송하인 등 하주의 운송물에 관한 주의의무

양석완 국제거래법학회 2012 國際去來法硏究 Vol.21 No.1

In the Article Ⅲ(1) of Hague-Visby Rules, subject to the provisions of Article Ⅳ, the carrier shall properly and carefully load, handle, stow, carry, keep, care for, and discharge the goods carried. This Article is adopted in Article 795(1) of Korean Commercial Code, but with some variation. The standard of ‘properly and carefully’ is not different from that of ‘due diligence’ in Korean Commercial Code. Hague-Visby Rules imposes some specific obligations about how the carrier must perform its contract, for example, and detail some of the legal consequences of the carrier’s failure to perform, but it does not explicitly declare the carrier’s most basic obligation simply to perform the core contract. The wording of Article Ⅲ(2) of Hague-Visby Rules implies a continuous obligation on the carrier running from the commencement of loading to the completion of discharge. This presupposes that the carrier has undertaken to load and discharge the cargo, whereas occasionally the contract may provide that these operations are to be performed by shore-based tackle at the responsibility of the shipper or consignee. The Article Ⅲ(2) does not oblige the carrier to perform these obligations but merely provides that, if he has undertaken to do so, he must perform them properly and carefully. The shipper, namely, cargo-owner shall deliver the goods ready for carriage. In any event, the shipper shall deliver the goods in such condition that they will withstand the intended carriage, including their loading, handling. stowing, lashing and securing, and unloading, and that they will not cause harm to persons or property. When a container is packed or a vehicle is loaded by the shipper, the shipper shall properly and carefully stow, lash and secure the contents in or on the container or vehicle, and in such a way that will not cause harm to persons or property. In effect, such a transfer of responsibility does not contravene the Rules, since it is intended merely to define the scope of the contract of carriage and not the terms on which the cargo is to be carried.

해상운송인의 운송물에 관한 주의의무와 FIO약정의 유효성에 관한 연구

김재우(Jae-Woo Kim) 한국무역연구원 2018 무역연구 Vol.14 No.2

In the Hague Visby Rules and the Korean Commercial Code, the carrier is responsible for ensuring the seaworthiness of the ship and taking care of the cargo. Customarily, however, in the case of volume contracts for international maritime transport, the FIO clause is included in the bill of lading issued under the charter agreement. In this paper, in the case of a bill of lading issued under a charter contract or in a contract of affreightment, the FIO clause on the relationship between the carrier and the bill of lading holder, principle of barring exoneration provisions of prohibiting the reduction or exemption of the liability of the carrier for the shipper or charterers was examined in terms of validity. Through these reviews, the possibility of the loading and stowage obligation was likewise examined through the FIO clause as well as the effectiveness of the carrier in relation to the delivery obligation under a case of delivery on the ship where discharging and delivery are results and implication.

해상운송인의 운송물 손해에 관한 입증책임규정(제795조)의 법적 성격

양석완 경북대학교 법학연구원 2014 법학논고 Vol.0 No.47

Every marine cargo case for lost or damaged goods starts with the so-called ‘primafacie case’. Under international maritime law, if the shipper can prove both that thecarrier received the goods undamaged and in full and that the goods were subsequentlydamaged en route, the carrier’s liability is presumed. However, Korean Commercial Code’ treatment of carrier’s obligations begins by makingexplicit what the Hague-Visby Rules leaves implicit. Article 795(1) declares, in essence,that the carrier must perform the core obligations under its contract. It employs whathas often been described as a ‘reversed burden of proof’, meaning that carrier (typicallythe defendant) must disprove its fault in order to escape liability (once the claimanthas established a prima facie case). This differs from the allocation commonly employed in many jurisdictions to determinefault-based liability under which the plaintiff must prove the defendant's fault as partof its affirmative case in order to recover. In effect, such a burden-shifting scheme meansnot exceptional but illustrative regulation of Article 390 under the Korean Civil Code. 우리나라 상법 제795조 제1항은 무과실의 증명책임을 채무자인 해상운송인(이하‘운송인’이라 함)측에 부담시키고 있다. 바로 이 점에 근거하여 국내의 통설은 상법제795조 제1항을 민법 제390조의 예시적 규정으로 보고 있다. 그런데, 통설이 말하는 예시규정의 성질은 상사과실에 한정하고 있음은 물론이나, 무과실의 입증책임을상사과실에 한정하고 있다는 그 자체가 예외적인 취급을 하고 있는 것이나 다름없고,또한 항해과실과의 구분이 용이하지 않다는 점이 문제된다. 아울러, 상법 제796조 각호의 법정면책사유는 항해과실 등의 경우와 같이 운송인의 책임을 종국적으로 면책시키는 것이 아니라, 무과실까지는 증명할 필요 없이 법정면책사유에 해당한다는 사실이 있었다는 것 등만을 증명하면 면책된다는 점에서, 민법 제390조의 예시규정이라고 단정하는 것은 그 법적 성격 면에서 의문을 갖게 한다. 나아가, FIO 약정이 비용뿐만 아니라 의무와 책임까지도 송하인 등 하주에게 이전되는 경우, 운송인은 더 이상 상법 제795조의 운송물에 관한 주의의무를 부담하지않는다. 이에 이 논문은 운송인의 운송물에 관한 주의의무 규정인 상법 제795조 제1항이민법의 예시규정이라는 통설의 모순되는 점을 부각시키고 새로운 각도에서 그 성격을 규명하려고 한다.

NCS 기반의 해사고 항해계열 승선실습교육 이해도 분석 연구

류원(Won RYU),권승철(Seung-Cheol KWON),김홍범(Hong-Beom KIM) 한국수산해양교육학회 2019 水産海洋敎育硏究 Vol.31 No.6

해상운송을 위한 자율운항선박 상용화(商用化)에 관한 소고

정우영 전남대학교 법학연구소 2021 법학논총 Vol.41 No.2

As technology development for maritime autonomous ships has been carried out around the world, considerable discussions have already been made on the definition of autonomous ships, equipment standards, and regulations for operation in preparation for the introduction of maritime autonomous ships. However, no specific discussion has yet been made on the responsibility and compensation system for the commercial use of maritime autonomous ships. In this paper, according to the classification of maritime autonomous ships by development stage proposed by the National Maritime Organization(IMO), the possibility of applying the regulations of the Commercial Act (marine flight) to maritime autonomous ships that are completely different from the conventional ship operation type was reviewed. First, the traditional concept of human airworthiness will change. In the case of maritime autonomous ships in the 3rd and 4th stages, crew members such as the captain will no longer be on board, and a new type of professional manpower called land navigation managers will emerge. However, since the position and role of the land navigation manager is still unclear, it will be necessary to establish the correct role through a careful approach and collecting opinions. It is considered desirable to have a land navigation manager with a level that can replace the existing captain's qualifications and experience. Accordingly, it will be necessary to establish a system of responsibility for ship owners and land navigation managers. Second, when maritime autonomous ships are introduced, changes in maritime insurance will be inevitable because they are operated by land navigation managers or artificial intelligence systems(AI). Unlike technical development and public legal discussions related to maritime autonomous ships, judicial discussions related to liability systems and insurance for maritime autonomous ships are insufficient. If there is an improvement in the legal system that can supplement this according to the utilization plan of maritime autonomous ships, various views on legal issues are expected to be presented. 자율운항선박에 대한 기술개발이 전 세계적으로 이루어짐에 따라 자율운항선박의 도입에 대비하여 자율운항선박의 정의, 설비기준, 운항을 위한 규제 등에 관한 논의가 이미 상당 부분 진행되었다. 그러나 자율운항선박의 상업적 이용에 대비한 책임 및 보상제도에 관해서는 아직 구체적인 논의가 진행되지 않았다. 본 논문에서는 국사해사기구(IMO)에서 제시한 자율운항선박의 발전단계별 분류에 따라 종래의 선박 운항 형태와 완전히 다른 자율운항선박에 대하여 상법(해상편) 규정 적용 가능성을 검토하였다. 먼저 인적 감항능력에 대한 전통적인 개념이 변경될 것이다. 3단계와 4단계의 자율운항선박의 경우 선장 등의 선원이 더 이상 승선하지 않게 되고, 육상운항관리자라는 새로운 형태의 전문 인력이 등장하게 될 것이다. 하지만 아직 육상운항관리자의 지위 및 역할이 불분명하므로 추후 이에 대한 신중한 접근과 의견수렴을 통해 올바른 역할 수립이 반드시 필요할 것이다. 기존의 선장 자격 및 경험을 대체할 수 있는 수준의 육상운항관리자가 바람직하다고 본다. 이에 따른 선박소유자 및 육상운항관리자의 책임제도 정립이 필요할 것이다. 다음으로 자율운항선박이 도입되는 경우 육상운항관리자나 인공지능시스템(AI)에 의하여 운항되기 때문에 해상보험의 변화도 불가피할 것이다. 자율운항선박 관련 기술개발과 공법적 논의와 달리 자율운항선박에 관한 책임제도, 보험 등과 관련된 사법적인 논의는 미흡한 실정이다. 자율운항선박의 활용방안에 따라 이를 보완할 수 있는 법제도 개선이 이루어진다면 법리적 문제에 대한 다양한 견해가 제시될 것으로 보인다.

해상운송에 있어서 화재에 대한 책임

권기훈(Kwon, KeeHoon) 한양법학회 2009 漢陽法學 Vol.27 No.-

When fire exception is taken in a broad sense, the protection for the parties concerned of the cargo is significantly damaged. The view that not only the fire on the boarding the ship but also the fire outside the ship should be the cause for exemption is unilaterally advantageous to the carrier, therefore unfair. Thus, “fire” in Article 795 Clause 2 of the Commercial Law should be interpreted as “fire on the boarding the ship”, though the interpretation does not reflect the intention of the Commercial Law revision. In fact, it is difficult to assume the fire caused by carrier’s intention or negligence, except for the fire caused by carrier’s unseaworthiness. Giving an immunity to fire caused by the negligence of the crew, for instance, is against the principle of equity. Therefore, it is desirable to “carrier” in Article 795 Clause 2 Sentence 2 of the Commercial Law includes “employees including the crew.” For the following reasons, the carrier must prove all the facts regarding the fire. ① Giving an immunity for the damage caused by the fire is an exception in itself, and the burden of proof lies in the person who profits from the exceptional clause. ② It is practically impossible for the party concerned to prove the intention or negligence of the carrier. Therefore, the carrier cannot claim immunity unless he/she proves that the fire is not caused by one’s intention or negligence. There was a heated debate over the exemption for fire at the Working Group III of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law, which was held to establish a new Convention on the Carriage of Goods by Sea. As a result, not only the fire caused by the carrier but also the fire cause by employees’ intention or negligence was exempted from immunity and the proposal that gives an immunity only to the fire on the boarding the ship was adopted. Such proposal is highly desirable.

연구논문 : 상법 제788조 1항의 해석에 관한 연구

이창희 ( Chang Hee Lee ) 한국해법학회 2005 韓國海法學會誌 Vol.27 No.2