• 산경연구논집
• /
• 제12권11호
• /
• pp.33-50
• /
• 2021

Purpose: In South Korea, two kinds of mandatory insurance, Fierce Liability Insurance and Outdoor Advertising Liability Insurance sells as of February 2021 according to relevant codes. This study analyzed third party liability and personal living liability insurance in terms of various risks not corporation side but personal side arising from normal living and life. Research design, data and methodology: Some cases of drone accident hit man and fierce dog accident were taken into analysis to verify blame ratio and insurance claim money. The former case is that on the way down the elevator, the dog, American pit bull terrier rushed in and bit the lower part of the knee against the visitor. The latter case is that while flying in the sky as usual, the drone suddenly crashed, fell, and hit the head of a young child while walking on the street. Further previous studies such as third party liabilities, liability insurance, mandatory insurance were deeply analyzed. Results: Based on some case studies and previous studies, the author suggested valuable comments in turn realization of insurer as provider, exhaustive creation and operation of mandatory insurance, realization of insured as demanded, and arrangements of laws and systems in special consideration of amendment of companion animal and exhaustive execution of mandatory insurance by the government. Conclusions: This study was about third party liability, personal living liability insurance and expansion of mandatory insurance caused by relevant laws by the government. In this study the author verified what issues were observed from two cases drone accident and fierce dog accident and then suggested some valuable comment as above both systemic plans and practical plans. First of all, the individual should get Comprehensive Property Insurance(CPI) that covers the risks of his/her own property arising from the everyday life. And then the individual should further buy Personal Living Liability Insurance(PLLI) in order to prepare 'accidents that may happen when, where, or how' and overcome the said accidents. Moreover, the individual should take a look every single insurance contract whether he/she has a special terms and conditions of Personal Living Liability Insurance(PLLI) or not.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제60권
• /
• pp.47-77
• /
• 2013

The way for seller to procure the goods for selling is to produce the goods at his own factory and to buy the manufactured goods from the other company. In order to produce the goods for selling the seller have to obtain the resource from the domestic company or overseas. In the middle of producing the goods to sell, seller may breach the right of a third party based on intellectual property rights. That is to say, seller may use the machine that has not itself been patented and use a process which has been patented by a third party. Seller may manufacture the goods which themselves are subject to the third party industrial property rights. Nowadays it is stressed the importance of intellectual property rights such as a patent, brand, and design. These factors consist of the core elements of the competitiveness of the goods. Many embedded software have been used in the various sector. So the disputes regarding to the intellectual property rights is gradually increasing in number. Article 42 of CISG defines the seller's delivery obligations and liabilities in respect to third party intellectual property rights and claims. It contains a special rule for this similar kind of defective in title, which tries to provide an proper solution to the complex problems caused by such rights and claims in international transactions. When seller will apply this clause to the business fields, there are several points to which seller should give attention. First, Intellectual property is general terms in intangible property rights, encompassing both copyright and industrial property. Which matter fall within the scope of intellectual property? The scope of intellectual property can be inferred from the relevant international conventions, which are based on broad international consensus. Second, Article 42 of CISG governs the relationship between the seller and the buyer, that is to say, questions of who has to bear the risk of third party intellectual property rights. The existence of such intellectual property rights, the remedies available and the question of acquiring goods free of an encumbrances in good faith are outside the scope of the CISG. The governing law regarding to the abovementioned matters is needed.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제14권
• /
• pp.7-35
• /
• 2000

The purpose of this paper is to examine the meanings of delivery of each trade term in INCOTERMS 2000, to investigate various kinds of transport document as a proof of delivery, and finally to find their problems. As a result of examination, following problems are considered to happen practically. First, a multimodal transport document referred in FOB term seems to be unappropriate because FOB term can be used in sea or inland waterway transport. Second, Assuming resale in transit in CFR or CIF term, non-negotiable Sea Waybill seems to be inappropriate. Third, As Sea Waybill is not a document of title, it can not be a security when the bank negotiate seller's draft. Fourth, INCOTERMS 2000 deleted the reference to charter party in CFR or CIF term. This deletion may raise any legal problems for the liabilities of carrier when the contradictions happen between the charter party B/L and charter party. Finally, if CFR or CIF means symbolic delivery, other documents besides B/L can not be a symbols of goods.

• 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.

• 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.

• 한국항해항만학회지
• /
• 제37권6호
• /
• pp.689-697
• /
• 2013

체선료는 운임의 일종으로서 항만에서 선박의 체항에 따른 시간적 손실에 대한 보상이다. 통상적인 항해용선계약에 따르면 체선료의 책임은 반대의 문언이 없는 한 용선자에게 있는 것으로 추정된다. 그러나 실무에서는 용선자의 책임이 제한되거나 송하인 또는 수하인 등 제3자에게 이전되어 선주가 체선료 확보에 어려운 상황에 직면하게 되는 경우가 빈번하게 발생되고 있다. 본 연구에서는 용선자, 송하인, 수하인, 선하증권의 배서인, 기타 이해당사자 간의 체선료지불 책임에 관한 문제를 영미법의 사례를 중심으로 살펴보고, 그 결과에 따른 시사점을 도출하여 선주나 용선자의 실무에 도움이 되는 방안을 제시한다.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제12권
• /
• pp.377-401
• /
• 1999

This study is focused on the privity of the contract of carriage of goods by sea, so to speak, privity between B/L holder and carrier by transfer of bill of lading, privity by attornment to delivery order and conflict between bills of lading and charterparty terms. Under a CIF contract, possession of the bill of lading is equivalent to possession of the goods, and delivery of the bill of lading to the buyer or to a third party may be effective to pass the property in the goods to such person. The bill of lading is a document of title enabling the holder to obtain credit from banks before the arrival of the goods, for the transfer of the bill of lading can operate as a pledge of the goods themselves. In addition, it is by virtue of the bill of lading that the buyer or his assignee can obtain redress against the carrier for any breach of its terms and of the contract of carriage that it evidences. In other words the bill of lading creates a privity between its holder and the carrier as if the contract was made between them. The use of delivery orders in overseas sales is commen where bulk cargoes are split into more parcels than there are bills of lading, and this practice gives rise to considerable difficulties. For example, where the holder of a bill of lading transferred one of the delivery orders to the buyer who presented it to the carrier and paid the freight of the goods to which the order related, it was held that there was a contract between the buyer and the carrier under which the carrier could be made liable in repect of damage to the goods. The contract was on the same terms as that evidenced by, or contained in, the bill of lading, which was expressly incorporated by reference in the delivery order. If the transferee of the delivery order presents it and claims the goods, he may also be taken to have offered to enter into an implied contract incorporating some of the terms of the contract of carriage ; and he will, on the carrier's acceptance of that offer, not only acquire rights, but also incur liabilities under that contract. Where the terms of the charterparties conflict with those of the bills of lading, it is interpreted as below. First, goods may be shipped in a ship chartered by the shipper directly from the shipowner. In that case any bill of lading issued by the shipowner operates, as between shipowner and charterer, as a mere receipt. But if the bill of lading has been indorsed to a third party, between that third party and carrier, the bill of lading will normally be the contract of carriage. Secondly, goods may be shipped by a seller on a ship chartered by the buyer for taking delivery of the goods under the contract of sale. If the seller takes a bill of lading in his own name and to his own order, the terms of that bill of lading would govern the contractual relations between seller and carrier. Thirdly, a ship may be chartered by her owner to a charterer and then subchartered by the chaterer to a shipper, to whom a bill of lading may later be issued by the shipowner. In such a case, the bill of lading is regarded as evidencing a contract of carriage between the shipowner and cargo-owners.

• 한국융합학회논문지
• /
• 제8권9호
• /
• pp.41-47
• /
• 2017

본 연구에서는 제4차 산업혁명의 핵심 요소인 인공지능 기술의 발전에 불가피하게 수반될 수 있는 부작용을 최소화하기 위한 제도적 보완점을 도출하기 위한 선행 연구로서, 인공지능 기술 적용의 대표적인 유형에 해당하는 로보어드바이저가 해킹되어 시세조종 행위를 범하는 구체적인 경우에 있어서 현행 법체계에 따른 책임관계가 어떠한지 검토하고자 하였다. 현행 법체계가 기본적으로 해킹 행위 및 시세조종 행위를 엄격히 금지하는 입장을 취하고 있으나, 로보어드바이저 운용사는 평소 해킹 방지를 위한 보호조치 의무를 준수할 경우 해킹에 따른 시세조종 행위로 일반 투자자들에게 대규모 피해가 발생하여도 이에 대한 법적 책임을 면할 수 있는 등 피해자 보호에 미흡한 것으로 확인되었다. 본 연구를 바탕으로 이러한 문제를 극복하기 위한 제도적 보완점 도출에 관한 후속 연구가 필요하다.

• 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.