본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

개정 상법상 항공화물운송인의 책임

A study on the legal liability of air carrier in revised Korean Commercial Code 2011

0

조회

0

다운로드

6

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

주제분류법학

초록

On November 2011, the revised Korean Commercial Code (hereinafter "the Law") has been effected and it contains new additional Chapter for the air carrier's legal liabilities in air transport. Given that South Korea plays main role in international airline industry, emerging the new code for this area has a remarkable meaning and this is very lucrative result. Also by locating the air carrier's private liability regulations into Commercial Code which is one of the fundamental laws, this is very unique and the first legislative model in the world legislative history. Most rules were transplanted from "Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air, Montreal, 28 May 1999" (hereinafter "Montreal Convention 1999" or "the Convention"). However, there are some particular clauses supplant the Convention as below:First of all, the Law indicates the type of the cargo damage simply as "loss and damage" not like "destruction, loss, damage" in Montreal Convention 1999. Furthermore, the notification of damage to carrier is limited only in case of "partial loss or damage". From this clause, in case that carrier already know the fact of total lose or damage of cargo, a required notification pursuant to the law is not necessary. Consequently, this could protect the interest of consumer not carrier. Secondly, the Law provides the limited liability of cargo as 17 SDR per one kilogram of the mattered shipment. This, regretfully, is not fully reflect the current rules of Montreal Convention 1999, because the amount in the convention has been elevated to 19 SDR due to inflation of prices. Therefore, this article suggest that it is better to entrust the clause about the amount of limited liability from national law to international convention in order to improve the mobility to national law. Third, according to the Law, it is opaque that whether the limited liability is still applied even though the damage was occurred from the results of an act or omission of the carrier, its servants or agents, done with intent to cause damage or recklessly and with knowledge that damage would probably result. This is from the different legislation between the Law and Convention and should be reviewed in the future revision. In addition to the above, there are some more issues to consider such as the matter of Right of Disposition of Cargo and the matter of Limitation of Action. All of the above issues are based on difference between the Law and the Convention. For the unification of international carriage by air, the national laws should have same contents with the Convention but if the Law search the better way to protect public interest and build it by legislation, those will be reflected into convention in the future. Anyhow, South Korea has begun to take the steps into searching and building in private law in carriage of goods by air with new Commercial Code.

Abstract

On November 2011, the revised Korean Commercial Code (hereinafter "the Law") has been effected and it contains new additional Chapter for the air carrier's legal liabilities in air transport. Given that South Korea plays main role in international airline industry, emerging the new code for this area has a remarkable meaning and this is very lucrative result. Also by locating the air carrier's private liability regulations into Commercial Code which is one of the fundamental laws, this is very unique and the first legislative model in the world legislative history. Most rules were transplanted from "Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air, Montreal, 28 May 1999" (hereinafter "Montreal Convention 1999" or "the Convention"). However, there are some particular clauses supplant the Convention as below:First of all, the Law indicates the type of the cargo damage simply as "loss and damage" not like "destruction, loss, damage" in Montreal Convention 1999. Furthermore, the notification of damage to carrier is limited only in case of "partial loss or damage". From this clause, in case that carrier already know the fact of total lose or damage of cargo, a required notification pursuant to the law is not necessary. Consequently, this could protect the interest of consumer not carrier. Secondly, the Law provides the limited liability of cargo as 17 SDR per one kilogram of the mattered shipment. This, regretfully, is not fully reflect the current rules of Montreal Convention 1999, because the amount in the convention has been elevated to 19 SDR due to inflation of prices. Therefore, this article suggest that it is better to entrust the clause about the amount of limited liability from national law to international convention in order to improve the mobility to national law. Third, according to the Law, it is opaque that whether the limited liability is still applied even though the damage was occurred from the results of an act or omission of the carrier, its servants or agents, done with intent to cause damage or recklessly and with knowledge that damage would probably result. This is from the different legislation between the Law and Convention and should be reviewed in the future revision. In addition to the above, there are some more issues to consider such as the matter of Right of Disposition of Cargo and the matter of Limitation of Action. All of the above issues are based on difference between the Law and the Convention. For the unification of international carriage by air, the national laws should have same contents with the Convention but if the Law search the better way to protect public interest and build it by legislation, those will be reflected into convention in the future. Anyhow, South Korea has begun to take the steps into searching and building in private law in carriage of goods by air with new Commercial Code.

참고문헌 (40)

  1. 황성규, "항공법 분법 배경 및 향후 계획", 한국항공우주법학회 제47회 항공법 학술발표회, pp.6~ (2011)
  2. 최준선, "商法 航空運送編 制定案의 意義", 상사법연구, 27(4), pp.319~340 (2009), 한국상사법학회
  3. 김종복, "상법 항공운송편 제정의 필요성과 방향에 관한 고찰", 법학연구, 11(1), pp.235~263 (2008), 법학연구소
  4. 이강빈, "항공화물운송인의 책임에 관한 국제협약과 국내입법의 비교연구", 한국항공우주정책?법학회지, 24(2), pp.19~45 (2009), 한국항공우주정책⋅법학회
  5. 정준우, "商法 航空運送編 制定試案의 問題點 檢討", 기업법연구, 22(3), pp.261~300 (2008), 한국기업법학회
  6. 최준선, "국내 항공운송법 제정안에 관한 고찰", 한국항공우주정책?법학회지, 23(2), pp.3~29 (2008), 한국항공우주정책⋅법학회
  7. 최준선, "항공운송편 제정안의 주요 쟁점", 국제거래법연구, 17(2), pp.231~255 (2008), 국제거래법학회
  8. 현덕규, "상법 항공운송편 제정안 각조 해설", 상사법연구, 29(1), pp.47~107 (2010), 한국상사법학회
  9. 최준선, "바르샤바협약상 Wilful Misconduct의 개념", 항공우주법학회지, 6 (1994)
  10. 이창재, "海上運送과 航空運送에 관한 最新 國際協約의 比較", 한국해법학회지, 33(2), pp.147~185 (2011), 한국해법학회
  11. "항공운송에 관한 개정상법 제6편은 제2장 제3절", ~
  12. 법무부, "상법 항공운송편 제정 자료집", 107~ (2009)
  13. 최준선, "국제항공운송법론", pp.201~204 (1987)
  14. "몬트리올 협약 제31조 제4항. “If no complaint is made within the times aforesaid, no action shall lie against the carrier, save in the case of fraud on its part.”", ~
  15. 최준선, "보험법 해상법 항공운송법", pp.572~ (2012), 삼영사
  16. "IMF 홈페이지"[URL]
  17. "대법원 1997. 1. 24. 선고 95다25237 판결", ~
  18. "대법원 2007. 4. 27. 선고 2007다4943 판결", ~ (2007)
  19. 최세련, "운송주선인의 법적 지위 및 히말라야 약관의 적용 범위 - 대법원 2007. 4. 27. 선고 2007다4943 판결의 평석 -", 한국해법학회지, 30(1), pp.115~138 (2008), 한국해법학회
  20. "로테르담 규칙 제4조 및 제19조", ~
  21. "대법원 2007.4.27. 선고 2007다4943 판결", ~ (2007)
  22. 이창재, "상법상 운송물 처분청구권과 수하인의 발전적 지위 - 국제운송규범과의 비교를 중심으로 -", 성균관법학, 23(3), pp.667~692 (2011), 법학연구소
  23. 한낙현, "국제무역거래에서 수하인의 지위와 운송물처분권에 관한 연구", 무역학회지, 33(2), pp.115~140 (2008), 한국무역학회
  24. 법무부, "상법 항공운송편 제정 자료집", 75~ (2009)
  25. 현덕규, "상법 항공운송편 제정안 각조 해설", 상사법연구, 29(1), pp.47~107 (2010), 한국상사법학회
  26. 최준선, "상법총칙·상행위 법", pp.338~ (2010), 삼영사
  27. 정동윤, "상법(상)", pp.243~ (2010), 법문사
  28. 정찬형, "상법강의(상)", pp.316~ (2011), 박영사
  29. 김인현, "해상법", pp.244~ (2011), 법문사
  30. 양석완, "운송물처분권에 관한 연구 ― 국제물품매매에 관한 유엔협약(CISG)과의 비교고찰을 중심으로 ―", 한국해법학회지, 32(2), pp.65~103 (2010), 한국해법학회
  31. "몬트리올 협약 제35조 제2항. “The method of calculating that period shall be determined by the law of the court seized of the case.”", ~
  32. 곽윤직, "민법주해 제3권 총칙(3)", pp.398~ (2010)
  33. 최세련, "해상운송에서의 제척기간에 대한 검토", 상사법연구, 29(3), pp.345~394 (2010), 한국상사법학회
  34. "Delaney v. Aer Lingus Irish Airlines (1981, SD NY) 16 Av Cas (CCH) 17,725", ~
  35. "Perkin Elmer v. Trans Mediterranean Airways, S.A.L. (1985, ED NY) 107 FRD 55, 2 FR Serv 3d 509", ~
  36. "Egan v. Kollsman Instrument Corp. (1964) 44 Misc 2d 348, 253 NYS2d 679", ~
  37. "Kahn v. Trans World Airlines, Inc. (1981, 2d Dept) 82 App Div 2d 696, 443 NYS2d 79", ~
  38. "Flying Tiger Line, Inc. v. United States (1959) 145 Ct Cl 1, 170 F Supp 422", ~
  39. "대법원 2004. 7. 22. 선고 2001다58269 판결", ~ (2004)

관련 논문AI추천

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (17건)