해상운송계약에서 최고약관의 효력 - 선하증권 뒷면약관을 중심으로 -
The Effect Of Clause Paramount Under The Contract Of International Carriage Of Goods By Sea
0
조회
0
다운로드
11
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
외국적 요소가 개입된 해상운송계약이 체결되는 경우에는 운송물손해와 관련된 모든 법적 분쟁에서 법정지의 선택과 함께 준거법(applicable law, governing law)의 결정이 법률적 쟁점이 된다. 이는 통상 국제사법상 준거법의 결정원칙에 의하여 정해지는데, 해상운송계약에서는 준거법약관 외에 이와 유사한 최고약관이 동시에 설정되는 경우가 많아서 이 두 약관이 충돌하는 경우가 생길 수 있다. 운송인의 입장에서는 국제협약상의 책임제한과 면책의 이익을 향유하기 위하여 국제협약을 우선적용하려는 의도로 최고약관을 삽입하고 약관의 명칭에서 조차 ‘최우선’(paramount)이라는 용어를 사용하고는 있지만, 이는 부합계약에서의 운송인이 일방적으로 삽입한 하나의 약관에 불과한 것으로 단순히 그 명칭에 의하여 우선적 효력을 가진다고 볼 수는 없다. 우리 법상으로는 선하증권 발행 시 국제협약을 수용한 특정국가의 법률을 구체적으로 지정한 경우에만 저촉법적 지정으로 인정할 수 있고, 그 밖의 경우에는 계약의 내용의 일부를 구성하는 실질법적 지정으로 구체적 내용에 따라 계약내용 상호간의 우열을 가려야 할 일반 약관으로 해석하는 것이 타당하다. 최고약관이 헤이그 규칙이나 헤이그-비스비 규칙을 준거법으로 하려는 의도에서 삽입되기 시작한 것이라는 점에서 이미 헤이그-비스비 규칙의 내용을 실질적으로 수용하고 있는 우리 상법의 해석상 대한민국 법을 준거법으로 지정한 이상 최고약관의 삽입이 해당 선하증권의 해석상 실질적인 차이를 가져오기는 어려울 것으로 보인다. 따라서 대한민국 법을 준거법으로 지정한 경우 굳이 최고약관을 삽입할 필요가 있는지는 의문이다.
Abstract
In case of contract of carriage of goods by sea issuing a bill of lading, into which foreign factors are intervened, it should be firstly resolved to decide the venue of lawsuit and the governing law in every and all lawsuit disputes regarding a damage on carried goods. In such a contract, each contracting party is from a different country, and there are many cases in which the execution place and the conclusion place of a contract is different with each other. Since the effect or execution method of a contract can be different according to which law is applied, I think that it is very important to decide on which law should be applied to the contract concerned. This is usually decided by the decision on the governing law, but, in case of contracts of carriage of goods by sea, there are many incidents in which the paramount clauses are established at the same time other than the governing law clauses, and there could be some cases in which these two kinds of clauses conflict with each other. In case that the paramount clauses conflict with the other clauses in Hague Rules, Hague-Visby Rules or Carriage of Good by Sea Act, 1936, USA, it is stipulated that these rules or regulations are given a priority. However, actually, it is inevitable that there could be an interpretation conflict between the paramount clauses and the governing clauses. From the viewpoint of a carrier, in order to enjoy the advantages of the limitation of liability and exemption clauses in the international regulations, the carrier indicates the paramount clauses with an aim to apply the international regulations in priority, and furthermore, the carrier uses the term ‘paramount’ as a nomination for such clauses. However, they are merely solitarily inserted clauses by the carrier in Contract of Adhesion, and we don't think they can have priority effects just for the reason that they have such a nomination. Thus, under the Korean law, I think that the regulatory conflict can be acknowledged only in case that the law of certain country which accepted the international regulations is specifically stipulated on the bill of lading concerned. Then, in other cases, I think that the paramount clauses should be considered to be one of the regular clauses in which the priority among contract contents should be decided according to the specific matter by designating an actual law to be applied as contents into the contract concerned. But, according to U.K. Carriage of Good by Sea Act, 1971, the paramount clauses may have their legal effects, and, only in case that the effects of certain law are acknowledged in certain country, an agreement regarding governing law can be excluded. Except these particular cases, I think that the governing law should be decided according to the regulations in the private international law regarding decision on the governing law and its judgements and the regulations in each country's transportation- related law and its judgements. In conclusion, I think that these matters will result in the question of whether to acknowledge the effects of the clauses based on the governing law and the paramount clauses and in the legal interpretation problem regarding these two kinds of clauses by each country.
참고문헌 (26)
- "最新海運·物流用語大辭典" (2006), 코리아쉬핑가제트
- 金演, "國際私法 제2판" (2006), 法文社
- 朴大衛, "船荷證券" (1979), 法文社
- 박상조, "현대국제사법" (1998), 한울출판사
- 박용섭, "國際複合運送(船荷)證券의 解說" (1992), 螢雪出版社
- 裵正漢, "國際契約에 있어서 準據法決定에 관한 硏究", 貿易商務硏究, 11 (1998)
- 국제거래·상사 소송의 실무, "서울지방법원", 서울지방법원, ~ (1997)
- 石光現, "海上積荷保險契約에 있어 英國法準據約款과 관련한 法的인 問題點", ~ (1993)
- 石光現, "國際私法과 國際訴訟 제1권" (2001), 博英社
- 石光現, "國際私法과 國際訴訟 제2권" (2001), 博英社
- 石光現, "國際私法과 國際訴訟 제4권" (2007), 博英社
- 沈載斗, "海上運送法" (1997), 吉安社
- 安春洙, "凍結條項과 安定化條項", 國際私法硏究, (3) (1998)
- 이호정, "國際私法" (1983), 경문사
- 日本海運集會所, "海上貨物クレ-ム, 2nd ed." (1983), 日本海運集會所
- 정영석, "국제해상운송법 개정판" (2008), 텍스트북스
- 정영석, "선하증권론 제3판" (2008), 텍스트북스
- 정해덕, "국제해상소송·중재" (2007), 코리아쉬핑가제트
- 實質法的指定と抵觸法的指定-至上約款. in: 涉外判例百選 第3版, "高桑昭", ~, pp.別冊ジュリスト No. 38 (1995)
- 西 賢, "當事者自治の原則と比較法的動向. in: 現代契約法大系 第9卷- 國際取引契約(2)" (1983), 有斐閣
- 西澤與志英, "傭船契約と船荷證券の解說" (1999), 海文堂
- 中村眞潧, "傭船契約の法理" (1975), 成文堂
- J.H.C. Moris, "The Conflict of Law, 3rd ed." (1984), Steven & Sons
- John F. Wilson, "Carriage of Goods by Sea, 4th ed." (2001), Pearson Education Ltd
- Norman J. Lopez, "Bes' Chartering and Shipping Terms, 11th ed." (1992), Barker & Howard Ltd.
- Raoul Colinvaux, "Carver's Carriage by Sea, Vol. 1, 12th ed." (1971), Stevens & Sons