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
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)
- 김인현, "해상법" (2007), 법문사
- 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
- 김창준, "복합운송주선업자의 법적 지위에 관한 연구", 박사, pp.2004
- 서헌제, "운송주선인의 법적 지위와 책임", 상사판례연구, 2 (1988)
- 이기문, "새국어사전" (1997), 동아출판사
- 이주홍, "선하증권상 배상액제한약관", 사법논집, 20 (1989)
- 이철송, "상법총칙·상행위" (2007), 박영사
- 임석민, "선하증권론" (2000), 두남
- 정영석, "선하증권론" (2007), 텍스트북스
- 정찬형, "상법강의(상)" (2007), 박영사
- 정찬형, "상법강의(하)" (2007), 박영사
- 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
- 채이식, "해상운송주선인의 법률상 지위", 고려대학교 법학 논집, ~ (1985)
- 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
- 한국사업행정학회, "주석상법", 한국사업행정학회, ~ (1993)
- Attilio M. Costabel, "The Himalaya clause crosses privity's far frontier", Journal of Maritime Law and Commerce, 36(2) (2005)
- David W. Robertson, "Steven F. Friedell and Michale F. Sturley, ADMIRALTY AND MARITIME LAW IN THE UNITED STATES" (2001), Caroline Academic Press
- J. Wilson, "Carriage of Goods by Sea Pearson Longman", ~ (2004)
