• Korea Trade Review
• /
• v.45 no.4
• /
• pp.125-136
• /
• 2020

Freight charges are one of the major clauses in the voyage charter. However, in case of unexpected delays at loading and discharging ports, the owner of the ship would not be willing to cover the various costs he should bear by paying the freight receives from the charterer. Therefore, the shipowner, whose time and the ship would be both considered to be an expense, would try to reduce the laytime as least as possible when signing the charter party and to receive compensation such as demurrage and damage for detention from the charterer, just waiting for the agreed laytime to pass. In this study, we review the differences between demurrage and damage for detention and examine the acknowledgeable circumstances through the actual cases. Since the shipowner and the charterer do not often agree on the damage for detention from the respective contract, it is necessary to examine each. Besides, the shipowner and the charterer must acquaint the damage for detention and specify in a contract, to compensate for the actual loss of the shipowner.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.45
• /
• pp.85-109
• /
• 2010

L/C provides the exporter and the importer with safe assurance in the exchange of goods for payment in international trade. It involves a number of parties. Although the parties may have confidence in their client, bad faith or ignorance of international banking practice by any of these parties could cause the failure of transaction, which makes international trade a risky business. Most of the risks are found in transport document, which can cause disputes. There are many factors in the risk of transport documents under L/C transaction. One most common risk factor for the beneficiary in all transport documents is even if there is no discrepancy in document, the issuing bank or the applicant refuses to pay or delay payment insisting there is a discrepancy. In some very rare cases, the beneficiary may not get paid due to unfair injunction of the local court of the applicant. For the applicant, most common risk factors are fake bill and fraud. Risks classified according to the sorts of transport documents are as follows. 1. In B/L, payment can be refused because it is regarded as charter party B/L, although there is no real charter party contract. And the applicant can bear the potential risk of the loss or deterioration of cargo through transhipment of the cargo loaded on board in container if transhipment is prohibited without excluding of UCP 600 article 20 (c). 2. In charter party B/L, the applicant may take delivery without paying when charter party B/L is signed by charterer, which can result in a big loss for the beneficiary and the negotiating bank. And risks may arise when cargo is seized because the charterer does not pay the hire. The applicant and the issuing bank are also vulnerable to a risk - Against whom should they file a suit when cargo gets damaged during transportation? 3. In multimodal transport document, which is subject to a conflict because there is a big difference in viewpoints between transport industry and banks, conflicts may also arise when L/C requires ocean B/L and accepts multimodal transport document at the same time, but does not specify the details. 4. In air waybill, where the consignee is not the issuing bank but the applicant, risks may take place to the beneficiary when the applicant takes delivery but refuses to pay asserting minor discrepancies in document. The applicant may also bear the risk when cargo may not be loaded because air waybill is a received bill. Another risk may arise when although the applicant prohibits transhipment without excluding UCP 600 article 23 (c), the cargo may be transhipped, provided that the entire carriage is covered by one and the same air waybill.

• International Commerce and Information Review
• /
• v.15 no.2
• /
• pp.285-313
• /
• 2013

By the revision of the Commercial Code of Korea in 1991 and 2007, some provisions for the regulation of Time Charterparty have been introduced into our own maritime law system. But, those provisions are in their nature mainly the reproduction of the provisions prescribed in the standard forms of time charterparty which are widely used, such as BALTIME Charter and NYPE Form, and the subject matters of their regulation are restrictive, so that the applicability of the provisions is not desirable. The cargo is lost or damaged, the cargo owner should seek compensation form, or sue, the carrier as, traditionally, under the COGSA, the cargo carrier is responsible for loss of damage of cargo. However, it is difficult to determine who is the responsible carrier under charters. There is no test to determine the carrier, but the courts in every country generally consider the bill of lading. Although the master has general authority to sign bills of lading on behalf of the shipowner, he can also sign bills of lading for, and on behalf of, the charterer. In this case, the charter is considered the carrier. Furthermore, the charterer is authorized to contract with third parties on behalf of the shipowner and, as such, the responsible carrier is the shipowner. Therefore, when determining the carrier we should examine carefully the all factors and the circumstances surrounding the case. Also, negligence of a captain of a time-chartered ship causing damages to a third party. It will analyze the legal character of a time-charter contract, review judicial precedents on time-charter. The Inter-Club Agreement was drawn up and is intended to be a somewhat easier way of allocating liability for cargo claims between owners and charterers and, although there is still scope for disputes to arise, the Inter-Club Agreement does in fact to some extent make the allocation of liabilities for cargo claims easier. Finally, it will also make legislative suggestions to resolve complex issues involving maritime transportation contracts under the current Commercial Code.

• Journal of Navigation and Port Research
• /
• v.37 no.6
• /
• pp.689-697
• /
• 2013

The demurrage is regarded as a kind of the ocean freight and a remuneration of the time lost for the vessel while in port. In ordinary occasions of the voyage charter, the liability of a demurrage is usually laid on the charterers unless any exceptions are incorporated. The owners are, however, often meeting somehow difficulty to secure demurrage in the field as the liability is limited or transferred to a third party from the charterers. This paper is focused on clearing the liabilities to be held by the parties involved through the English Law cases, and what's more is rendering a proper suggestions to the owners and charterers on dealing with the ship's operation business.

• Journal of Navigation and Port Research
• /
• v.38 no.5
• /
• pp.471-477
• /
• 2014

In general, a regular charterparty form is used as a charterparty for tugboats which are employed in marine construction and a bareboat charter form is generally used for barge boat charterparty. As the tug-barge charterparty which are currently used do not have a standardised form, contracting parties arbitrarily decide on the terms and conditions of the contract. As a result, provisions of the charterparty usually do not specify in the contract which party bears the burden of liability in case of accident. Furthermore, the terminologies used in the charterparty are different from legal terms of current commercial law which causes confusion. These problems can be solved mostly by clarifying the legal character of the charterparty between the contracting parties and by conforming the terminologies. In addition, endeavour to standardise the contract form must be carried forward at the same time. This research purports to study actual condition of current charterparty for tug-barge ship which are employed to marine construction and to suggest systematic improvement plan. For this purpose, this research focuses on studying cases in which dispute arose due to lack of clarity in the provisions of the contract with regard to which party bears the burden of liability in case of accident. This research also purports to suggest forming the standardised contract terms of the charterparty as one way of solution and examine matters to be attended in writing a standardised form.

• Korean Journal of Heritage: History & Science
• /
• v.53 no.4
• /
• pp.60-77
• /
• 2020

An assumption can be made that, as a start point for the recognition and utilization of cultural heritage, the "choice" of such would reflect the cultural ideology of the ruling power at that time. This has finally been proved by the case of Korea in the 20th century. First, in the late Korean Empire (1901-1910), the prevailing cultural ideology had been inherited from the Joseon Dynasty. The main objects that the Joseon Dynasty tried to protect were royal tombs and archives. During this time, an investigation by the Japanese into Korean historic sites began in earnest. Stung by this, enlightened intellectuals attempted to recognize them as constituting independent cultural heritage, but these attempts failed to be institutionalized. During the 1910-1945 Japanese occupation, the Japanese led investigations to institutionalize Korean cultural heritage, which formed the beginning of the current cultural heritage management system. At that time, the historical investigation, designation, protection, and enhancement activities led by the Japanese Government-General of Korea not only rationalized their colonial occupation of Korea but also illustrated their colonial perspective. Korean nationalists processed the campaign for the love of historical remains on an enlightening level, but they had their limits in that the campaign had been based on the outcome of research planned by the Japanese. During the 1945-2000 period following liberation from Japan, cultural heritage restoration projects took places that were based on nationalist ideology. People intended to consolidate the regime's legitimacy through these projects, and the enactment of the 'Cultural Heritage Charter' in 1997 represented an ideology in itself that stretched beyond a means of promoting nationalist ideology. During the past 20 centuries, cultural heritage content changed depending on the whims of those with political power. Such choices reflected the cultural ideology that the powers at any given time held with regard to cultural heritage. In the background of this cultural heritage choice mechanism, there have been working trade-off relationships formed between terminology and society, as well as the ideological characteristics of collective memories. The ruling party has tried to implant their ideology on their subjects, and we could consider that it wanted to achieve this by being involved in collective memories related to traditional culture, so called-choice, and utilization of cultural heritage.