• 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.

• MARITIME LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.29 no.2
• /
• pp.115-144
• /
• 2017

The impact of the global financial crisis, which began in the United States in 2007, had a major impact on the domestic shipping and shipbuilding industries. In this regard, the domestic shipyard has established an order-taking strategy in several ways as an alternative to lowering the amount of construction of commercial vessels due to deterioration of the shipping industry, and selected industrial sector was the offshore plant sector. However, the domestic shipyard has under performed the offshore plant in order to just increase sales and secure work without any risk analysis for EPC contracts. As a result, the shipyard has been charged more than the initial contract price with the offshore plant contractor, or the shipyard has become a legal issue requiring payment of liquidated damages due to delays in delivery of the product. The main legal disputes are caused by the thorough risk analysis and the inexperience of process control that can occur during offshore plant construction. and In particular, there is no sufficient review of the unequivocal provisions in the contract as an element of risk management. There is no human resource to review these contractual clauses. Therefore, this study identifies the existence of specific risks that could lead to delays in offshore plant construction, and examined the existence of any unequivocal clauses in contracts for offshore plant construction. and also discussed how the toxic clause applies to the actual parties and how the concrete risk factors in the construction contracts are transferred and expressed by referring to the interviews with the project manager of the domestic shipyard and the previous research. As a result, This paper examined the legal liability of the contracting parties regarding delayed delivery of the products due to the offshore plant construction contract. And to improve the domestic shipbuilding industry.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.31 no.1
• /
• pp.37-62
• /
• 2016

Two controversial issues exist in interpretation of "Force Majeure" set forth in the Article 931 (4) of the Korean Commercial Code. Firstly, its scope of application is ambiguous. Secondly, there is a concern that the "immunity" under paragraph 1 and "Force Majeure" may overlap each other. "Force Majeure" refers an event resulted from either natural disaster or 3rd-party. Meanwhile, the latter implies relatively extensive and comprehensive meaning and its interpretation may vary depends on law enforcement. In general, the aircraft accident hardly results in damage or loss to the 3rd-party. Additionally, it is worth to review newly enacted clause and to define its applicability. When the 3rd party is suffered from damage or loss incurred by any external act, it is necessary to explicit the concept of the non-contractual liabilities with respect to 3rd party. From the perspective of protecting aviation industries, the commercial aviation operator may be entitled to immunity in respect of claim for damage incurred by the event of Force Majeure. However, this approach is directly opposite to the victim's benefit and protection by the law. Therefore, the priority of the legal protection should be considered. Although the interest of the commercial aviation operator is not negligible, the protection of the law should be favorable to the 3rd party. Otherwise, the innocent party has no right to claim for damage incurred by aviation accident. Another issue is about the possibility of overlapping of the provision set forth in the paragraph 1 and 4. The former states that the liabilities shall be exempted on account of either the unsettled political or economic situation but this clause is inconsistent with the interpretation on Force Majeure under the latter. As argued above, this may include any event resulted from either political or economic account by the external influence of the 3rd party, thus these two provisions are overlapped. Consequently, in order to develop ordinances and guidelines and to ensure an equal protection to both parties, above two issues must remain open for further discussions.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.16 no.1
• /
• pp.3-82
• /
• 2015

This paper is concerned in the theme of the liability for the breach of duty to inform(Haftungszurechnung der $Aufkl{\ddot{a}}rungspflichtverletzung$) and the malpractice of cosmetic surgery. Here, the terms, treatments for healing purposes and purely medical-technical cosmetic operations are well integrated in the category of "medical conduct(medizinische Handlung)" within the meaning of the public and administrative 'Medical Law'. In the judgment of 6. 13. 2013 Az. 2012DA94865 provides the KHGH(Korean Highest Court of Justice) to inform the patient about the prospects and risks of cosmetic surgery(Infrabrow Excision Blepharoplasty) stringent requirements, similar to the judicature of BGH(cf. BGH, Urt. v. 6. 11. 1990, Az.: VI ZR 8/90). Even in the judgment of 5. 12. 2014 Az. 2013GASO865646 the SZLG(Seoul Central Regional Court) recognizes the physician contract for 'cosmetic septoplasty' as a sort of contract for work. The medical treatment(${\ddot{a}}rztliche$ Heilbehandlung) is still regarded as a prototype of the medical activity, therefore in the meaning of the 'Civil Law(KBGB)', its term needs to be used immediately for healing purposes. The cosmetic operation, desired by a patient, differs from the healing treatment by the element of "indication" and the fact that the "healing purpose(Heilzweck)" itself is missing. In comparative context - methodically fully aware that the unreflective term transfer between different laws might contradict their legal purposes - a series of judgments BSG(BSGE 63, 83, BSGE 72, 96, BSGE, 82, 158, BSGE 93, 252 etc.) and some judgments of LSG are reviewed. In addition, also the dogmatic topic for the "legal natur of a medical treatment contract" is to reconsider by comparative introducing BGHZ 63, 306. Now in view of the current state of greater popularity of artificial cosmetic surgery still indeed is the sentences: The doctor is minister naturae, a helper of nature. A doctor promises regularly only the proper treatment of the patient, but the contractual liability for work should not be excluded in medical conditions for cosmetic surgeries altogether. "With cosmetic operations, seeking to eliminate the external deformities, the doctor may miss the medical profession entirely." - A. Laufs, Medical Law, 5th ed. P. 18.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.35 no.2
• /
• pp.113-136
• /
• 2020

Worldwide, so-called 'over-booking' of Air Carriers is established in practice. Although not invalid, despite their current contracts, passengers can be refused boarding, which can hinder travel planning. The Korean Supreme Court ruled that an airline carrier who refused to board a passenger due to over-booking was liable for compensation under the "Nonperformance of obligation". But what the court should be thinking about is when the benefit(transport) have been disabled. Thereforeit may be considered that the impossibility of benefit (Transport) due to the rejection of boarding caused by 'Over-booking' may be not the 'subsequent impossibility', but not the 'initialimpossibility '. The legal relationship due to initial impossibility is nullity (imposibilium nulla est obligation). When benefits are initial impossibile, our civil code recognizes liability for damages in accordance with the law of "Culpa in Contrahendo", not "nonperformance of obligation". On this reason, the conclusion that the consumer will be compensated for the loss of boarding due to overbooking by the Air Carrier is the same, but there is a need to review the legal basis for the responsibility from the other side. However, it doesn't matter whether it is non-performance or Culpa in Contrahendo. Rather, the recognition of this compensation is likely to cause confusion due to unstable contractual relationships between both parties. Even for practices permitted by Air Carriers, modifications to current customary overbooking that consumers must accept unconditionally are necessary. At the same time, if Air Carriers continue to be held liable for non-performance of obligations due to overselling tickets, it can be fatal to the airline business environment that requires overbooking for stable profit margins. Therefore, it would be an appropriate measure for both Air Carriers and passengers if the Air Carrier were to be given a clearer obligation to explain (to the consumer) and, at the same time, if the explanation obligation is fulfilled, the Air Carrier would no longer be forced to take responsibility for overbooking.