선박압류/가압류에 대한 비교법적 연구

Abstract

The vessel is very important means for the shipowner. At the same time, it is very important means for the claimant to secure its claim against the shipowner. If the vessel is easily arrested, the shipowner’s efficient operation of the vessel is disrupted. On the other hand, the vessel is not arrested easily, the claimant’s securing its claims is hampered. Therefore, to maintain the balanced ship arrest scheme between the shipowner and the claimant becomes very important. The claimant is allowed to arrest the vessel only if the claim is related to the maritime matters under the UK law. However, the claimant can arrest the relevant vessel regardless of the ownership of the vessel. In the meantime, the Korean claimant is allowed to arrest the vessel with any claims. But, it is not allowed the vessel if the vessel is not owned by the debtor. Arrest Conventions takes the middle of the two extremes. They allows the claimant to arrest the vessel only with the maritime claims. However, it expands the scope of the vessel to be arrested to the bareboat charterer from the owner. Under the convention, even though the vessel is operated by the bareboat charterer as the debtor, the vessel is subject to arrest based on the claim incurred by the bareboat charterer, which is not allowed under the Korean law. The author argues that the Korean arrest law should be adjusted in accordance with the international conventions on ship arrests.