FIO 약정의 법적 쟁점에 관한 로테르담 규칙과 헤이그 비스비 규칙의 비교검토
A Study on the Legal Issues on the FIO Clause : Comparison in the Rotterdam Rules with in the Hague-Visby Rules
0
조회
0
다운로드
3
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
It should be noted that the essence of the Renton and The Jordan Ⅱ decisions is now codified at paragraph 2 of article of the Rotterdam Rules. It seems that it must be a good thing that any uncertainty on the point is removed and all parties are aware from the inception of a set of rules as to which responsibilities or duties are subject to freedom of contract and which are not. As for consequences of the arrangement, its extent is a general one. The agreement affects not only the costs but also the liability. Until now there was a consensus that the FIO Clauses had an effect on the costs - loading or unloading costs were transferred to the shipper or to the consignee; but to go further and state that the clauses might exonerate the carrier of liability was not the prevailing interpretation. It can be argued that FIO cluases would be contrary to article Ⅲ(2) of the Hague-Visby Rules and therefore is invalidated by article Ⅲ(8) of the same Rules. In United Kingdom who is leading player in the field of maritime law, the House of Lords in the Jordan Ⅱ now reaffirmed that the cargo interests and the carrier are free to reallocate the responsibility for these cargo handling operations, without being invalidated by article Ⅲ(8) of the Hague-Visby Rules. The purpose of this study is to analyse the issues whether the carrier's liability to load and discharge is shifted to the cargo interests or not, and whether the FIO clauses are null and void because it makes carrier less liable than the Korean Commercial Code article 795 and thus it is against the obligatory provision of article 799, which is equivalent to Hague-Visby Rules article Ⅲ(8).
Abstract
It should be noted that the essence of the Renton and The Jordan Ⅱ decisions is now codified at paragraph 2 of article of the Rotterdam Rules. It seems that it must be a good thing that any uncertainty on the point is removed and all parties are aware from the inception of a set of rules as to which responsibilities or duties are subject to freedom of contract and which are not. As for consequences of the arrangement, its extent is a general one. The agreement affects not only the costs but also the liability. Until now there was a consensus that the FIO Clauses had an effect on the costs - loading or unloading costs were transferred to the shipper or to the consignee; but to go further and state that the clauses might exonerate the carrier of liability was not the prevailing interpretation. It can be argued that FIO cluases would be contrary to article Ⅲ(2) of the Hague-Visby Rules and therefore is invalidated by article Ⅲ(8) of the same Rules. In United Kingdom who is leading player in the field of maritime law, the House of Lords in the Jordan Ⅱ now reaffirmed that the cargo interests and the carrier are free to reallocate the responsibility for these cargo handling operations, without being invalidated by article Ⅲ(8) of the Hague-Visby Rules. The purpose of this study is to analyse the issues whether the carrier's liability to load and discharge is shifted to the cargo interests or not, and whether the FIO clauses are null and void because it makes carrier less liable than the Korean Commercial Code article 795 and thus it is against the obligatory provision of article 799, which is equivalent to Hague-Visby Rules article Ⅲ(8).
참고문헌 (28)
- 김인현, "해상법(제3판)" (2011), 법문사
- 송상현, "해상법원론(제3판)" (2005), 박영사
- 이주흥, "해상운송법" (1992), 박영사
- 임동철, "국제운송법연구" (1990), 효성출판사
- 정영석, "국제해상운송법" (2004), 범한서적주식회사
- 김인현, "FIO 契約條件과 그 有效性 및 船上度의 法律關係", 상사판례연구, 19(1), pp.157~185 (2006), 한국상사판례학회
- 김인현, "引渡指示書(D", O)와 貨物先取保證狀(L, 한국해법학회지, pp.2011, 33(1)[DOI]
- UNCITRAL 운송법 조약에서 논의되고 있는 인도 및 인도 지연으로 인한 책임, 국제규범의 현황과 전망 -2006년 국제규범연구반 연구보고-, "김필곤", 법원행정처, ~ (2006)
- 김필곤, "운송물의 인도에 관한 실무상의 제문제 로테르담 규칙의 내용을 중심으로", 석사, pp.2010
- 문광명, "FIO 특약과 船上渡 - 대법원 2004. 10. 15. 선고 2004다2137 판결의 평석 -", 한국해법학회지, 29(1), pp.83~102 (2007), 한국해법학회
- 송옥렬, "해상운송에 관한 로테르담 규칙의 쟁점 및 전망", 통상법률, (88)통권 : 88, pp.64~93 (2009), 법무부
- 유중원, "航海傭船契約에서 FIO 특약(조건)과 船上渡의 법리 연구", 인권과 정의, (394), pp.128~142 (2009), 대한변호사협회
- 이성철, "FIO 약관과 운송인의 책임, 국제규범의 현황과 전망 -2007년 국제규범 연구반 연구보고-" (2008), 법원행정처
- 이원정, "항해용선계약상 F.I.O.조건 판결사례연구 -The Jordan Ⅱ사건에서 영국 최고법원 판결을 중심으로", 국제상학, 22(1), pp.45~65 (2007), 한국국제상학회
- 이진홍, "선하증권이 회수되지 않은 운송물의 인도에 관한 법률관계", 한국해법학회지, 28(2), pp.135~154 (2006), 한국해법학회
- 임동철, "선적･적부 과정에서 발생한 운송물의 손상에 대한 책임", 한국해법학회지, 20(1) (1998)
- 장희목, "해상물건운송인의 손해배상책임", 사법논집, 10 (1979), 법원행정처
- 최종현, "선하증권상의 FIO조항의 효력", 법조, 56(2)통권 : 605, pp.82~144 (2007), 법조협회
- Baughen, "Defining the Limits of the Carrier's Responsibilities", Lloyd's Maritme and Commercial Law Quarterly (2005)
- Colinvaux, "Carver's Carriage by Sea" (1982), Stevens & Sons
- Cook, "Voyage Charters" (2001), LLP
- Scrutton, "David Foxton, Scrutton on Charterparties and Bills of Lading" (1996), Sweet & Maxwell
- Sturley, M. F., "Modernizing and Reforming U.S. Maritime Law,In The Rotterdam Rules in the United States", Texas International Law Journal (2009)
- Tetley, "Marine Cargo Claims" (1988), Blais
- Thomas, "A New Convention for the Carriage of Goods by Sea,In The Rotterdam Rules" (2009), Lawtext Publishing Limited
- Thomas, "The Carriage of Goods by Sea under the Rotterdam Rules" (2010), Lloyd's List
- Treitel, "Carer on Bills of Lading" (2005), Sweet & Maxwell
- Von Ziegler, "The Rotterdam Rules 2008 Commentary to the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Carriage of Goods Wholly or Partly by Sea" (2010), Kluwer Law International