• 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.

• 정보학연구
• /
• 제1권2호
• /
• pp.15-24
• /
• 1998

본 연구에서 살펴본 바와 같이 컨테이너 운송의 경우 보험단보의 공백구간에서 발생하는 위험을 회피하기 위해서는 운송인 책임의 개시와 위험의 이전시기가 일치되어 있는 컨테이너 정형무역거래조건을 이용해야 한다고 사료되어진다.

• 해양환경안전학회지
• /
• 제23권4호
• /
• pp.376-384
• /
• 2017

선박급유업은 국제물류흐름의 허브인 항만의 부가가치 창출을 위한 핵심적인 사업 중의 하나이다. 선박급유업의 법 제도적인 개선을 통하여 급유산업의 안정화를 도모하여 항만이 실질적으로 부가가치를 창출하는 기능을 수행할 수 있도록 해야 한다. 이 논문에서는 항만운송법과 해운법의 개정, 안전관리체계의 일원화, 선박유 품질관리를 위한 지침제정, 선박급유업자의 불법행위에 대한 관리 및 법 개정에 대한 대책을 제시하고 한다. 결론적으로 선박급유업의 경영 안정화 및 중장기 발전을 위하여 정부, 정유사, 급유선 선주 등이 주체별로 역할을 분담하여 할 것이며, 선진화를 위해서 단계적으로 계약체계 및 법 제도의 개선을 추진해야 할 것이다.

• 항공우주정책ㆍ법학회지
• /
• 제27권1호
• /
• pp.75-101
• /
• 2012

As the Reublic of Korea revised the Commercial Code including 40 articles of air transport enacted newly on May 23, 2011, so Korea became first legislative examples in the Commercial Code of the developed and developing countries. I would like to explain briefly the main contents of my paper such as (1) history of enacting newly Part VI (air transport) in the Korea's revised commercial law, (2) legal background enacting newly Part VI (air transport) in the Korea's revised commercial law and the problems on the conditions of air transport, (3) every countries' legislative examples on the civil liability of aircraft's operator, (4) unlawful Interference Convention and general risk convention of 2009, (5) main contents and prospects of the revised Commercial Code for the liability of aircraft's operator etc as the followings. Meanwhile as the Aviation Act, Commercial Code and Civil Code in Korea and Japan did not regulated at all the legal basis of solution on the disputes between victims and offender for the amount of compensation for damage due to personal or property damage caused by aircraft accidents in Korea and Japan, so it has been raised many legal problems such as protection of victims, standard of decision in trial in the event of aircraft accident's lawsuit case. But the Korean Revised Commercial Code including Part VI, air transport regulations was passed by the majority resolution of the Korean National Assembly on April 29, 2011 and then the South Korean government proclaimed it on May 23 same year. The Revised Commercial Code enforced into tothe territory of the South Korea from November 24, 2011 after six month of the proclaimed date by the Korean Government. Thus, though Korean Commercial Code regulated concretely and respectively the legal relations on the liability of compensation for damage in the contract of transport by land in it's Part II (commercial activities) and in the contract of transport by sea in its Part V (marine commerce), but the Amended Commercial Act regulated newly 40 articles in it's Part VI (air transport) relating to the air carrier's contract liability on the compensation for damage caused by aircraft accidents in the air passengers and goods transport and aircraft operator's tort liability on compensation for damage caused by the sudden falling or collision of aircraft to third parties on the surface and so it was equipped with reasonable and unified system among the transport by land, marine and air. The ICAO adopted two new air law conventions setting out international compensation and liability rules for damage caused by aircraft to third parties at a diplomatic conference hosted by it from April 20 to May 2, 2009. The fight against the effects of terrorism and the improvement of the status of victims in the event of damage to third parties that may result either from acts of unlawful interference involving aircraft or caused by ordinary operation of aircraft, forms the cornerstone of the two conventions. One legal instrument adopted by the Conference is "the Convention on Compensation for Damage to Third Parties, Resulting from Acts of Unlawful Interference Involving Aircraft" (Unlawful Interference Convention). The other instrument, "the Convention on Compensation for Damage Caused by Aircraft to Third Parties" (General Risk Convention), modernizes the current legal framework provided for under the 1952 Rome Convention and related Protocol of 1978. It is desirable for us to ratify quickly the abovementioned two conventions such as Unlawful Interference Convention and General Risk Convention in order to settle reasonably and justly as well as the protection of the South Korean peoples.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제65권
• /
• pp.71-94
• /
• 2015

The insurer's right to take legal proceedings in the name of the assured against a third party who has caused loss of or damage to the goods is of particular importance in marine cargo insurance under international trade transaction. The amounts recovered in subrogation actions, known in practice simply as recoveries, form a significant element in the balancing of the cargo insurer's underwriting account by improving ing the loss record. However, even if the carrier involved in the accident have a liability for damages, in some cases can not claim damages in accordance with the after clauses and carrier's exemption clauses indemnity carrier under the contract of carriage. In recent, the dispute cases to argue damages claim of the carrier in connection with business practices of surrender B/L, the claim is dismissed cases in accordance with the Arbitration Rules of the after clauses. In the future, the surrender B/L is continually to use as a marine transport method, it may also be interested in insurance subrogation of damages claims to insurance accident by a surrender B/L.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제31권
• /
• pp.59-78
• /
• 2006

The purpose of this research is to discuss the excepted perils of carriers, to expose moot points arising from the applications of the excepted perils of the carriers, and then to suggests improvements them. The methodology of this research depended largely upon a combination of the related precedents, international treaties related to the excepted perils of carriers. The excepted perils of carriers in marine carriage begin with extremely limited perils based on the receptum liabilities and the absolute liability principle in English common law. Proceed via the intemperate expansion of the excepted perils by the widespread diffusion of the principle of free contract. but via the American Harter Act, The Hague Rules, The Hague Visby Rules, and The Hamburg Rules Came contracted. This study conducted an analysis of the excepted perils for the carriers and suggests improvements in them but it remains regrettable that we are not in a position to sustain them since we are lacking is precedents connected with The Hamburg rules.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제67권
• /
• pp.97-118
• /
• 2015

This study reviews the judgements by the Korean Supreme Court on the time of delivery of goods, as it depends on which bonded place the goods are kept for the purpose of the customs clearance. Thereafter, this study analyzes the Ocean Carrier's liability, when the cargoes are mis-delivered without the presentation of bill of lading in relation to the specific bonded place such as an independent bonded warehouse or a self-use bonded warehouse. Furthermore, considering that voyage charter is a kind of marine transport, this study also reviews whether or not the Court's judgements, which has been developed in respect of the carriage of affreightment, could be applied to voyage charter in respect of the time of delivery goods and the Ocean Carrier's liability for mis-delivery. Lastly, in the case that the substantial importer takes the goods from the independent bonded warehouse without the presentation of bill of lading after the customs clearance, it is noted that the Court has made the Ocean Carrier liable for the mis-delivery through the application of theory of double deposit contract. The position of the Court would be understandable in terms of the protection for the bona-fide holder of bill of lading, but this study reviews the limitation of liability as the device for the protection of the Ocean Carrier, considering the situation where the Ocean Carrier is somewhat unreasonably sacrificed under the bonded system provided for the convenience of substantial importer.