유류오염손해에 관한 보상제도 및 보상절차의 개선방향- 허베이 스피리트호 유류오염사고의 시사점을 중심으로 -

Abstract

Almost all claims for compensation for pollution damage caused by the Hebei Spirit incident have been established and paid at this point after 10 years from the occurrence of the incident. It is necessary at this stage that we should review from the aspect of adequate and prompt compensation the compensation regime and the problems unfolded during the whole process of submission and assessment of claims and the court’s proceedings so that we can find ways of improving the system of compensation for pollution damage. At the moment the incident occurred, South Korea as a Contracting State of the 1992 Civil Liability Convention and the 1992 Fund Convention based its compensation regime on the two Conventions such that under the 1992 Fund Convention additional compensation would be made available by the 1992 Fund when claimants did not obtain full compensation under the 1992 Civil Liability Convention. However, as it was estimated that the total amount of the claims arising from the incident would exceed the amount of compensation available under the Conventions Korean Government enacted the Special Law for Support of the Affected Inhabitants and Restoration of the Marine Environment in Respect of the Hebei Spirit Incident enabling the Korean Government to provide additional compensation for pollution damages exceeding the total amount of compensation available under the 1992 Fund Convention with a view to ensuring that full compensation would be available to victims of the incident. In 2010 after the occurrence of the Hebei Spirit incident, Korea ratified the Supplementary Fund Protocol thereby ensuring full compensation for pollution damage caused by a major incident. Meanwhile, Skuld P&I Club and the IOPC Fund jointly set up a local claims office, the Hebei Spirit Center, so that claimants could submit their claims to that local claims office and receive the result of assessment of their claims from that office. However, the assessment and payment of claims were somewhat delayed since the Hebei Spirit Center did not have the authority to make decisions on whether or not claims qualify for compensation. Korean Government made a Cooperation Agreement with Skuld P&I Club, in accordance which Skuld P&I Club paid compensation for the full amount of the claims which the IOPC Fund approved as admissible, provided that the aggregate amount paid by the Club shall not exceed a maximum amount being the limitation fundplus interest thereon at 6% per annum which would otherwise be required to deposit with the limitation court. This interim payment by the sum to be otherwise deposited with the limitation court contributed to a prompt payment of compensation for pollution damage suffered by the victims. Both Korean Government’s payment of compensation in subrogation and its declaration of undertaking to ‘stand last in the que’ for the claims of governmental costs have also made a prompt compensation possible. Most of the claims were to be resolved by judgments in the courts, but such resolution of claims through the proceedings in the courts have been delayed due to lack of sufficient evidence presented before the court in support of the claims. The procedure for preservation of evidence was sought by only a small number of claimants. Further, the courts had to make decisions on the admissibility and quantum of claims without a court-appointed surveyor or expert witnesses.These caused a delay in the court resolving the claims in a shorter period of time than actually taken. In a major incident similar to the Hebei Spirit incident, the court shall, from the outset of the proceedings, appoint its own surveyors to assess the claims in a prompter manner. Lastly, we can consider establishing a national fund available for a prompt payment by which advance payment of compensation for pollution damage can be made to the claimants and the national fund can subrogate the claimants’ claims payable by a P&I Club and the IOPC Fund.