• 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.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제22권
• /
• pp.201-226
• /
• 2004

P & I Clubs are mutual and non-profit making insurers which offer shipowners cover for the contractual and third-party liabilities. Whereas most shipowners obtain P & I insurance to cover for their legal liabilities, they also obtain hull insurance to cover against damages to the hull of their vessels from commercial hull insurers. P & I insurance was distinguished from hull insurance in respect that it offered non-limited cover to shipowner member, but there was a serious debate between P & I Clubs in respect of the non-limited cover. A compromise by International Group of P & I Clubs eventually emerged under which, with effect from 20 February 1997, a financial cap was placed on the obligation of each shipowner to pay catasrophe calls to his club(20% of each ship's property limitation fund under 1976 Limitation Convention). Nevertheless many shipowners felt that this new cap on their potential catastrophe call had been set still too high, while others resisted any reduction in the figure established by the compromise. In the Meantime, the European Commission issued a Statement of Objections in June 1997, in which it indicated its objections with a compulsory single limit common th all the Group clubs as high as the 1997 compromise. Eventually the board of all the Group clubs decided that the figure of 20% of the Limitation Convention per ship property funds should be dropped down to 2.5% from 20 February 1999.

• 항공우주정책ㆍ법학회지
• /
• 제6권
• /
• pp.191-215
• /
• 1994

The concept of 'wilful misconduct" was initally used in article 25 of the Warsaw Convention of 1929. The concept was defined in the Hague Protocol, 1955, as having the following two differing concepts: i) "with the intent to cause damage" and ii) "recklessly and with the knowledge that damage would probably result." The concepts contained in the Hague Protocol were used in various international Conventions on carriage by sea, such as Article 2(e) and Article 3(4) of the Protocol adopted at Brussels on Feb. 23, 1968 to amend the International Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules of Law relating to Bills of Lading, signed at Brussels, Aug. 25, 1929(Hague-Visby Rules), Article 13 of the Athens Convention relating to the Carriage of Passengers and their Luggage by Sea, Dec. 13. 1974, Article 4 of the Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims, 1976, Article 8(1) of the U.N. Convention on the Carriage of Goods by Sea, 1978(Hamburg Rules) and Article 21 (1) of the U.N. Convention on International Multimodal Transport of Goods, Geneva, 1980. The same concepts were also adopted in Article 746, 789-2(1), 789-3(2) of the Korean Maritime Commercial Law, revised in 1991. As of yet, the legal system of Korean Private Law recognizes only the concepts of "Vorsatz" and "grobe Nachlassigkeit", as is the case with German Private Law. The problem is that the concepts in the Convention do not coincide precisely with the concepts of "Vorsatz" and "grobe Nachlassigkeit". The author has conducted a comparative analysis of the treatment of the concepts of wilful misconduct and its varied interpretations, that is, "with the intent to cause damage" and "recklessly and with the knowledge that damage would probably result" in the Anglo-American law and in the continental European law in the following manner: 1. Background in which the concept of wilful misconduct was introduced in the Warsaw Convention. 2. The concept of "dol" in French private law. 3. The concepts of "Vorsatz" and "grobe Nachlassigkeit" in Korean private law. 4. Analysis of the concept of wilful misconduct in Anglo-American case law. 5. Analysis of the cases interpreting the concepts of "with intent to cause damage" and "recklessly and with knowledge that damage would probably result" in various jurisdictions. 6. The need to incorporate the concepts of "with the intent to cause damage" and "recklessly and with the knowledge that damage would probably result." 7. Faute inexcusable in French private law. Based upon the comparative analysis, the author points out the difference between the concepts of "wilful misconduct" or "with the intent to cause damage" and "Vorsatz", and between the concepts of "recklessly and with the knowledge that damage would probably result" and "grobe Nachlassigkeit" in the Convention and that of the Korean Private Law system. Additionally, the author emphasizes the importance of the unification in the interpretation of the provisions of the Conventions world wide.