• 한국마린엔지니어링학회:학술대회논문집
• /
• 한국마린엔지니어링학회 2005년도 후기학술대회논문집
• /
• pp.92-93
• /
• 2005

A contract for the shipbuilding is usually a complicated and involves statement of rights, obligations and responsibilities which each party agrees vis-a vis the other. The ultimate purpose of the contract is the sale and transfer of the finished ship by the builder to the buyer. Contracts for the construction and sale of ships are categorized as contracts for the sale of goods under English, United States, Germany and some countries law. On the other hand, The shipbuilding contract may be classified, not as a contract of sale but as a contract for work and materials under Korea, Japan and some countries law. Especially, most of countries are now well settled with regard to liability of a manufacturer in tort for physical injury and on the other for pure economic loss to remote owners of chattels. Where there is either a breach of contractual warranty or an implied warranty, there may be admiralty jurisdiction, depending once again on the situs of the event and its relationship to traditional maritime activity. Contract principles will be applied to the first type of warranty and tort principles will be applied to the second. First of all, this thesis is dealt with the contents of contract under English Law. Secondly, this thesis is analysed into the liability of shipbuilder in Products Liability under English, American and Korean Law comparisons. In conclusion, the author tries to give some suggestions as countermeasures of Products Liability to the shipbuilder in Korea.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제15권2호
• /
• pp.125-162
• /
• 2005

This paper examined excluded risks of insurer in marine insurance generally, and found out the existing studies on the excluded risks, which were accomplished partially and fragmentarily, to conduct a comparative analysis of marine insurance based on the general flow of claim adjustment. It arranges the existing studies to settle a dispute between the parties -insurer and assurer- and studies the excluded risk based on risk change of the insured by analyzing characteristic and class of security violation, and meaning, form, effect of risk change. it inquires into and analysis cases of the Korean Supreme Court related to the exclusion and illegal act of marine insurance to compare marine theorists' opinion with commercial law.

• 한국항해항만학회:학술대회논문집
• /
• 한국항해항만학회 2006년도 추계학술대회 논문집(제2권)
• /
• pp.21-26
• /
• 2006

선박건조계약은 일반적으로 각 당사자의 권리와 의무 및 상대방에 대한 책임 등에 대하여 내용이 상당히 복잡하고 구체적으로 규정되며, 계약의 최종 목적은 선박 건조자가 완성된 선박을 매수인인 선주에게 이전하는 것이다. 이 계약은 영국법, 미국법, 개정독일민법(BGB), 그리고 기타 여러국가의 법에서 매매계약으로 보고 있으며, 반면에 한국과 일본 그밖의 여러국가에서는 도급계약으로 취급한다. 특별히 최근 여러 국가에서 안전상 사람에 대하여 상해를 일으킨 경우, 불법행위에 의한 제조자의 제조물책임이 잘 정착되어 있는 실정이다. 반면, 제3자에 대한 순수 경계적인 손실에 대해서는 그 물건의 소유자에게 그 책임이 확대되었다. 해사사건에 있어서 계약상 워런티나 묵시적인 워런티를 위반한 경우, 사건의 장소나 전통적인 해사 관련성에 의하여 해사재판관할권이 적용되어 진다. 즉 물품의 하자와 관련된 사건인 경우, 계약법상 워런티가 첫째 유형으로 적용되고, 불법행위에 의한 것은 두 번째 유형으로 적용된다. 그러므로 본 논문에서는 먼저 선박건조계약상 건조자의 계약책임에 대하여 영국법을 중심으로 고찰하고 다음으로 영국, 미국, 독일, 그리고 한국의 제조물책임법을 비교하여 결론적으로 각국들의 제조물책임에 대한 한국 조선소들의 대응전략을 제시함을 본 논문의 목적으로 한다

• 한국항만경제학회지
• /
• 제25권2호
• /
• pp.149-176
• /
• 2009

Count호 사건의 항해용선계약에서 선주는 양하항에서 Pongola호의 좌초사고에 의해 본선의 출항이 지연되었기 때문에 용선자의 안전항담보의무위반을 이유로 초과정박손해배상금을 청구하였다. 중재판정부는 양하항을 비안전항으로 보고 선주의 청구를 인정하였지만, 용선자는 중재판정에 다음과 같은 과오가 있다고 하여 영국 법원에 상소하였다. (1) 중재판정부는 Beira항이 안전하지 못하며 그 결과 용선자는 선주에게 초과정박손해배상금에 대해 책임이 있다고 판정한 것은 과오가 있으며, (2) 중재판정부는 Beira항에서 두 선박이 좌초했다는 사실과 관련하여 그 항이 안전하지 못하다고 판정한 것은 과오이며, (3) 선석에서의 양하를 종료하여 출항하려고 하였는데 거의 같은 장소에서 Pongola호가 좌초하여 항만당국에 의한 수로폐쇄에 의해 본선은 4일 후까지 출항할 수 없었다고 판정한 것 등이다. 본 연구에서는 항해용선계약과 관련하여 안전항담보의무위반에 따른 초과정박손해배상금의 청구에 대해 쟁점이 된 Count호 사건을 중심으로 분석하는데 목적이 있다.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제10권1호
• /
• pp.92-113
• /
• 2000

Products liability refers to the liability of any or all parties along the chain of manufacture of any product for damage caused by that product. This includes the manufacturer of component parts (at the top of the chain), an assembling manufacturer, the wholesaler, and the retail store owner (at the bottom of the chain). Products containing inherent defects that cause harm to a consumer of the product, or someone to whom the product was loaned, given, etc., are the subjects of products liability suits. The goal of products liability system should be to maximize consumer welfare by efficiently providing just compensation for injuries incurred and deterring future injuries without unreasonably impeding the supply of the goods and services to consumers. Some advanced countries, apart from relying on products liability systems, also apply other policies and legislation directly aimed at the safety of the consumer. The application of general safety policies as well as products liability rules is not costless. An efficient system will not eliminate risk from society. An efficient system ... that maximises consumer welfare ... maximises the benefits while minimising the costs. Products liability claims can be based on negligence, strict liability, or breach of warranty of fitness depending on the jurisdiction where the claim is based. In view of international business and law circumstances, it should be stressed that international enterprises in Korea should consider how to cope with the situation of international transaction. International enterprises should have a correct perception about products liability which is to contribute the stabilization and improvement of the people's life and the sound develpement of the national economy. Products liability system creates incentives that influence behaviour and performance in ways that are desirable, such as more diligent monitoring to prevent defective products from reaching the market-place. At the same time, any liability system will impose burdens that are undesirable, such as greater costs imposed on business and consumers and reduced avaiability of consumer goods. The concern for society is to balance. The ideal situation is where the cost imposed on producers of goods and services pushes them to a desirable level of care but not so far that producers reach undesirable level of caution that may deprive consumers unnecessarily of the benefits from new and innovative products.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제69권
• /
• pp.407-426
• /
• 2016

The Marine Insurance Act 1906 (MIA 1906) has been a successful piece of legislation, having rarely been amended and having established, or served as an influence in the development of, the basis of marine insurance legislation in several countries. However, it has been recognised that some parts of the MIA 1906 have begun to show their antiquated nature, especially where established principles which were once thought to reflect undoubted propositions of law are now being openly criticised. Since 2006, the Law Commission and Scottish Law Commission (the 'Law Commissions') have been engaged in a major review of insurance contract law, finally leading to the Insurance Act 2015. The Insurance Act 2015 received Royal Assent on 12 February 2015, and was based primarily on the joint recommendations of the Law Commissions. The 2015 Act made substantial changes to several main areas of marine insurance law & practice: (i) the replacement of the pre-contractual duty of disclosure with a duty to make a "fair presentation of the risk"; (ii) the abolition of the "insurance warranty" under the Marine Insurance Act 1906, s.33, and provision of a new default remedy of suspension of liability until the breach is cured; (iii) partial codification of the fraudulent claims rule in insurance contract law, etc. The Act did not provide for any new statutory duty for insurers to investigate or pay claims in a timely fashion, although this may be revisited in the next Parliament. Moreover, the Law Commissions have reopened their consideration of the doctrine of insurable interest. The 2015Actmay not then signal the end of the legislative programme in this area.