해양유류오염배상법제 개선을 위한 국내기금제도의 도입에 관한 연구

한상운,황의관 한국공법학회 2011 공법연구 Vol.40 No.1

After the Hebei Spirit oil spill accident, we recognized that some problems in our guarantee regime on the compensation for oil pollution damage were significant. These problems were categorized into different two characteristics which were comprised of not to remedy properly for victims and to delay payment for compensation. These problems were due to the international framework for the oil pollution damage compensation system. Therefore, this article reviews the international regimes and point out the problems. In addition, present regimes on the compensation for oil pollution damage exclude environmental damage caused by oil spill accident from oil pollution damages. Thus this article analyses environmental damage caused by oil spill and performs comparative legal study on the inclusion of environmental damage as a oil pollution damage in EU, U.S.A., and EU member states. In this analysis and comparative legal research, we found that there were legislative tendency to include environmental damage into the oil pollution damages. In order to solve the above-mentioned problems and environmental damages caused by oil spill, we emphatically recommend that the introduction of national oil pollution fund is a only resonable solution. Because existing oil pollution compensation system is a fundamental cause, independent national oil pollution fund is suitable for a policy alternative. When the national oil pollution fund is introducing, the method of collecting fund revenue is composed of government contributions, oil levy to be paid oil industry, existing enforceable related levy. The national oil pollution fund that receives funds from establishing new oil levy is a reasonable policy for Polluter-Pays Principal. Futhermore, operation of the national oil pollution fund have to follow the rule of korean financial law. It is a resonable that to operate the national fund trusts assigns the new establishing fund authority. Like legislative tendency to include environmental damage caused by oil spill into oil pollution damage, the national oil pollution fund is required to compensation for environmental damage caused by oil spill. However, available environmental damages is restricted to the extent that comprise primary remediation cost and complementary remediation cost. Both interim losses and assessing cost exclude available environmental damage caused by oil spill. As early stage of the introduction of national oil pollution fund, broad inclusion of environmental damage caused by oil spill may be used to reason for opponent to national oil pollution fund. Reclaimant for environmental damages caused by oil spill against the national oil pollution fund is only trustee that is composed of state and local government. 2007. 12. 허베이 스피리트호 사고가 발생한 이후 유류오염손해배상법제에 관하여 많은 문제점이 제기되어 왔다. 특히나 손해배상의 인정범위와 배상의 신속성에 많은 비판이 집중되었다. 현행 유류오염배상법제에 대한 이런 문제제기에 따라 본 논문에서는 유류오염배상법제의 근간을 이루고 있는 국제유류오염배상체제를 살펴보고 동 체제가 가지는 문제점을 지적한다. 그리고 현행 유류오염배상법제에서 사실상 배상범위에 포함되지 않고 있는 유류오염에 따른 환경손해에 관하여 검토한다. 환경손해의 정의와 유류오염배상법제와 환경손해의 관계에 대한 각국의 입법상황을 분석하고 유류오염에 따른 환경손해를 배상의 대상으로 인정하려는 각국의 입법추세를 확인한다. 이러한 일련의 분석을 통하여 현행 유류오염배상법제 개선을 위해서는 국제기금과는 별개의 국내기금을 도입하는 것이 필요하다는 점을 강조한다. 그리고 유류오염배상법제의 개선방안으로서 도입이 필요한 국내기금제도에 관하여 보다 상세한 정책적 제안을 한다. 여기에는 기금의 설치 및 재원조성방안, 기금의 관리주체 및 운영방안, 기금의 권한 및 관련된 분쟁해결수단 등이 포함된다. 그리고 국내기금에서 유류오염에 따른 환경손해도 원칙적으로 배상의 대상으로 포함하고 그러한 경우 누가 환경손해배상청구권을 가져야 하는지에 대하여 현행 헌법과 법률에 따라 국가와 지방자치단체가 청구권자가 되어야 함을 설명한다. 이와 같이 본 논문은 현행 유류오염배상법제의 문제점을 분석하고 그에 대한 개선방안으로서 국내기금제도를 제안하며 구체적으로 국내기금의 운영방안에 관한 정책적 제언을 하려고 한다.

국제유류오염손해배상제도의 타당성에 대한 비판적 검토

윤효영 한국경영법률학회 2009 經營法律 Vol.20 No.1

1969 CLC(1969 International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage) and 1971 FC(1971 International Convention on Establishment of an International Fund for Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage) were established to regulate oil pollution damage by a tanker since the ‘Torry Canyon 1967’ accident. The regime of CLC and FC has regulated oil pollution damage from thenceforth successfully. But the major oil pollution accidents such as ‘Erika 1999’ and ‘Prestige 2000’ have raised questions from a perspective of adequate compensation for and prevention of oil pollution damage. To answer the questions, the two Protocols (‘2000 Protocol’ and ‘2003 Protocol’) have been adapted for increasing liability limits and establishing the Fund for supplementing shortages respectively. Despite all the changes to the compensation regime for oil pollution damage through the years, some principles have remained essentially unchanged since its establishment. The unchanged vital principles are strict liability, channeling of liability, limitation of liability and compulsory insurance and Some of them have been criticized especially by the countries in EU. The goal of this article is to critically examine to the extent that the main features of current CLC and FC match with the aim or function of liability law, inter alia from a perspective of adequate compensation for and prevention of oil pollution damage. This article argues that channeling of liability and limitation of liability conflict with the aim and function of liability rule in that they deter from providing adequate compensation to a victim and encouraging optimal incentives to prevent the accident risk. Although there are some problems as seen the above, it is not desirable to consider the adequacy of CLC and FC regime only on the legal-theoretical grounds, but also it needs to consider the practical demands of related parties. Therefore this paper proposes some devices to harmonize the practical demands of industries with the aim of liability law.

해양유류오염 손해보상- 허베이 스피리트호 사건과 관련하여 -

성승제 한국법제연구원 2008 법제연구 Vol.- No.34

As the year, 2008, the Korean constitution law celebrates its 60th Compensation System for Sea Oil Pollution - In Relation with Hebei Spirit Vessel Case Sea oil pollution is especially problematic in a way that area infected is wide, it results in mass damage and takes a long time to recover. Moreover, due to increase in size of oiler, damage is more critical for ocean ecosystem. 'Hebei Spirit Case', collision between SamSung Heavy Industry derrick and Cantonese vessel 'Hebei Spirit', occurred in December of 2007 in Taean,Chungcheongnam-do, and is known as the biggest sea oil pollution accident in Korea. Therefore, this case can be the test case for our ability to response. Currently, we are only registered to 1992 CLC convention and 1992 FC agreement, and not to 2003 Protocol. Reason being is that it is more advantageous for Korea not to sign the protocol in comparison with contribution we have to pay and accident occurrence probability. Korea shares maritime transport route with Japan and China, and the usage of this route is becoming more frequent since East Asia area is being rapidly developed. Also it can be seen as man-made disaster. It is because SamSung derrick decided to sail despite the forecast, and the warning from maritime control center and coast guard was given to inform them that there is a high risk of collision. On top of that, shipper, Hyundai Oil, used single-hull structure when there was an international agreement to use double-hull structure. There is a high possibility that there would have been no oil pollution if it was double-hull structure vessel considering the hole size made in Hebei Spirit Vessel Case, Taking these several factors into consideration, registering to 2003 convention will bring company's consciousness to danger, and will increase the liability of the shippers (Oil companies such as Hyundai Oil Bank). Therefore, we need to register to international convention which increased the limit for compensation (Protocol of 2003 to the International Convention on the Establishment of an International Fund for Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage), as soon as possible. Furthermore, in no relations with these hypotheses, there was a news that Samsung Heavy Industry will contribute 100 000 000 000 won of company's property to Taean. This can be shown as a repression to company's activity. It is enough to make company liable by law, and making them liable for something by public opinion which legal liability does not exist, is just driving our company away to overseas. On the other hand, it is a custom of international convention not to compensate for ecosystem by oil pollution. But rather relying on that, we need to try actively to recover our environment for a country which is surrounded by still water. Thus we need to establish a domestic law for environment recovery separately from international convention. As the year, 2008, the Korean constitution law celebrates its 60th Compensation System for Sea Oil Pollution - In Relation with Hebei Spirit Vessel Case Sea oil pollution is especially problematic in a way that area infected is wide, it results in mass damage and takes a long time to recover. Moreover, due to increase in size of oiler, damage is more critical for ocean ecosystem. 'Hebei Spirit Case', collision between SamSung Heavy Industry derrick and Cantonese vessel 'Hebei Spirit', occurred in December of 2007 in Taean,Chungcheongnam-do, and is known as the biggest sea oil pollution accident in Korea. Therefore, this case can be the test case for our ability to response. Currently, we are only registered to 1992 CLC convention and 1992 FC agreement, and not to 2003 Protocol. Reason being is that it is more advantageous for Korea not to sign the protocol in comparison with contribution we have to pay and accident occurrence probability. Korea shares maritime transport route with Japan and China, and the usage of this route is becoming more frequent since East Asia area is being rapidly developed. Also it can be seen as man-made disaster. It is because SamSung derrick decided to sail despite the forecast, and the warning from maritime control center and coast guard was given to inform them that there is a high risk of collision. On top of that, shipper, Hyundai Oil, used single-hull structure when there was an international agreement to use double-hull structure. There is a high possibility that there would have been no oil pollution if it was double-hull structure vessel considering the hole size made in Hebei Spirit Vessel Case, Taking these several factors into consideration, registering to 2003 convention will bring company's consciousness to danger, and will increase the liability of the shippers (Oil companies such as Hyundai Oil Bank). Therefore, we need to register to international convention which increased the limit for compensation (Protocol of 2003 to the International Convention on the Establishment of an International Fund for Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage), as soon as possible. Furthermore, in no relations with these hypotheses, there was a news that Samsung Heavy Industry will contribute 100 000 000 000 won of company's property to Taean. This can be shown as a repression to company's activity. It is enough to make company liable by law, and making them liable for something by public opinion which legal liability does not exist, is just driving our company away to overseas. On the other hand, it is a custom of international convention not to compensate for ecosystem by oil pollution. But rather relying on that, we need to try actively to recover our environment for a country which is surrounded by still water. Thus we need to establish a domestic law for environment recovery separately from international convention.

미국 유류오염법(OPA)의 주요내용과 시사점

최인호(Inho Choi) 미국헌법학회 2017 美國憲法硏究 Vol.28 No.1

이 논문은 국제사회의 주류에서 벗어나 독자행보를 걸어온 미국의 사례를 분석하여 그 시사점을 도출해내고, 이를 바탕으로 유류오염손해배상보장법(유배법)을 중심으로 한 우리나라 유류오염손해배상체계의 개선방향을 진단하는데 주된 목적이 있다. 국제협약체제와 차별화되는 OPA의 큰 특징은 폭넓게 규정된 책임제한의 예외사유와 함께 적용대상 · 배상책임자 · 배상범위 · 재정증명책임을 확대하면서 엄격한 벌칙 및 주법에 의한 규율가능성을 함께 규정함으로써 해운업등 관련산업의 보호보다 피해자의 구제와 사전예방을 중시하고 있다는 것이다. 특히 적용대상을 유조선과 일반선박에 한정하지 않고, 해양오염의 원인이 될 수 있는 기름을 함유하는 거의 모든 물질과 이를 배출 또는 유출할 수 있는 모든 선박과 시설로 규정하여 전세계에서 가장 포괄적인 유류오염손해배상체계를 구축하였으며, 제정 당시를 기준으로 10억달러라는 최대보상한도는 2003년 채택된 추가기금협약에서 보장하는 금액에 근접하는 것이었다. 입법자들이 ‘충분한’ 배상이라는 정책목표를 얼마나 중요하게 여겼는지를 잘 알 수 있다. 또한 ‘자연자원에 대한 손해’(NRD)를 배상범위에 포함시키고 있다는 점에서 OPA는 생태주의적 입법으로 평가될 수 있다. 이 모든 것들은 미국이 국제협약체제의 구축에 있어서 중요한 리더였음에도 불구하고 독자노선을 선택한 이유였다. 다른 한편, OPA의 운용과정에서 배상범위와 주법의 규율가능성의 해석을 놓고 발생하는 법적 불확실성과 함께 미국 법원이 순수한 경제적 손실의 배상에 인색한 경향을 보이고 있는 점은 소송비용의 증가와 배상 또는 보상의 지연을 가져와 피해자의 ‘신속한’ 구제를 저해하고 있다. 유배법은 국제협약체제과 선박연료유협약에 근거하고 있어 OPA를 입법모델로 하기에는 일정한 한계를 가지고 있지만, 관련 협약들과 적용범위가 중복되지 않거나 국내법에 의해 독자적으로 규율될 수 있는 영역에서는 OPA의 장점을 흡수하는 것은 얼마든지 가능하며, 그 단점을 통해서도 반면교사의 교훈을 얻을 수 있다. 그 개선방향은 다음과 같이 요약할 수 있다. 첫째, 해양시설 등에 의해 야기된 유류오염손해에 대해서도 유배법의 적용을 받도록 하여 단일한 유류오손해배상체계를 구축할 필요가 있다. 둘째, 일반선박 소유자의 책임제한액을 크게 인상하고 있는 CLLM에 대한 1996년 의정서 내용을 상법의 개정을 통해 반영하고, 손해의 범주에 인적 손해를 포함시켜야 한다. 또한 재정증명책임이 부과되는 선박의 톤수를 큰폭으로 하향조정해야 한다. 셋째, 준용규정을 신설하여 유류저장부선에 의해 발생한 유류오염사고의 피해자에게 IOPC기금에 대한 보상청구의 기회를 열어주어야 한다. 넷째, 신속한 배상을 위해 국내유류오염손해보상기금을 설치 · 운영해야 한다. 요컨대 유배법을 개정하여 포괄적인 유류오염손해배상체계를 구축하여 충분한 배상의 원칙을 실현하면서, 다른 한편으로는 국내기금을 별도로 설치 · 운영하여 이를 효과적으로 뒷받침하고 신속한 배상의 원칙을 추구하자는 것이다. 이를 통해 ‘충분하고 신속한 배상’이라는 두 가지의 정책적 목표를 달성할 수 있을 뿐만 아니라 여러 가지 부수적인 효과를 함께 거둘 수 있다는 점에서 국내기금의 설치 · 운영에 대한 전향적인 검토가 필요하다. 유류오염사고피해의 심각성을 감안해 책임제한의 법리를 약화시키고 배상책임자의 범주를 확대하는 방향으로 나아가고 있는 것이 국제적인 추세이며, 장래에 미국 OPA와 국제협약체제가 하나의 체제로 귀일하여 현재보다 이상적인 유류오염손해배상체계를 형성하게 되기를 기대한다. The Article is to analyze the U.S. Oil Pollution Act (OPA) and its practice, and to learn the lessons for the Korean civil liability system on oil pollution damage. The OPA has several characteristics which are distinct from the international civil liability regime for oil pollution damage: (1) its scope covers almost all ships and facilities that can cause marine oil spills; (2) it provides for broadly written exceptions to responsible parties’ limited liability; (3) while its scope of damages includes natural resource damages, the judiciary has a tendancy to be reluctant to recognize pure economic loss as recoverable damages; (4) it contains stringent penalty provisions and allows more stringent state legislation and common law; and (5) there exist considerable legal uncertainties over the scope of recoverable damages and the applicability of state law in conflict with federal law, however, which contribute to delayed monetary relief to victims in oil spill accidents. In short, the U.S. civil liability system on oil pollution damage under OPA has been established based upon the clear legislative intent that puts an emphasis on monetary relief for victims and the principle of prevention over relevant industrial interests. The Korean civil liability system on oil pollution damage should be improved in several respects as follows: (1) it should be revised to form a comprehensive system covering all facilities that have the potential to cause marine oil pollution; (2) the limited amount of civil liability should be increased to the level guaranteed under the 1996 Protocal to CLLM with regard to ships other than oil tankers; and (3) a domestic Fund for oil pollution damages should be established to ensure full and fast monetary relief to oil spill victims. Especially, creating a Fund is the necessary condition for the above-mentioned comprehensive civil liablity system for oil pollution damage. It also has many additional strengths, for example, securing more financial sources of relief, and providing opportunities for raising professionals and training the fishery industry, and the like. The trend on the international stage has been to weaken the principle of limited liability and to broaden the scope of responsible parties and financial responsibility, in order to realize the polluter-pays principle and the principle of prevention. This is because it is consistent with the notion of justice. It is also intended to provide a strong incentive for potential tortfeasors to prevent oil leakage in the first place. Finally, the Author hopes for the creation of a unified international civil liability regime for oil pollution damage in the near future, which is designed more ideally than it is under the current one.

Legal Framework of Compensation for Vessel-Source Oil Pollution Damage in China

Hao, Hui-Juan,Chung, Dae 한중법학회 2017 中國法硏究 Vol.30 No.-

중국은 세계 2위의 원유 수입국이라고 할 수 있다. 원유에 대한 수요가 증가함에 따라서 선박으로 인한 유류오염의 리스크가 증가하고 있는 실정이라고 할 수 있다. 선박으로 인한 유류오염손해에 대한 배상제도는 희생자와 해양환경을 보호하는 중요한 수단이다. 중국은 1992년 유류오염손해에 대한 민사책임에 관한 국제협약(CLC of 1992)에 가입하였고, 2009년에는 선박연료유협약(Bunker Convention)이 발효되었다. 중국은 선박기인 유류오염사건에 대처하기 위하여 배상제도에 대한 국내 입법을 지속적으로 추진해 오고 있다. 예를 들면, 2010년 선박기인 해양오염의 예방 및 통제에 관한 규정을 개정하였고, 이와 함께 선박기인 유류오염의 민사책임에 관한 보험가입 규정이 마련되었다. 그런데 중국의 선박기인 유류오염손해에 대한 배상책임제도는 다음과 같은 몇 가지 문제점이 있다. 첫째, 민사적 구제수단보다 행정적 구제수단이 우월하다는 점이다. 둘째, 유류오염손해배상제도의 내용이 추상적이라는 점이다. 셋째, 유류오염손해배상제도의 기본적 내용의 일부가 부재하다는 점이다. 넷째, 유류오염손해배상제도의 관련 기준이 합리적이지 않다는 점이다. 본 논문의 결론으로서 첫째, 유류오염손해배상의 책임의 주체를 구체적으로 규정할 필요가 있다고 본다. 둘째, 유류오염손해배상의 범위를 보다 구체적으로 규정할 필요가 있다고 생각한다. 셋째, 1969년 유류오염손해에 대한 민사책임에 관한 국제협약(CLC of 1969)을 책임제한과 관련하여 국내 유류오염사건에 적용하는 것은 배제하여야 한다고 본다. As the world’s second largest importer of crude oil, China imported more than 335 million tons of crude oil in 2015. However, along with the growing need for crude oil, the risk of oil pollution from ships has also been increasing. Compensation for vessel-source oil pollution is important for protecting the interests of victims as well as the marine environment. China has acceded to the 1992 CLC and the Bunkers Convention. China has not yet formed a complete legal system of civil compensation for oil pollution. The contents of the relevant parties are mainly stipulated in the principles and procedures. It is difficult to coordinate many problems. The construction of laws and regulations lacks rigorous system support. China clearly needs to establish the system of oil pollution damage compensation. This system should include such aspects as follows. First, the subject of liability in the legal relationship of the oil pollution damage compensation should be defined specifically. Second, in respect of scope of compensation, it is necessary to include the costs of cleaning up and the loss and damage caused by pollution because China's current laws and regulations do not make provisions for the scope of compensation for oil pollution damage caused by ships. Third, in respect of limitation of liability, China should be make a new standard to deal with non-foreign oil pollution cases because the 1969 CLC provisions of limitation of liability is too high.

판례연구회(判例事硏究會) 논문(論文) : 민사적 시각에서 바라 본 유류오염 손해배상청구

이정원 ( Jung Won Lee ) 한국해법학회 2010 韓國海法學會誌 Vol.32 No.2

최근 우리나라를 둘러싼 동북아지역 내의 해상교통량은 지역 내의 경제 활성화에 힘입어 날로 늘어가는 추세이다. 이로 인하여 우리나라 역내 해양에서의 유류를 비롯한 유해물질의 운송량도 증가하게 될 것으로 예상되며, 또한 이러한 화물들을 운송하는 선박들과 관련된 해양사고도 증가하게 될 우려가 있다. 유류오염사고로 인한 손해배상에 적용될 법률에는 우리 민법 외에도 특별법으로서 유배법과 “1969년 유류오염손해에 대한 민사책임에 관한 국제협약과 1971년 유류오염손해에 대한 국제배상기금의 설치에 관한 국제협약에 대한 1992년 개정의정서”가 있으며, 유류오염사고로 인한 손해배상청구와 관련하여 국제기금은 자체적으로 보상청구편람을 제정하여 운용하고 있으므로, 위 배상청구편람의 각 규정도 유류오염손해에 대한 배상청구에 실질적인 영향을 미치게 되므로 배상청구편람의 각 규정도 고찰할 필요가 있다. 유류오염사고로 인한 손해배상의 범위와 관련해서 1992년 민사책임협약 및 1992년 국제기금협약은 그 배상범위에 대해서는 규정하는 바가 없다. 따라서 유류오염과 관련된 피해자들의 구체적 손해배상범위에 대해서는 우리 민법의 불법행위에 관한 법리에 따라 해결할 수밖에 없을 것이며, 이에 있어서는 무엇보다도 유류오염손해가 발생한 경우 과연 어느 범위까지의 손해를 배상하도록 할 것인가 하는 손해배상의 외연을 적절히 확정하는 과정이 논의의 중심에 있다. 한편 국제기금 배상청구편람은 제3편에서 청구 유형별 배상지침을 마련하여 운용하고 있는 바, 이는 우리 법원의 유류오염사고로 인한 손해배상 실무운영에 있어서도 좋은 참조가 될 것이다. 결론적으로 국제기금 배상청구편람은 피해의 배상을 위해서는 손해와 비용 사이에 합리적 연관이 있을 것과 이러한 비용과 일실수익에 대한 정확한 근거자료의 제시를 요구하고 있으므로 신속하고 정확한 배상을 위해서는 무엇보다도 피해어민 등의 소득자료를 정확히 제시할 수 있는 방안이 강구되어야 할 것이다. Currently, marine traffic surrounding the Korean peninsula is increasing due to the economic prosperity within the far eastern area. With this phenomenon, transportation of toxic substances, including oil, will sky-rocket in this area. This may lead to maritime accidents which involve vessels carrying these substances. The laws which would apply to the oil pollution damage in Korean territory are 1. The Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage Guarantee Act, 2. ``TheProtocol of 1992 to amend the International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage, 1969 and the Establishment of an International Fund for Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage, 1971`` as a special Act to the Korean Civil Act. The International Oil Pollution Compensation Fund (hereafter called the “IOPC Fund”) has established and used its own claims manual that seems to have a decisive solution for the compensation of oil pollution damages. This article will review the contents of the IOPC Fund`s Claims Manual. Regarding the scope of the compensation for oil pollution damage, neither of the afore mentioned Protocols stipulate it. Therefore, a specific level of compensation would be assessed in accordance with the Korean Tort Law Principle which is included in the Korean Civil Law. In the process of assessing the level of the compensation for oil pollution damages, making the outer scope of the damages which can be compensated clear would be the most important factor for the compensation. Section 3 in the IOPC Fund`s Claims Manual, provides guidelines for the submission of different types of claims, such as oil pollution damages. Korean judges who will be dealing with these cases would refer to this manual. Since the IOPC Fund`s Claims Manual suggests that there should be a close relationship between the damages and expenditures, in addition to the verification of the said expenditures and pure economic losses, victims of the oil pollution damage should manage to make materials with their income for the full recovery of oil pollution damages.

유류오염 손해배상 관련 국제법과 국내법의 비교 및 그 상호관계

윤효영(Yun Hyo Young) 한림대학교 법학연구소 2008 한림법학 FORUM Vol.19 No.-

‘1969 International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage’and ‘1971 International Convention on the Establishment of International Fund for Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage’are all the conventions for coping with oil pollution resulting from oil spilled from oil tanker. Under the Korean Constitution, an international convention which has been ratified in accordance with the Constitution has the same legal effect as the korean national laws. Korea has ratified the above International Conventions and the respective 1992 Protocol thereof. Although the above Conventions are fundamentally effective in Korea without a separate act to enforce them, Korea has enacted Oil Pollution Damage Compensation Guarantee Act( ‘Act’) to transplant the above Conventions into domestic law. In consequence there are crucial problems legislatively or legally in solving a oil pollution case. Firstly the Act has different provisions from the Conventions especially in reference to a subject of liability, a range of ships insured a compulsory insurance. Secondly the Korean Civil Law or compensation guidelines of International Oil Pollution Compensation Fund can be applied to the legal issues about which there is no provisions in the Conventions or the Act. But they can overlap or collide with each other. In this article I try to propose the legal standards for determining which law should be applied to an oil pollution case occurring in Korean territory.

국제유류오염보상기금과 선박 정의의 해석

임채현(Chae-Hyun Lim) 한국해사법학회 2013 해사법연구 Vol.25 No.1

Oil pollution caused by oil tanker incident at sea normally occurs huge damage and thus a international oil pollution compensation regime has been developed to prepare for such damage. That is, shipowner compensates the victims damaged by oil pollution up to the limit of the shipowner's liability under the International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage, 1992, and then the International Oil Pollution Compensation Funds("IOPC Funds") pay compensation the damage exceeds the limit of the shipowner's liability according to the International Convention on the Establishment of an International Fund for Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage, 1992. In this respect, both Conventions are related closely and have same definition of ship to be applied for compensation. Thus, it is very important whether a oil tanker involved in a incident is a ship under the Conventions in relation to compensating of oil pollution damage. However, even though the definition of ship under the Conventions is clearly defined there is still some ambiguity to the meaning of ship, and IOPC Funds have studied and examined the exact meaning of the definition of ship for the Conventions sofar. Thus, this paper examines the interpretations taken by IOPC Funds in relation to the definition of ship under the Conventions and the discussion relating to the definition of ship progressing with IOPC Funds governing bodies, and inquiries a tactical counterplot for our government to make preparation in relation with the discussion and policy decision connected with the definition of ship under the Conventions to be implemented by IOPC Funds. 해상에서 유조선 사고에 의해 발생된 유류오염은 일반적으로 큰 피해를 발생시키기 때문에 이에 대비할 수 있는 국제유류오염보상체계가 갖추어져 있다. 즉, 1992년 민사책임협약 및 국제기금협약에 따라 선주가 책임제한액까지 보상하고 이를 초과하는 피해에 대해서는 IOPC Funds가 보상한다. 이러한 체계의 구성상 양 협약의 적용 대상 선박은 동일하게 규정되어 있어 밀접한 관련성을 갖는다. 따라서 사고 유조선이 협약상의 선박에 포함되느냐는 유조선에 의한 유류오염피해의 보상에 있어 매우 중요한 요소이다. 다만, 협약상 선박 정의가 명확하게 규정되어 있다 하더라도 일정 부분 불명확성이 존재하고, 이에 대해 국제유류오염보상기금은 지속적인 논의 및 정책적 결정을 하고 있다. 이에 본고에서 국제유류오염보상기금에서 지금까지 논의된 선박 정의에 대한 해석과 현재 선박 정의와 관련하여 진행 중인 논의에 대해 검토하고, 이와 관련하여 우리나라 입장을 검토하여 향후 국제유류오염보상기금의 논의 및 정책결정에 있어 우리나라의 전략적 대응방안에 대한 고찰하고자 한다.

유류오염 사고에서의 정신적 손해 배상 - 대법원 2004.4.28. 선고, 2001다36733판결 평석 - (원심: 서울고법 2001. 5. 8. 선고, 99나14633 판결)

윤효영 한국경영법률학회 2009 經營法律 Vol.19 No.2

The Korean Supreme Court held that mental distress can be compensated based on Korean Civil Law as lex fori because Oil Pollution Damage Compensation Guarantee Act(‘the Act') does not provide for the scope of compensation. The Admissibility of claims for mental damage under the Act depends on which rule between the Civil Law and the compensation guidelines of IOPC Fund is applied to the matter of determining the scope of oil pollution damage. Finally, This problem is related to whether the compensation guidelines of IOPC Fund are legally binding as the sources of international law or not. Considering that the resolutions or decisions of the Fund does not get any legal confidence yet, domestic courts will not recognize legal effects of them. Therefore mental damage can be compensated under the Act, because Civil Law is applicable to the assessment of oil pollution damage. The other problematic issue is to recognize the complementary function of Consolation Money. Although the Supreme Court has rejected the plaintiff's claim without any definite reference, the possibility to use the complementary function as a lawsuit skill will be increased at oil pollution incident in the future, given that a system for fishery income has not been established in Korea. But I think that it is not desirable to overuse the complementary function for alleviating or avoiding the burden to prove property damage.

유류오염 손해배상에 관한 법적 고찰 - 인적 피해와 비재산적 손해를 중심으로 -

윤효영 ( Yun Hyo Young ) 단국대학교 법학연구소 2019 법학논총 Vol.43 No.2

우리나라에서 발생한 최악의 유류오염 사고였던 ‘허베이 스피리트호’(Hebei Spirit)에 의하여 야기된 손해배상 사건이 대부분 종결되었다. 이 사건의 책임 제한절차를 개시하였던 대전지방법원 서산지원에서 발간한 책자를 보면, 재산적 손해에 대한 청구가 대부분이고 인적 피해 내지 비재산적 손해에 대한 청구는 드물다는 사실을 알 수 있다. 주민 1명이 방제작업 중 원유 노출로 인하여 얼굴의 신경마비 증상이 발생한 데 대한 위자료를 청구한 사례가 있으나, 법원은 인과관계의 증명이 없다는 이유로 이를 기각하였다. 재산적 손해액의 입증 곤란으로 손해의 전보를 받을 수 없게 된 어민들이 청구한 위자료 역시 기각되었다. 이러한 사실에서 알 수 있듯이 유류오염피해 사건의 실제 재판에서는 재산 이외의 손해에 대한 배상 청구가 거의 없거나, 그 인정에 대하여 법원이 소극적 자세를 취하고 있는 것으로 보인다. 반면 허베이 스피리트호 사고 이후 실시된 건강영향평가에서는 이들 사고가 피해지역 거주 주민들의 호흡기 기능이나 심리적 상태에 미치는 부정적 영향 또는 자연환경 파괴에 대한 환경피해액을 추정한 연구들이 상당히 이루어졌다. 이런 현상을 보면서 유류오염피해 사건에서 주장할 수 있는 인적 피해 내지 비재산적 손해에는 어떤 청구 유형이 있으며, 현행 법체계 하에서 그에 대한 배상이 가능한지 여부에 관심을 가지게 되었다. 우리 대법원은 유류오염 사건에서 손해배상책임의 성립 요건이나 배상 범위의 결정에 관하여 법정지법인 대한민국 민법이 적용된다는 입장을 취하고 있다. 한편 환경오염피해 사건에서는 피해자의 구제를 위하여 기존 불법행위법리를 수정한 다양한 이론들이 주장되고 있다. 유류오염 역시 환경오염피해 사건에 포함되므로, 유류오염 사고에서 인적피해와 비재산적 손해의 배상 가능성을 검토하기 위해서는 이들 수정이론에 대한 검토가 선결될 필요가 있다. 이 논문에서는 첫째, 인과관계의 증명을 위한 역학조사의 활용, 정신적 고통 이외의 비재산적 손해의 인정, 위자료의 예방·제재적 기능 또는 보완적 기능을 통한 배상액의 현실화와 같은 인적피해와 비재산적 손해를 중심으로 논의되고 있는 수정 이론들을 분석하였다. 둘째, 허베이 스피리트호 사고와 같은 유류오염피해 사건에 이들 수정 이론을 적용하는 경우 해석론으로서 수용 가능한 법리와 그 한계를 검토하였다. 마지막으로 이를 종합하여 유류오염 손해 배상 사건에서 인적 피해와 비재산적 손해에 대한 공평하고 타당한 배상이 이루어질 수 있는 방안을 모색하였다. Compensation for pollution damage caused by Hebei Spirit, which was the worst oil pollution accident that occurred in Korea, has been mostly completed. According to the booklet published by the court of competent jurisdiction where the limitation of shipowner’s liability proceedings has been commenced, claims for property damage were mostly, and claims for personal injury or non-pecuniary loss were rare. One resident claimed damages for personal injury, but were dismissed on the grounds that there was no proof of causality. In addition, solatium was requested because of difficulty in proving property damage, but the court dismissed it. As shown above, in oil pollution cases there seems to be little claim for compensation for personal injury or non-pecuniary loss, and even if there are, the court seems to take a negative stance on its compensation. On the other hand, after the Hebei Spirit accident, many studies were conducted on the negative effects of this accident on respiratory function and psychological condition of the affected area residents and on estimating the environmental damage of natural environment destruction. While seeing such a phenomenon, I became interested in whether personal injury and non-pecuniary loss such as emotional distress could be compensated in oil pollution damage case. Our supreme court is in a position that korean law is applied to determine the requirements for liability for damages and the scope of compensation in oil pollution cases. In a broad sense, oil pollution is also included in the environmental pollution incidents, and various theories have been advocated that modify the existing tort law to redress victims of environmental pollution. Therefore such concern about compensability of personal injury and non-pecuniary loss in oil pollution results in the examination of the revision theory of general principles of tort law. In this paper, first of all I analyzed the revision theories that have been discussed focusing on personal injury and non-pecuniary loss. This includes the use of epidemiological studies to prove causality, recognition of various types of non pecuniary loss other than mental distress, recognition of preventive·sanctionary function or a complementary function of solatium. Second, assuming that revision theories will be applied to oil pollution damage cases such as the Hebei Spirit accident in the future, I examined its applicability and limits. Lastly, I suggested several solution that could combine this with a fair and appropriate compensation for personal injury and non pecuniary loss in the case of oil pollution accident.