2015년 중요해상판례

Abstract

The Korean Supreme Court (KSC) rendered 9 maritime law related case during the year of 2015. In the KSC case 2015.5.28. Docket No. 2014da 88215 involved in the contract for the carriage, the Court regarded a freight forwarder as the contractual carrier rather than intermediary. In the KSC case 2015.4.23. Docket No. 2012da115847, the Court rendered that if the cargo was stocked at the business warehouse after discharge under the FO agreement, the delivery of the cargo took place when the cargo was released at the warehouse and thus the warehouse keeper was required to exchange the cargo with the B/L or delivery order. In the KSC case 2015.11.17. Docket No. 2013da61343, the Court also decided that the provisions of fire exemption, package limitation and global limitation was a kind of default rule and thus they could be contract out by the parties agreement in the contract. In the KSC case 2015.12.10.Docket No. 2013da3170, the Court further decided that the Bill of Lading issued after the cargo had been delivered and thus the carrier did not possess the cargo was null and void, and therefore, the shipper as the holder of the B/L was not allowed to claim the loss of cargo price to the carrier. In the KSC case 2014.11.27. Docket No. 2012da14562, the Court decided that package limitation clause in the general terms of the air waybill was applicable for the case that the accident occurred at land leg. In the KSC case 2015.2.26. Docket No. 2012da79866 involved in the ship building contract, the Court regarded the refund guarantee (R/G) as the independent guarantee rather than the traditional guarantee, as a result which the defences stemming from the underlying contract did not affect the validity of the R/G. In the KSC case 2015.7.9. Docket No. 2014da6442, the Court also decided that the beneficiary's abuse of right to call the R/G should be very narrowly allowed. In the KSC case 2015.3.20.Docket No. 2012da11846 involved in the marine insurance cases with English governing law clause, the Court decided that the Korean mandatory rules were allowed to be applied only when all related factors except designated governing law are relevant to the Korea. In the Seoul High Court case 2015.6.9. Docket No. 2012na29269, when the governing law was at issue in relation to the direct action of the third party victim, it decided that the governing law regulating the direct action between the victim and the liability insurer should be English law because the direct action was stemmed from the contract for the insurance and, the insurance contract between the parties was English law. In 2014.12.11.Docket No. 2012da15602, the Court rendered that the cleaning company was allowed to claim the expenses to the government because its cleaning work falls within the definition of other person’s affair under the Civil Code.