수하인의 운송물 수령의무에 관한 고찰

Abstract

Article 802 of the Commercial Act explicitly stipulates the consignee’s obligation to collect cargo. Nevertheless, academic discourse remains divided on whether it is reasonable to recognize such an obligation, primarily because comparable legislative examples imposing a duty to take delivery on consignees are rarely found in foreign jurisdictions. In practice, there has yet to be a Supreme Court judgment directly interpreting Article 802 of the Commercial Act. However, beginning with the Seoul High Court's judgment of December 4, 2015 (Case No.2015Na9860), the majority of lower court rulings have tended to interpret the consignee's duty to take delivery in a restrictive manner. Conversely, there is also lower court judgment that affirms the existence of such an obligation. This raises question as to whether the prevailing approach in judicial practice — namely, the restrictive interpretation of the consignee’s duty — can be deemed valid, given that it arguably disregards the legislative intent behind enacting Article 802 and is inconsistent with both the textual and systematic interpretation of the provision. Thelogic of denying the consignee’s obligation by treating the consignee as a unilaterally designated third party seems insufficiently reflective of the realities of international sales contracts and maritime transport practices. Therefore, this article critically examines the reasoning found in the lower courts’ judgments. In conclusion, under the current framework of the Commercial Act, the consignee's obligation to take delivery of the goods constitutes a clear statutory duty, and controversy surrounding this obligation ought to be resolved legislatively rather than by discretionary judicial interpretation. The courts’ continued reliance on interpretive approaches that effectively nullify the explicit provisions of the Commercial Act may undermine legal certainty and predictability as well as threaten the coherence of the maritime legal system.