convention is improper under the reason that the damage in this case was or presumed to be occurred during surface transport. It was focused on the Montreal Convention article 18 which says that 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. However, the Supreme Court overturned the lower court's decision. The delivered opinion is that the terms of condition on the air waybill including limited liability clause should be prevailed in this case. It seems that the final judgment was considered the fact that the only contract made in this case was about air transport. This article is for analysis the above decisions from the perspective that it is distinguishable between a pure multimodal transport and an expanded air transport. The main idea of this article is that under the expanded air transport, any carriage by land, sea or inland waterway only for the performance of a contract for carriage by air, for the purpose of loading, delivery or transhipment is still within the scop of air transport.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.21 no.3
• /
• pp.189-211
• /
• 2011

This article aims at analysing the practical problems of FOB and CIF terms relating to Incoterms$^{(R)}$2010 in case of L/C transactions and presenting the defending measures against them. According to Incoterms$^{(R)}$2010, FOB and CIF terms are to be used only for sea or inland waterway transport and require the seller deliver the goods on board the vessel nominated by the buyer at named port of shipment. So if FOB and CIF terms will be used in sea transport under L/C transaction, the seller should ship the goods on the nominated vessel and present the shipping document indicating "on board vessel" to the issuing bank but the parties agree to present the received bill of lading according to special condition on L/C which is" received bill of lading are acceptable". In practical transaction, FOB and CIF terms are usually used in aircraft cargo, container cargo or multimodal transport. these facts are a violation of Incoterms. Incoterms$^{(R)}$2010 which regulated that FOB and CIF terms may not be appropriate where goods are handed over the carrier before they are on board the vessel for example goods in container. These transactions are a temporary expedient and breach of Incoterms in the international trade which must be corrected as soon as possible.

• International Commerce and Information Review
• /
• v.15 no.2
• /
• pp.261-283
• /
• 2013

ISBP745 has new provisions about sea waybill, road, rail or inland waterway transport documents which ISBP681 did not have provisions about. The main revisions of ISBP745 which were not existent or different from ICC Opinion are as follows: First, where B/L is required when multimodal transport is used as a modes of transport, the revisions stipulates that it is subject to UCP600 article19. this differs from previous ICC Opinion. Second, when a credit requires a transport document to indicate the name, address and contact details of a delivery agent, for the place of final destination or port of discharge, the address need not be one that is located at the place of destination or port of discharge or within the same country as that of the place of destination or port of discharge. Third, in case there exist a number of shippers and a consignee, multiple transport documents are issued. This rule has a clear stipulation on this case. Transport industry regards the indication of "LCL/FCL" or "CFS/CY" common in this case as that requiring multiple transport documents. However, ISBP745 does not regard it the case as that requiring multiple transport documents. This may cause some confusion in examination of documents. Forth, when partial shipment is allowed, and more than one set of original transport documents are presented as part of a single presentation made under one covering schedule and incorporate different dates of shipment, the earliest of these dates is to be used of the calculation of an presentation period.