본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

복합운송주선인의 법적지위와 선하증권상의 히말라야 약관의 적용 범위 - 서울고등법원 2009. 7. 2. 2008나108226호 판결 평석 -

A Comment on the Seoul High Court's Judgment of 2 July 2009, Case No.2008Na108226 on the Legal Status of a Freight Forwarder and Applying the Himalaya Clause

0

조회

0

다운로드

3

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

주제분류법학

초록

Abstract

The terminology, 'Freight Forwarder', is not a firmly established word in the relevant industry yet, but, it is generally accepted to mean an agent who substantially intermediates shipments between a carrier and a consignor by mobilizing two or more means of shipment including land and marine shipment methods. Usually, a freight forwarder is asked to make shipment from a shipper, at the same time a consignor, and then, asks a sea carrier(actual carrier) to actually move goods. In this case, a Freight Forwarder issues House B/L to a shipper, and then, a sea carrier issues Master B/L to a freight forwarder. However, in case that the legal status of a freight forwarder is not clear, and that it can't be clearly decided whether a freight forward is asked to perform shipment or he/she is only asked to perform intermediation, the supreme court suggests that a decision be made by considering intention of relevant parties first, or, in case intention of the parties is not clear, it suggests that whether a freight forwarder is a carrier or a mediator for shipment be judged by considering all the relevant and comprehensive circumstances including whether B/L is issued or not and how the shipment charge is paid. Hence, if a freight forwarder repeatedly performs the shipment business directly or indirectly with the purpose to make a profit, he/she should be considered to have the legal status of being a carrier who takes the responsibility of actually moving goods as though he/she doesn't issue B/L. Hence, it isn't rational not to consider him/her as a carrier for the reason that he/she doesn't issue B/L. Also, in respect of application of Himalaya Clause, it has to be judged that a Independent Contractor can claim limited responsibility according to aforementioned clause since he/she is asked to carry out shipment for a partial distance or district by a freight forwarder who takes the full responsibility to perform shipment for the entire shipment district.

참고문헌 (18)

  1. 김인현, "해상법" (2007), 법문사
  2. 김인현, "鐵道運送人의 히말라야 約款상 責任制限規定 원용가능성- 美國 聯邦大法院 2004.11.9. 커비 사건을 중심으로-", 상사판례연구, 19(3), pp.315~348 (2006), 한국상사판례학회
  3. 김창준, "복합운송주선업자의 법적 지위에 관한 연구", 박사, pp.2004
  4. 서헌제, "운송주선인의 법적 지위와 책임", 상사판례연구, 2 (1988)
  5. 이기문, "새국어사전" (1997), 동아출판사
  6. 이주홍, "선하증권상 배상액제한약관", 사법논집, 20 (1989)
  7. 이철송, "상법총칙·상행위" (2007), 박영사
  8. 임석민, "선하증권론" (2000), 두남
  9. 정영석, "선하증권론" (2007), 텍스트북스
  10. 정찬형, "상법강의(상)" (2007), 박영사
  11. 정찬형, "상법강의(하)" (2007), 박영사
  12. 조성극, "判例를 통해 본 海上複合運送周旋業者(Ocean Freight Forwarder)의 法的 地位", 한국해법학회지, 26(2), pp.379~400 (2004), 한국해법학회
  13. 채이식, "해상운송주선인의 법률상 지위", 고려대학교 법학 논집, ~ (1985)
  14. 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
  15. 한국사업행정학회, "주석상법", 한국사업행정학회, ~ (1993)
  16. Attilio M. Costabel, "The Himalaya clause crosses privity's far frontier", Journal of Maritime Law and Commerce, 36(2) (2005)
  17. David W. Robertson, "Steven F. Friedell and Michale F. Sturley, ADMIRALTY AND MARITIME LAW IN THE UNITED STATES" (2001), Caroline Academic Press
  18. J. Wilson, "Carriage of Goods by Sea Pearson Longman", ~ (2004)

관련 논문AI추천

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (14건)