• 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.

• 해양환경안전학회지
• /
• 제24권3호
• /
• pp.319-324
• /
• 2018

The collision problem is one of the design factors that must be carefully considered for the risk of collision occurring during the operation of ships and offshore structures. This paper presents the main results of the ship collision study, and its main goal is to analyze potential crash scenarios that may occur in the FLNG (Floating Liquefied Natural Gas) considering the likelihood and outcome. Consideration being given to vessels visiting the FLNG and surrounding vessels navigating around, such as functionally supported vessels and offloading carriers. The scope includes vessels visiting the FLNG facility such as in-field support vessels and off-loading carriers, as well as third party passing vessels. In this study, based on QRA (quantitative risk assessment), basic research methods and information on collision are provided. Based on the assumptions and methodologies documented in this study, it has been possible to clarify the frequency of collision and the damage category according to the type of visiting ship. Based on these results, the risk assessment results related to the collision have been derived.

• 한국안전학회지
• /
• 제14권4호
• /
• pp.120-125
• /
• 1999

This study evaluated the effect of the accidents caused by fire, explosion, and toxic gas release by using SuperChems, quantitative hazardous material release modeling software, which estimates the potential area of damage. According to the loss severity, the appropriate risk management principles can be applied. Risk management is divided into the two methods which are risk control and risk financing. Risk control includes risk avoidance, risk spreading and diversification, and risk reduction. Risk financing includes risk retention and risk transfer. The results of this study can help the related company determine the appropriate reserve fund and the amount to be insured against the third party losses according to the estimated loss severity.

• 한국가스학회:학술대회논문집
• /
• 한국가스학회 2000년도 추계학술발표회 논문집
• /
• pp.27-33
• /
• 2000

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제64권
• /
• pp.155-185
• /
• 2014

Liability for the manufacture or supply of defective products can arise in two principle ways, in tort and in contract. English law has long regarded shipbuilding contract as agreement for the sale and purchase of goods. The consequence of which is that unless the Buyer and Builder agree otherwise, terms will automatically be implied into the contract between them as to the quality and performance of the completed vessel. The same principle applies to sub-contracts allied to the shipbuilding contract. On the other hand, one case decisions established that ".... a contract to build a ship, though a contract of sale of goods, has also some characteristics of a building contract", Recently the liability of a manufacturer in tort for physical damage i.e. personal injury and damage to property other than alleged to be defective is now well settled in most countries. Accordingly the Builder may face third party claims in tort more regularly than they have in the past, if the statutory implied terms have not been expressly excluded in contract. In such circumstances, it is necessary for the Builder to be prepared with counter measures to secure the stability of the vessel from its design development, building process, delivery and operation etc. The purpose of this paper is, from the case of "MSC Carla", to review product liability, jurisdiction and the initial date of extinctive prescription, then to suggest counter measures to the Builder.

• 항공우주정책ㆍ법학회지
• /
• 제22권2호
• /
• pp.3-25
• /
• 2007

In 2002 Republic of Korea successfully launched a self-made mined proportion rocket and it is expected that she will be able to have own space launching system by 2010. According to Article 14 of the Space Exploration Promotion Act, a new law should be established to impose the limit of compensation for the damage by space accident. Therefore, The Space Accident Liability Act was passed in Korean Congress on Nov. 22, 2007 and it will be enforced in six months. The purpose of this Act is to provide reparation for the damage of the third parties that a launch causes; and the Commonwealth should be insured against any possible space accidents to pay for such a damage. Here space accident means the damages to our life, body, and properties from the launching of space objects. There should be an actual loss to establish the compensation of Liability Act. Article 2 in Liability Act defines "damage" as follows: the term "damage" means loss of life, personal injury or loss of or damage to property of persons. Physical and material damages are included in the conception of damage. The meaning of a launching includes any test launch and launch for a real arrangement which will ultimately provides a wide range of compensation. Article 4 indicates that absolute liability should be imposed in compensating for damage by space accidents. Article 4 also indicates that a launching party should be absolutely liable to compensate for the damage caused by its space object on the surface of the Earth. In general, liability stands where fault is. But if the activity is ultra-hazardous and causes serious harm, the individual needs to compensate for the damage unlimitedly. Because of the many launchings for the Seattleite launching, a launching organization is obligated to the liability insurance in preparation for the space accidents. According to the Article 6 of Space Accident Liability Act, to be insured for the compensation for damage is obligatory. It says: "In accordance with Article 11 in the Space Exploration Promotion Act, the person who wants to receive an approval f3r launching needs to be insured in compensation for the possible damage by space accidents.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제58권
• /
• pp.59-98
• /
• 2013

Risk of loss is a term used in the law of contracts to determine which party should bear the burden of risk for damage occurring to goods after the sale has been completed, but before delivery has occurred. Under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), there are four risk of loss rules, in order of application. First, it is agreement that is the agreement of the parties controls. Second, the breaching party is liable for any uninsured loss even though breach is unrelated to the problem. Hence, if the breach is the time of delivery, and the goods show up broken, then the breaching rule applies risk of loss on the seller. Third, the delivery by common carrier other than by seller is necessary: Risk of loss shifts from seller to buyer at the time that seller completes its delivery obligations; If it is a destination contract, then risk of loss is on the seller; If it is a delivery contract, then the risk of loss is on the buyer. Fourth, if the seller is a merchant, then the risk of loss shifts to the buyer upon buyer's receipt of the goods. If the buyer never takes possession, then the seller still has the risk of loss. This paper discusses problems of risk of loss under the American law. Specifically, this paper focuses on the interpretation of UCC sections and analysis of various cases. By comparing, also, UCC and Korean law, the paper proposes some implications of risk of loss issues for Korean law.

• 한국항공운항학회지
• /
• 제12권3호
• /
• pp.41-63
• /
• 2004

The area covered by product liability in broadest sense is so vast that an attempt to analyse all its impact on the aviation world risk. Every effort has been made to confine our review of subject a closely as possible to its influence on aircraft manufacturers, airlines and passengers, in spite of strong connections with other spheres of commercial. Product Liability in aviation is the liability of aircraft's manufacturer, processor or non-manufacturing seller for injury to the person or property of a buyer or third party caused by a product which has been sold. Here-in a product is aircraft, third party is passengers who suffered damage by defective design, defective construction, inadequate instructions for handling in aircraft. Whenever a product turns out to be defective after it has been sold, there are under Anglo-American law three remedies available against the aircraft's manufacturer (1) liability for negligence (2) breach of warranty (3) strict liability in tort. There are Under continental law Three remedies available against the aircraft's manufacturer (1) liability for defective warranty (2) liability for non-fulfillment of obligation (3) liability in tort. It is worth pointing out here an action for breach of warranty or for defective warranty, for non-fulfillment of obligation is available only to direct purchaser on the basis of his contract with the aircraft's manufacturer, which of course weakness its range and effectiveness. An action for tort offers the advantage of being available also to third parties who have acquired the defective product at a later stage. In tort, obligations are constituted not only by contract, but also by stature and common law. In conclusion, There in no difference in principle of law. In conclusion I would like to make few suggestions regarding the product liability for aircraft's manufacturer. Firstly, current general product liability code does not specify whether government offices(e.g. FAA) inspector conducted the inspection and auditory certificate can qualify as conclusive legal evidence. These need to be clarified. Secondly, because Korea is gaining potential of becoming aircraft's manufacturer through co-manufacturing and subcontracting-manufacturing with the US and independent production, there needs legislation that can harmonize the protection of both aircraft's manufacturers and their injured parties. Since Korea is in primary stage of aviation industry, considerate policy cannot be overlooked for its protection and promotion. Thirdly, because aircraft manufacturers are risking restitution like air-carriers whose scope of restitution have widened to strict and unlimited liability, there needs importation of mandatory liability insurance and national warranty into the product liability for aircraft's manufacturers. Fourthly, there needs domestic legislation of air transportation law that clearly regulates overall legal relationship in air transportation such as carrier & aircraft manufacturer's liability, and aviation insurance.

• 항공우주정책ㆍ법학회지
• /
• 제33권1호
• /
• pp.227-260
• /
• 2018

최근 드론의 활용이 증가하면서 드론 기체의 파손 망실 손해 및 제3자의 신체 재산 피해 등 위험 역시 커지고 있다. 국내에서는 최근 드론 활용이 증가하면서 드론사고가 언론에 자주 보도되고 있다. 또한 시민 제보나 군 경찰의 처분의뢰 등을 통해 불법 사실을 인지하고 행정처분을 한 건수 역시 증가 추세이다. 드론사고로 인하여 제3자의 인적 물적 피해에 대한 손해배상책임 및 촬영정보유출 배상책임 등이 발생할 수 있다. 이에 따라 드론사고로 인한 책임과 위험을 완화할 수 있는 드론보험에 대한 고찰이 필요하다. 미국은 주택종합보험을 통해 주택에서 레저용 드론에 의해 발생하는 손해에 대해 보상받을 수 있다. 영국은 드론사고 발생 시 드론 소유자나 운영자가 무과실책임을 부담하게 된다. 또한 영국에서는 드론의 무게 및 운영 목적에 따라 드론보험 가입의무가 구분된다. 독일은 인적 물적 손해 발생 시, 드론 소유자는 드론이 항공기로 인정되는 한 무과실책임이 인정된다. 또한 독일에서는 드론 소지자에게 책임보험 가입의무를 부과하고 있다. 국내는 타인의 수요에 따라 유상으로 활용하는 초경량비행장치사용사업, 항공기대여업 및 항공레저스포츠업에 한하여 보험 가입을 의무화하고 있다. 이에 따라 자기 수요에 따라 활용되는 임무용 무인비행장치로 인한 제3자 손해 발생시, 원활한 손해배상에 어려움이 발생할 수 있는 상황이다. 외국 보험회사들은 드론으로 발생할 수 있는 다양한 손해를 담보하는 드론보험을 출시 판매하고 있다. 국내에서도 일부 보험사에서 드론 관련 제3자 손해배상보험 및 드론 기체 파손 망실 시 손해보전을 위한 기체보험을 개발하여 운영 중이다. 그러나 국내 드론보험은 합리적인 수준의 보험요율 산정을 위한 객관적인 자료 부족으로 인해 드론보험 요율이 매우 높은 실정이다. 또한 해킹 도난 분실 위험 및 기상영향 등 드론의 특수성을 반영한 드론보험 개발 역시 미흡한 실정이다. 드론 도입 활용 활성화 및 드론 활용 기관의 경제적 부담을 완화하기 위하여 드론보험 요율을 합리적인 수준으로 인하하는 것이 우선적으로 필요하다. 합리적인 수준의 보험요율을 산정하기 위해서는 보험사가 비행자료 등 기초자료를 확보하는 것이 선행되어야 하므로, 드론 시범사업을 통해 확보된 비행자료 등 기초자료를 보험업계와 공유하는 것이 필요하다. 또한 드론 활용으로 인한 제3자 손해 발생 시 원활한 배상을 위해 기체무게 활용분야 활용빈도 등 위험도를 고려하여 제3자 배상보험 가입을 제도화하는 방향에 대한 검토가 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.