• Journal of Korea Port Economic Association
• /
• v.19 no.1
• /
• pp.89-112
• /
• 2003

In this article, 1'd like to analyse the principal distinctions between the duty of disclosure and warranty which are based on the same legal principles, utmost good faith(uberrima fides). Although the duty of disclosure and warranty have a same legal principle to protect insurance contract, they have several difference in appliance actually. Through these comparative analysis, 1 want to reveal the character of warranty which is unfamiliar to us under our commercial law. Warranty has some peculiarity, these are (a)A warranty does not have to be material to the risk, (b)A warranty must be exactly complied with, (c)It is impossible to defence for a breach of warranty, the breach of warranty is irremediable, and A casual connection between breach and loss needs not be shone, (d)A breach of a warranty may be waived by insurer. Sometimes in Korea like those stringent principles of warranty make Korean's small fishing or shipping company suffer from difficult because of insistence of discharge from liability by insurer. So I expect that all of them acknowledge the character of warranty and can make them protect their insurance money by themselves.

• Proceedings of the Korea Port Economic Association Conference
• /
• 2003.07a
• /
• pp.271-294
• /
• 2003

In this article, 1'd like to analyse the principal distinctions between the duty of disclosure and warranty which are based on the same legal principles, utmost good faith(uberrima fides). Although the duty of disclosure and warranty have a same legal principle to protect insurance contract, they have several difference in appliance actually. Through these comparative analysis, I want to reveal the character of warranty which is unfamiliar to us under our commercial law. Warranty has some peculiarity, these are (a)A warranty does not have to be material to the risk, (b)A warranty must be exactly complied with, (c)It is impossible to defence for a breach of warranty, the breach of warranty is irremediable, and A casual connection between breach and loss needs not be shone, (d)A breach of a warranty may be waived by insurer. Sometimes in Korea like those stringent principles of warranty make Korean's small fishing or shipping company suffer from difficult because of insistence of discharge from liability by insurer. So I expect that all of them acknowledge the character of warranty and can make them protect their insurance money by themselves.

• Journal of Korea Trade
• /
• v.25 no.5
• /
• pp.39-57
• /
• 2021

Purpose - This research uses ocean marine insurance (OMI) statistics, international emails, focus-group interviews, and surveys to fill the gap between the theory of behavioral insurance, particularly status quo bias (SQB), and the practice of OMI in Korea. The contractual forms of OMI, the oldest and most globalized form of commercial insurance, were developed in the UK as the Institute Cargo Clauses in 1906 and revised in 1963, 1982, and 2009. SQB has been academically explored, mostly in health insurance and the financial services sector, but never in OMI. Thanks to the availability of OMI statistics in Korea, we can conduct SQB research here for the first time in this field. Design/methodology - We show the existence of SQB in the OMI of Korea through Korean statistics between 2009 and 2018, email correspondence with experts in the UK, Germany, and Japan, focus-group interviews with Korean OMI underwriters, an in-depth interview with one underwriter, and a survey of 15 OMI insureds (company representatives). Findings - We find that Korean foreign traders rely on the old-type OMI contracts developed in 1963, whereas other industrialized countries use the newest type of OMI contract developed in 2009. With a simple loss ratio analysis during 2009-2018, we show that the behavior of insurers has little to do with rational profit maximization and is instead driven by irrational bias, as they forgo the more profitable contracts provided by the new clauses by keeping the old clauses. The consistent addiction to old types of contracts in the OMI market suggests strong SQB among Korean exporters, importers, bankers, or insurers, which we confirmed in our interviews and survey. Originality/value - This research has significant originality and academic value because it reports new findings with crucial implications for the development of efficient trade practices and policy. First, this research is based on actual statistics that have not been used in previous Korean research on OMI. Second, this research shows that all-risk OMI policies provide more value to insureds, in terms of coverage given premium, than partial coverage policies, which differs from arguments previously made in Korea. Third, this research reveals strong SQB in Korea, where foreign trade plays a pivotal role in economic growth. That bias could be attributable to uninformed traders, informed but idle insurers, or conservative bankers. Fourth, to further develop foreign trade, policy initiatives are needed to review the current practices of OMI contracts and move forward with the new contract forms. All of these findings and arguments are both new and important.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.47
• /
• pp.337-353
• /
• 2010

On payment of the insurance money the insurer is entitled to be subrogated to all right and remedies of the assured in respect of the interest insured in so far as he has indemnified the insured. The purpose of subrogation is to prevent the assured from recovering more than once for the same loss, e.g. where goods are lost owing to a collision, the assured cannot claim the insurance money from the insurer and then sue the owners of the ship that negligently caused the collision. Under the doctrine of subrogation the right to sue owners of the negligent ship passes from the assured to the insurer on payment of the insurance money. The insurer is subrogated to the assured 'rights against the carrier under the contract of carriage. To defeat the cargo underwriters' subrogation righters, the carriers inserted in their B/L a clause allowing the carriers to have the "benefit of the shipper's insurance. But, in the Hague Rules, Hamburg Rules, Rotterdam Rules, its makes void any clause that assigns a benefit of insurance of the goods in favour of the carrier. In practice the insurer asks the assured to sign a letter of subrogation and retains the documents in order to prosecute the rights subrogated to him.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.21
• /
• pp.41-54
• /
• 2003

The MIA 1906 is a very important rule for the practitioner in Korea since it is often selected as the governing law under the contract of cargo insurance. And we are using both the S.G policy and the new MAR policy. The new MAR policy has the basically different form of cover compared with the S.G policy. So we are a little confused whether some risks are covered or not under the selected clauses. The author considers which risks are covered or not under the specific clauses and compares the Institute cargo clauses with the MIA 1906.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.72
• /
• pp.57-80
• /
• 2016

Since 2006, the Law Commission and Scottish Law Commission have been engaged in a major review of insurance contract law, finally leading to the legislation of Insurance Act 2015. According to the enforcement of the Insurance Act 2015 on 12 August 2016, ss 18~20 of the Marine Insurance Act 1906(MIA 1906) were repealed and substituted by the new concept of fair presentation. This article intends to analyze the legal implications through the comparative research between the duty of fair presentation in Insurance Act 2015 and ss 18~20 of MIA 1906. The major changes in Insurance Act 2015 are designed to (1) encourage active engagement by the insurer rather than passive underwriting, asking questions of the insured if the desired information is not provided at the stage of proposal; (2) encourage policyholders to structure and signpost their presentation in an clear and accessible way, and prevent data dumps; (3) give guidance as to how the insured should prepare a fair presentation, by undertaking a reasonable search of available information and giving examples of what circumstances might be material; (4) clarify whose knowledge in the insured's organization is attributed to the insured for the purposes of disclosure; (5) clarify the exceptions to the duty of disclosure, including circumstances "which are known or presumed to be known to the insurer"; and (6) replace the remedy of avoidance in all circumstances with more proportionate remedies. This is a default regime, which may be altered by agreement between the parties.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.21 no.1
• /
• pp.169-189
• /
• 2006

In 2007, KSLV(Korea Small Launching Vehicle) that we made at Goheung National Space Center is going to launch and promotes of our space exploration systematically and 'Space Exploration Promotion Act' was enter into force. 'Space Exploration Promotion Act' article 3, section 1, as is prescribing "Korean government keeps the space treaties contracted with other countries and international organizations and pursues after peaceful uses of outer space." The representative international treaties are Outer Space Treaty (1967) and Liability Convention (1972) etc. In Liability convention article 2, "A launching State shall be absolutely liable to pay compensation for damage caused by its space object on the surface of the earth or to aircraft in flight. The important content of the art. 2 is the responsible entity is the 'State' not the 'Company'. According by Korean Space Exploration Act art. 14, person who launches space objects according to art. 8 and art. 11 must bear the liability for damages owing to space accidents of the space objects. Could Korean government apply the Products Liability Act which is enter into force from July 1, 2002 to space launching person? And what is the contact type between Korea Aerospace Research Institute(KARl) and Russia manufacturer. Is that a Co-Development contract or Licence Product contract? And there is no exemption clause to waive the Russia manufacturer's liability which we could find it from other similar contract condition. If there is no exemption clause to the Russia manufacturer, could we apply the Korean Products Liability Act to Russia one? The most important legal point is whether we could apply the Korean Products Liability Act to the main component company. According by the art. 17 of the contract between KARl and the company, KARl already apply the Products Liability Act to the main component company. For reference, we need to examine the Appalachian Insurance co. v. McDonnell Douglas case, this case is that long distance electricity communication satellite of Western Union Telegraph company possessions fails on track entry. In Western Union's insurance company supplied to Western Union with insurance of $ 105 millions, which has the satellite regard as entirely damage. Five insurance companies -Appalachian insurance company, Commonwealth insurance company, Industrial Indemnity, Mutual Marine Office, Northbrook Excess & Surplus insurance company- went to court against McDonnell Douglases, Morton Thiokol and Hitco company to inquire for fault and strict liability of product. By the Appalachian Insurance co. v. McDonnell Douglas case, KARl should waiver the main component's product liability burden. And we could study the possibility of the adapt 'Government Contractor Defense' theory to the main component company.

• Maritime Security
• /
• v.6 no.1
• /
• pp.37-56
• /
• 2023

Recently, with the rapid development of ICT(Information and Communication Technology) and AI(Artificial Intelligence) technology industries, the emergence of MASS(Maritime Autonomous Surface Ship), which were thought only in the distant future, is approaching a reality. Along with the development of these amazing technologies, changes in the private law sector, such as liability, compensation for damages, and maritime insurance, as well as in the public law sector, such as maritime safety, marine environment protection, and maintenance of maritime order, have become necessary in the field of maritime law. In particular, with the advent of a new type of ship called MASS that does not have a crew on board, the kind and type of liability, compensation for damages, and insurance contracts in the event of a marine accident will also change. In this paper, the general theory about concept, classification, effectiveness and future of MASS and the general theory about concept and various obligations and responsibilities under the maritime law for discussion of MASS are reviewed. Next, in addition, regarding the problems that may occur in the event of a marine accident from MASS, the status as a ship, the legal relationship of the chartering contract, obligation to exercise due diligence in making the vessel seaworthiness, subject of responsibility, and liability for damages and immunity are reviewed from the perspective of maritime law. In addition, in the degree four of MASS, the necessities of further research to clarify the attributable subjects and standards of responsibility in the event of a marine accident, as well as the necessities of institutional improvement such as technology development, enactment and amendment of law and funding are presented.

• Korean Business Review
• /
• v.11
• /
• pp.415-437
• /
• 1998

On choosing insurance terms it would be a reasonable choice to choose insurance terms in proportion to how much risk is to be with considering of how much risk is exactly to be in a cargo's owner of his or hers as there are conditions such as a character of cargo, a packing condition, a loading ship, a shipping section, and a premium. But when we see on the present state of the statistical insurance table, the effects are entirely different from it stated above and these serious problems are of both the problem to prove who is on duty and the problem to cover how much the indemnity are to be. When we see a shipper as the insured, in the last 3 years that all risks has been more than 95 percent is to prove the reason mentioned above and there would be an intention for the shipper to transfer a claim for the indemnity to the insurer to evade from the complexity. Also when we see how much both I.C.C and New I.C.C is used, New I.C.C has been used less two times than I.C.C, that is due to the restriction of the scale of covering the indemnity. So both the introduction of trade clause as to insured in the same line of business and the positive application, taking into account of the principle of proving who is on duty and the scale of covering the indemnity, are to be accomplished.

• Journal of the Korean Society of Marine Environment & Safety
• /
• v.26 no.1
• /
• pp.47-56
• /
• 2020

This study analyzed the recreational scuba diving regulations in Korea and other foreign countries and it proposes five changes to improve the Act On The Safety, Promotion, Etc. Of Underwater Leisure Activities in Korea. First, "recreational underwater activity participant" should be modified to refer to 'an individual or group of individuals entering into a contract with a recreational underwater activity businessperson for their own use'. Second, the person setting up the recreational underwater activity zone should be expanded to 'recreational underwater activity businessperson and/or recreational underwater activity participant'. Third, since recreational technical diving uses nitrox or mixed gas, a clause should be added that a sticker or band clearly indicating the type of gas should be attached. Fourth, a Surface Marker Buoy (SMB) should be added to the diving equipment, and the daily management and maintenance of cylinders should be specified in detail. Fifth, it is necessary to specify in the Act that recreational underwater activity participants are encouraged to purchase diving insurance for their own use. In addition, for the safety of underwater activity participants, the Act must specifically state the emergency procedures and diving guidelines of a recreational underwater activity businessperson.