“결과적 손해 또는 간접적 손해”에 대한 면책 조항의 해석- 영국 법원의 계약 해석 사례 및 시사점 -

김기창 한국비교사법학회 2021 비교사법 Vol.28 No.2

Construction contracts, plant and design/build contracts often include a clause excluding the liabilities for “indirect or consequential loss”. The exclusion clause originates from the standard conditions of contract proposed by FIDIC, which in turn is rooted in the English standard form contract used by the Institution of Civil Engineers (ICE). It is useful to have a reference to how the UK courts have interpreted the the meaning of “indirect or consequential loss” which appears in the exclusion clause. UK courts have consistently held that the “indirect or consequential loss” does not mean the loss which results “directly and naturally” from a breach. If the plaintiff incurs liability to a third party or suffers a loss of profit as a result of the defendant’s breach, it is usually the case that the clause excluding the liability for “indirect or consequential loss” may not be invoked to avoid liability for such a loss assuming that the loss is assessed to be a direct and natural result of the breach. Korean Supreme Court has also held that if a party’s breach causes a loss of profit, wasted expenses, diminution of market value of the item in question or a loss of use, such a loss may be regarded as “ordinary loss” (similar to general damage). Moreover, the Supreme Court firmly maintains a position that if an item which is used for commercial purposes is damaged or destroyed, the loss of profit (during the reasonable period needed to repair or to replace the item) must be regarded as “ordinary loss” which must be compensated as it is deemed to be foreseeable. Interpretation of an exclusion clause must be closely based on the facts of the case so that the true intent of the parties can be ascertained. It is of little use to refer to the generalised theoretical explanation about the “types” of loss which purports to present a loss of income or the economic loss in the category of “indirect loss” without regard to the facts of each particular case. Loss of profit or the loss resulting from incurring a liability to a third party may often be a direct and natural result of the other party’s breach. In such a case, it would often be the case that the breaching party may not rely on an exclusion clause applicable to “indirect or consequential loss”. 건설계약, 설비 공급 계약 등에는 “간접적 또는 결과적 손해”에 대한 면책 약정이 포함되는 경우가 많다. 이 면책 약정은 국제 컨설팅 엔지니어 연맹(FIDIC)이 제안하는 표준계약조건에 포함된 면책 조항에 바탕을 둔 경우가 많고, FIDIC의 표준계약조건은 영국 토목공학협회의 표준계약서에 기반한 것이므로 “간접적 또는 결과적 손해”에 대한 면책 조항을 해석, 적용함에 있어서는 영국 법원이 이 조항을 어떻게 해석, 적용해왔는지를 참고할 필요가 있다. 영국 법원은 계약위반이나 불법행위의 직접적 결과로 당연히 생기는 손해는 “간접적 또는 결과적 손해”가 아니라고 보아, 면책되지 않는다고 판단하는 경우가 많다. 피고의 계약위반으로 원고가 제3자에게 배상책임을 부담하게 되거나, 피고의 계약위반으로 원고가 영업을 방해 받아 생기는 휴업손해, 일실수익, 이윤상실 등은 피고의 행위로부터 직접적으로 당연히 생기는 것으로 볼 수 있다면, “간접적 또는 결과적 손해”에 대한 면책 조항에 기대어 면책을 주장할 수 없다는 것이다. 우리 대법원도 피고의 계약위반으로 원고가 겪은 일실수익, 낭비된 지출, 교환가치 하락, 활용기회 상실 등은 통상손해로 파악하기도 하고, 영업용 물건이 파손, 멸실될 경우에 생기는 휴업손해는 통상손해라는 입장을 확고히 유지하고 있다. 면책 조항의 해석은 사실 관계에 밀착하여 당사자의 진정한 의사를 탐구하는 데 충실해야 하므로, 수익 감소나 경제적 상실 등의 소극 손해는 ‘간접적 손해’라는 식으로 손해 유형을 추상적, 일반적으로 이론화 하는 것은 별 도움이 되지 않는다. 휴업손해나 제3자에게 배상책임을 부담하게 되어 생기는 손해는 상대방의 계약위반으로부터 직접적으로 당연히 발생하는 손해인 경우도 있고, 그렇지 않은 경우도 있다. 해당 사안의 구체적 사실 관계를 관찰하여, 문제의 손해가 해당 계약의 위반으로부터 직접적으로 당연히 발생하는 손해로 평가될 수 있을 경우에는 “간접적 또는 결과적 손해”에 대한 면책 조항으로 면책되는 손해가 아니라고 해석해야 할 경우가 많을 것이다. 사실관계나 계약의 내용을 구체적으로 고려하지 않은채 손해의 유형을 이론적, 추상적, 일반적으로 분류하는 것은 도움이 되기보다는 오히려 올바른 계약 해석에 방해가 될 수 있다.

전선절단사안에서의 불법행위책임에 관한 비교법적 연구

김정민(Jeongmin KIM) 한국비교사법학회 2008 比較私法 Vol.15 No.4

The pure economic loss rule reveals that the rule is often cast in negative terms as a loss without antecedent harm to plaintiff's person or property. In this context, the word "pure" plays a central role, for if there is economic loss that is connected to the slightest damage to person or property of the plaintiff(provided that all other conditions of liability are met) then the latter is called consequential economic loss and the whole set of damages may be recuperated without question. According to the dogmatic statements often used to justify the rule, consequential economic loss (sometimes also termed parasitic loss) is recoverable because it presupposes the existence of physical injuries, whereas pure economic loss strikes the victim's wallet and nothing else. This explanation begs the question as to why pure economic interests should be granted lesser protection than interests in tangible property. Broadly speaking, pure economic loss arises out of the interdependence of relationships and interests in the modern world. These relationships may involve two or three parties. "Ricochet loss" classically arises when physical damage is done to the property or person of one party, which in turn causes the impairment of the rights of the plaintiff. We refer to this as a three-dimensional situation. The direct victim sustains physical damage while plaintiff is a secondary victim who incurs only economic harm. The "Cable Cases" is simply variations of Ricochet harm-While manoeuvring his mechanical excavator, an employee of the Acme road works company cut the cable belonging to the public utility which delivers electricity to the Beta factory. The unexpected blackout caused damage to the machinery and the loss of two days of production. The factory owner is claiming compensation from the excavator not only for the damage of machinery but also for the damage caused by the loss of production, Cato, another factory owner, experienced no damage to his machinery, but his plant was rendered idle and he lost two days of production-. The purpose of this study is to inquire to what extent, if any, there exists a common core of principles and rules concerning compensation for pure economic loss in "Cable(Blackout) Cases" within each countries' Tort Law.

“CISG”상의 금전손해배상에 관한 연구-제74조를 중심으로-

가정준 ( Ka Jung-joon ) 한국외국어대학교 법학연구소 2012 외법논집 Vol.36 No.1

This paper has focused on how “CISG” art 74 work in real cases. The provision has two parts in effect. The first part is about how one party is compensated as a consequence of the breach by the other party under the contract. The goal of this provision is to place the aggrieved party in the same position it would have been in had the contract performed. Therefore, the losses of the aggrieved party might be any consequence caused by the breach of contract. The second part plays a role to limit damages under the rule of “foreseeability”. In order to analyse damages, losses are mostly classified based on their characteristics. Largely, they may be divided into “direct loss”, “incidental loss”, “consequential loss”, and “lost profits”. “Direct loss” is measured by “the difference between the value to the injured party of the performance that should have been received and the value to that party of the performance that should have been received and the value to that party of what, if anything, actually was received. “Incidental loss” can be considered additional costs in an attempt to avoid further loss. “Consequential loss” might be economic loss from dealing with third parties. On the other hand, lost profit is described by the art 74 without direct and clear definition and guideline. Above all of losses and profits are not subject to damage awards. They are awarded only after they go through a certain filter, namely foreseeability. Such damages may not exceed the loss which the aprty in breach foresaw or ought to have foreseen at the time of the conclusion of the contract, in light of the facts and matters of which he then knew or sought to have known, as a possible consequence of the breach. In addition, the civil procedure matter plays a role to limit contractual liability in measuring damages. A rule of certainty is likely to make plaintiff burdened to prove what real losses are in a certain level. In particular, it is not easy to prove what profits are that an aggrieved party has expected in making a contract. It is likely that “direct loss” and “lost profits” are foreseeable consequence from breach of contract. However, it is unlikely that plaintiff proves what profits in damages are in a certain level. It is easy to prove what “incidental loss” and “consequential loss” are in a certain leveal because they are mostly likely expenses that plaintiff already paid or used. They are mostly likely foreseeable consequence from breach of contract. Depending on proving foreseeability and certainty, kinds of losses or profits can be differently calculated as damages for the aggrieved party. In conclusion, this paper has tried to explain on detail how the art. 74 could work in real cases.

운송인의 인도지연 책임에 관한 법적 쟁점 -로테르담 규칙을 바탕으로-

양석완 ( Seok Wan Yang ) 한국상사판례학회 2013 상사판례연구 Vol.26 No.2

Delay was on the agenda from the beginning of the UNCITRAL process. ``Delay in delivery`` is limited to the carrier`s failure to deliver ``within the time agreed`` in the contract of carriage. Thus the carrier is not liable for failing to deliver the goods ``within the time it would be reasonable to expect of a diligent carrier``, as UNCITRAL had initially agreed. The Rotterdam Rules` delay provisions instead focus on economic loss (consequential damages), which can arise in a number of different forms. It is restricted to loss (economic loss) as a result of not delivering the cargo at the agreed place of destination at the agreed time. The most common form of is a simple loss of market. The agreement need not be explicit. The difference is quite important because the rules on the calculation of the compensation and limitations of liability are quite different: first, whereas compensation for loss and damage are dealt with by using the formula of the sound market value, no such formula exists in case of delay. What is the extent of the compensation for delay? Although it is clear that the loss would most probably be of a financial nature, it is not clarified in the text how far in terms of proximity and predictability it is possible to go in calculating compensation for delay. Such economic loss can easily be many times the value of the goods delayed. That is why article 60 provides that the amounts established for physical loss and damage pursuant article 22 shall also function as a limit for economic and financial loss caused by delay. In contrast to physical damage, however, this loss of limitation does not apply to the limitation amount of two and one-half the freight only, but due to the reference to article 22 is in article 60, also to the sound market value limitation.

硏究論文(연구논문) : SAJ 선박건조표준계약에 대한 영국판례 검토 -한국법 준거법 및 한국중재의 대안 가능성의 고려-

이철원 ( Chul Won Lee ) 한국해법학회 2013 韓國海法學會誌 Vol.35 No.1

우리나라의 조선소들은 선박건조계약을 체결함에 있어서 1960년대에 일본조선공업회(SAJ)가 만든 SAJ 양식을 주로 사용하고 있다. SAJ 양식은 일본법을 준거법으로 함을 예정한 계약이나 실무상으로는 영국법이 준거법으로 약정됨이 대부분이다. 영국법이 준거법으로 정하여진 SAJ 양식에 의할 때 선박의 인도 이후에 건조자가 선박의 하자와 관련하여 일실수입까지 책임을 지는 것인지 여부에 대하여 제9조의 하자담보 조항 상면책조항에 정하여진 결과손해(consequential damage)의 해석이 불명확한 점들이 있다. China Shipping Corp. v. Nippon Yusen Kabukish Kaisha 사건 등 영국 판례법도 이에 대한 명확한 기준을 제시하지 못하고 있다. 한편 영국법이 준거법으로 정하여진 SAJ 양식에 의할 때 인도지연으로 인한 계약 해지 시 기 지급된 분할대금의 반환 뿐 아니라 보통법(common law)에 따른 이행거부(repudiatory breach) 손해배상 청구까지 가능한지에 대하여도 명확한 기준이 없다. 최근의 Stocznia Gdynia SA v Gearbulk Holdings Ltd. 사건에 비추어 건조자 측에 불리하게 해석될 여지가 높다. 표준계약의 사용을 통한 예측가능성의 제고라는 측면에서 영국법을 준거법으로 하는 SAJ 양식의 사용은 여러 가지 문제점들을 보이며, 이는 정립된 표준계약을 통하여 높은 예측가능성이 담보된 해운계약서 및 국제물품거래계약과도 대비된다. 이러한 영국 중재의 불확실성과 대형조선소들이 한국에 있다는 점 등에 비추어 선박건조계약 분쟁은 다른 해상 분야에 비하여 향후 한국을 중재지로 만들 가능성이 비교적 높다고 하겠다. Korean shipbuilders widely use the SAJ shipbuilding contract form prepared by Shipbuilding Association of Japan in 1960s. SAJ form is supposed to be goverend by Japanese law, however, in practice the parties agree to have English law as governing law. When the SAJ form governed by English law is used, it is not clear whether the shipbuilder shall be responsible for the loss of income and/or hire arising from the defect of the vessel after the delivery of the vessel. This is because whether the exclusion clause in Article 9(Warranty Clause) of SAJ form excludes consequential damage claim is not clear. Relevant English caselaws including China Shipping Corp. v. Nippon Yusen Kabukish Kaisha case do not provide clear rules in this regard. Meanwhile, under the SAJ form governed by English law, it is not clear whether the purchaser may seek compensation of damages based on repudiatory breach in addition to the recovery of paid installment price in case of the cancellation of contract due to the late delivery. Considering the recent English caselaw, Stocznia Gdynia SA v. Gearbulk Holdings Ltd. case, the English court is likely to allow damage claim based on repudiatory breach but there is still controversy. In terms of assuring the certainty by using the standard contract, using SAJ form governed by English law is unsatisfactory as there are still number of uncertainties in the interpretation of clauses. This is in contrast of certainties perceived by the market in using the standard forms in both carriage of goods contracts and the international sale of goods. Shipbuilding arbitrations in Korea may be promoted given these uncertainties in the potential English arbitration and the location of major shipyards being in Korea, compared to other areas of maritime arbitrations.

국제상거래에서 손해배상청구가 가능한 손해의 범위

조현숙(Hyun-Sook Cho) 한국무역학회 2018 貿易學會誌 Vol.43 No.4