2017년 중요해상판례소개

Abstract

In the KSC case 2017.1.25. Docket No. 2015da225851, a freight forwarder issued the house B/L and it was admitted as the contracting carrier. In the KSC case 2017.9.7. Docket No. 2017da232417, the insurer made recourse claims against the carrier after it paid insurance proceeds to the cargo owner as the insured. The court decided that it was not entitled to make the recourse claim because it wrongfully paid insurance proceeds to insured. The court also decided that where unknown clause exists, the cargo owner should prove the condition of the cargo at the loading port. In the KSC case 2017.6.8. Docket No. 2016da13109, the court decided that the contractual carrier had duty to stow the cargo in the container carefully while it was loaded by the carrier’s servant at Container Freight Station. In the KSC case 2017.10.26. Docket No. 2016da227663, where on-deck clause is inserted in the B/L, the court decided that there was no fault of the carrier even though the cargo was loaded on deck. It was also confirmed that the importer was not listed in the party in the sea waybill, it was not allowed to make claim against the actual carrier who issued the sea waybill. In the Changwon District court case 2017.2.23. Docket No. 2016la308, the court decided that the charterer has not yet obtained ownership for the chartered vessel from the ship owner and thus the relevant vessel did not fall into the definition of property of the debtor under Article 58 of Korean Rehabilitation Act. In the Seul High court case 2017.1.10. Docket No. 2015na2029365, the court decided that the ship owner was entitled to receive the insurance proceeds in case that the BBCHP charter was not listed as a insured and the charterage was paid as a pure charterage rather than ship’s price. In the Inchon District court case 2017.10.17. Docket No. 2015La838, the court decided that the creditor was not allowed to exercise maritime claim against the vessel in case that the maritime claims was made by the time charterer. In the KSC case 2017.10.26. Docket No. 2015da42599, the English law designated by the governing law for the insurance contract was decided as the governing law for the direct action against the liability insurer because it was the most closely related country’s law. In the Seoul Central District court case, 2017.11.3. Docket No. 2016gahap549207, the insurer was exempted from liability because the insured knew unseaworthy condition of the vessel under the English law when it started to sail in case of the Sewol Ferry Accident. In the KSC case 2017.5.30. Docket No. 2014da233176, the anticipatory breach of contract theory under English law was not admitted because the shipyard had intention to continue its construction of the vessel thus the cancellation of the contract by the buyer was null and void.