• 한국항만경제학회지
• /
• 제31권2호
• /
• pp.41-53
• /
• 2015

Paracomon Inc. v. Telus Communication사건('Realice호 사건')에서 Realice호의 닻이 항해과정에서 해저광섬유케이블에 얽히는 사고가 발생하자, 선주사의 대표이사이자 선장은 사용 중인 케이블을 절단해 버렸다. 케이블 소유회사는 선주에게 수리비를 청구하였고, 선주는 케이블 소유회사의 청구액을 책임보험자에게 청구하였다. 그런데 캐나다 대법원은, 선주는 1976년 해사채권에 대한 책임제한에 관한 조약('1976년 책임제한조약')에 따라 케이블 소유회사에 대한 손해배상책임을 일정 한도로 제한할 수 있으나, 케이블을 절단한 선주의 비행은 1993년 캐나다 해상보험법(Canada Marine Insurance Act)상 보험자의 면책사유인 피보험자의 고의적 불법행위(wilful misconduct)에 해당되어 책임보험자에게 보험금을 청구할 수 없다고 판결하였다. 결국 이번 판결로 선주는, 케이블소유회사에 대한 책임제한권은 인정받았으나, 책임보험자에 대한 보험금청구권은 상실하게 되었다. Realice호 사건은 국제조약상 선주에게 인정되는 책임제한과 그에 대한 책임보험의 보상 간의 상호 관계를 최초로 다루고 있다는 점에서 우리에게 시사하는 바가 크다. 따라서 본 논문의 목적은 Realice호 사건에서 대법원의 판결 이유를 분석하고, 해운 보험업계 이해와 지금까지 확립된 해상법에 기초하여 판결의 정당성을 평가하는데 있다. 본 논문은 1976년 책임제한조약의 입법 연혁을 고려할 때 선주가 책임제한권을 갖는다는 대법원의 판결은 타당하지만, 해운 및 보험업계의 이해, 제3자의 직접청구권의 도입취지, 책임제한 배제사유의 입법 과정 등을 고려할 때 책임보험자가 면책된다는 대법원의 판결은 적절하지 않다는 결론을 내린다. 끝으로, 본 논문은 이번 대법원 판결에 기초하여 2014년 세월호 사건에서 선주의 책임제한과 책임보험자의 보상 문제를 검토한다.

• 통상정보연구
• /
• 제8권4호
• /
• pp.147-156
• /
• 2006

In all cargo cases one of the first things the person handling the claim must do is decide who is potentially liable as a carrier of the goods. This issue arises because bills of lading often do not identify the carrier. The "carrier" could be the shipowner or the charterer or both. The issue of the identity of the "carrier" is a question of fact. The question to ask in each case is who undertook or agreed to carry and deliver the goods. The answer to this question will largely depend on the facts. The shipowner is almost always liable as a carrier under Common law provided there is no demise charter of the ship. The more recent case law, however, suggests that in the usual situation both the charterer and shipowner will be liable. Accordingly, both the owner and charterer should be put on notice of any claim and, in the event an extension of suit time is required, the extension should be obtained from both. An alternative method by which the charterer can avoid liability is to insert and 'Identity of Carrier' clause in the bill of lading.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제69권
• /
• pp.327-348
• /
• 2016

Under the Korean legal system, as an actual carrier is not the contractual party to the contract for carriage of goods by sea, it has been tortiously liable for the damage to, or loss of cargo, should there be the negligence by its part. However, the Rotterdam Rules introduces a revolutionary liability regime for the actual carrier. According to the Rotterdam Rules, the liability of the actual carrier is same with that of a contractual carrier with the result that a shipper is entitled to bring the direct action to the actual carrier, as well as the contractual carrier on the same basis. Nevertheless, it is expected to take long time for the new approach in respect of actual carrier's liability to be confirmed by many countries, and furthermore most of shipping countries including Korea still adopt the Hague-Vis by Rules where the shipper is not allowed to bring the direct action to the actual carrier. This study reviews on whether or not the alteration of actual carrier's liability based on Rotterdam Rules would be reasonable, considering the current Korean legal system. Furthermore, this study, whilst recognizing that the overall introduction of the new liability regime is somewhat premature, suggests the imposition of contractual liability to the actual carrier from a long-term perspective. Having in mind that the article 809 of the Korean Commercial Act allows the shipper to bring the direct action to the shipowner only in the case that a time charterer is the contractual carrier, this study explores a method to apply the contractual liability to the actual carrier in the case that a slot charterer or freight forwarder is the contractual carrier, in order to establish the uniform liability system.

• 통상정보연구
• /
• 제15권2호
• /
• pp.285-313
• /
• 2013

우리나라의 정기용선 관련법은 2007년에 상법의 기존 규정에 대해 근본적으로 바꾸지 않고 유지하는 방향으로 개정함으로써 본 계약에서 중요한 제3자에 관한 권리 의무의 문제는 제외하였다. 따라서 현재, 정기용선과 관련하여 제3자에 대한 책임 문제를 해결하는데 상법을 통한 해결 방법의 도출보다는 법적 실무적인 사례들의 검토를 통해 논의하는 것이 적절하다 판단되고 있다. 정기용선계약은 당사자인 선주와 용선자 간에 이뤄지는 사적계약이며 계약의 특수성에 의해 제3자의 운송물에 손해가 발생하였을 때에 책임 주체를 명확히 하는 것이 어렵다. 이에, 선의의 제3자에 대한 운송물의 재산적 권리 보호를 위해 정기용선계약 하에서 선주와 용선자 중 누가 운송인인지를 구분 확정하는 것에 대한 법적 실무적인 기준의 정립이 필요하다. 현재, 정기용선 계약에서 당사자 간의 유책자 판단에 대해 법적 성질을 이용한 확정 방법은 그 명확성에 대해 논쟁 중인 실정이다. 이에 본 연구에서는 정기용선계약의 특성에 입각하여 제3자의 화물 손해에 대한 책임 주체의 자격확정을 어떻게 할 것인가에 목적을 두고, 이에 따라 제3자 손해의 책임 주체를 찾아내기 위해 정기용선계약에서 논란이 되어 온 법적 성질을 검토 고찰하고 운송인의 자격을 확정할 수 있는 이외의 방법이 있는지, 또 운송 계약 하에서 책임 주체로서 운송인 확정을 위한 방법이 무엇이 있는지 검토 한다. 본 연구는 제3자 손해에 대한 구제 방안으로 당사자 간의 운송인 확정의 방법, 용선계약 내에 Inter-Club Agreement의 포함을 통한 제3자의 손해에 대한 책임 분담의 방법, 제3자의 구제 방안에 대한 규정의 상법에의 도입 또는 개정을 통한 방법을 검토하며 이러한 방법들이 정기용선계약 하에서 발생한 제3자의 손해 처리에 용이한 도움이 될 것이라 제시해 본다.

• 한국항해학회지
• /
• 제18권4호
• /
• pp.59-81
• /
• 1994

Korean property and liability insurance companies have underwrited hull insurance without proper undrewriting ability. But after April 1996. in case of Korean insurance market being opened the companies have to make hull insurance rate by themselves. Accordingly, in this study, the writer embodies important factors in making hull insurance rate by an empirical survey. In empirical survey, the writer used a questionnaire, 74 proper data was obtained from 96 officers working in making hull insurance rate in 12 Korean property and liablity insurance companies and 24 the foreign companies at home. Reliability was tested by Cronbach's Alpha and a conceptual validity by Factor Analysis. Hypothesis estabilished in this study was tested by Correlation and Multiple Regression Analysis. Results of testing hypothesis are as follows: Firstly, the traits of insurer and the assured influence significantly(P<0.05) on making hull insurance rate. Secondly, expected loss ratio, ship manager, ship's age, insured amount, level of the cost of repairing and salvage, shipowner, period of insurance, level of overseas rating, profit and expense, trading limits, ship's classification, conditions of insurance, and ship's size influence significantly(P<0.05) on making hull insurance rate.

• 한국항만경제학회지
• /
• 제29권1호
• /
• pp.47-66
• /
• 2013

본 논문은 정기용선한 선박에 적재된 화물에 대해 선하증권이 발행되고, 그 선하증권을 송하인 또는 선의의 소지자가 소지하고 있는 경우에 선장에 의한 선하증권의 서명으로 인하여 이들 관련당사자들 간에 발생할 수 있는 책임문제와 선장의 선하증권서명의무의 성질 및 선장의 권리에 대해서 지도적 판례로 간주되어 온 사례를 중심으로 하여 분석하였다. 정기용선자는 선박을 사용할 권리가 있고 또한 선장에게 지시할 권한도 가지고 있어, 그가 제시한 선하증권에 서명하도록 선장에게 요구할 수 있다. 계약에서 용선자에게 주어진 이러한 권리에 따라 용선계약의 내용과 일치하지 않은 내용이 기재된 선하증권이 제시되어도 선장은 그 선하증권에 서명해야 하지만, 판례에서는 명백하게 용선계약과 불일치한 조항이 선하증권에 포함되어 있거나, 용선계약에서 선하증권에 삽입하도록 요구한 조항이 포함되어 있지 않은 경우, 화물의 상태 및 수량에 관해 허위로 기재한 선하증권이 제시된 경우에는 서명을 거부할 수 있을 뿐만 아니라 기재사항에 의심이 있는 경우에는 조사할 권리도 인정하고 있어 그러한 선하증권에 서명함으로 인해 초래된 손해에 대해서는 용선자에게 책임을 전가할 수 없다.

• 해운물류연구
• /
• 제34권4호
• /
• pp.583-613
• /
• 2018

본 연구는 Ocean Victory호 사건을 중심으로 특히 정기용선자의 선주에 대한 안전항담보의무위반 여부의 논점에 대해 영국대법원 판결을 분석하여 그 시사점을 도출하는 것에 목적이 있다. 이 사건에서 선체보험자의 하나인 Gard는 정기용선자가 용선계약을 위반하여 불안전한 항구로 선박의 항해를 지시했다고 하여 정기용선자에 대한 구상청구를 위하여 선박소유자와 선체용선자의 권리를 양도받았다. 그 청구는 성공했지만 항소법원에서는 이 결정을 번복하였다. 영국대법원은 안전항, 공동보험, 책임제한 등 세 가지 중요한 문제에 대해 판결을 내렸다. 특히 안전항 문제에 관해서, 영국대법원은 용선자가 용선계약을 위반하지 않았으며 안전항담보의무의 의미 내에서 항구가 불안전하지 않았다고 판시하였다.

• 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.

• 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.

• 한국항만경제학회지
• /
• 제22권2호
• /
• pp.83-108
• /
• 2006

Regarding the ocean carrier's responsibility for damage indemnification, both his or her duty of care and reason of legal exemption have been considered important. The International Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules relating to Bills of Lading also provides that the ocean carrier indemnifies for the loss or damage of freight on the basis of the principle of liability with fault. In other words, the carrier assumes responsibility only for the loss or damage of freight which is under his or her control and whose safety must be carefully maintained by him or her. The carrier's duty of care which is required for freight safety in accordance with the convention is associated with two themes, seaworthiness of vessel and freight itself. To make ocean freight shipping effective necessities the seaworthiness of the ship that will conduct the shipping service under its responsibility. This will ultimately lead to making the service impressive to the shipper as freight owner. Thus the purpose of this study is to contribute to more reasonable shipping by the shipowner or the carrier who needs to ensure seaworthiness of vessel, and prevent unseaworthiness that may be incurred in accordance with freight characteristics. For the purpose, this paper reviewed the meaning of seaworthiness of vessel through a juridical approach to its causal relationship with ocean freight shipping.