상법상 이행보조자로서 선박사용인의 법적 지위
Study on the Legal Status of Ship’s Servant Employed by the Carrier as an Assistant
0
조회
0
다운로드
1
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Both the article 794, 795 of the Korean Commercial Law and the article 391 of the Civil Law hold the carrier (debtor) responsible for the negligence of ship’s servant employed by the carrier which is considered the negligence of the carrier him/herself. These issues arising from application of the maritime law are based on the concept of ship’s servant employed by the carrier and the independent contractor. Article 794, 795 of the Korean Commercial Law implies the term ‘ship’s servant employed by the carrier’ as a person who performs or undertakes to perform any of the carrier’s responsibilities under a contract of carriage and acts directly, under the carrier’s supervision or control. This notion is narrower than ‘servant’ or ‘agent’ used in article 798 of the Korean Commercial Law in the sense that it excludes not only the sub-carrier who performs the actual carriage but also other persons involved in the performance of the carriage such as stevedores or terminal operators. On the other hand, Korean Commercial Code’ treatment of carrier’s obligations begins by making explicit what the Hague-Visby Rules leaves implicit. Article 795(1) declares, in essence, that the carrier must perform the core obligations under its contract. It employs what has often been described as a ‘reversed burden of proof’, meaning that carrier (typically the defendant) must disprove its fault in order to escape liability (once the claimant has established a prima facie case). This differs from the allocation commonly employed in many jurisdictions to determine fault-based liability under which the plaintiff must prove the defendant’s fault as part of its affirmative case in order to recover. In effect, such a burden-shifting scheme means not exceptional but illustrative regulation of Article 390 under the Korean Civil Code.
Abstract
Both the article 794, 795 of the Korean Commercial Law and the article 391 of the Civil Law hold the carrier (debtor) responsible for the negligence of ship’s servant employed by the carrier which is considered the negligence of the carrier him/herself. These issues arising from application of the maritime law are based on the concept of ship’s servant employed by the carrier and the independent contractor. Article 794, 795 of the Korean Commercial Law implies the term ‘ship’s servant employed by the carrier’ as a person who performs or undertakes to perform any of the carrier’s responsibilities under a contract of carriage and acts directly, under the carrier’s supervision or control. This notion is narrower than ‘servant’ or ‘agent’ used in article 798 of the Korean Commercial Law in the sense that it excludes not only the sub-carrier who performs the actual carriage but also other persons involved in the performance of the carriage such as stevedores or terminal operators. On the other hand, Korean Commercial Code’ treatment of carrier’s obligations begins by making explicit what the Hague-Visby Rules leaves implicit. Article 795(1) declares, in essence, that the carrier must perform the core obligations under its contract. It employs what has often been described as a ‘reversed burden of proof’, meaning that carrier (typically the defendant) must disprove its fault in order to escape liability (once the claimant has established a prima facie case). This differs from the allocation commonly employed in many jurisdictions to determine fault-based liability under which the plaintiff must prove the defendant’s fault as part of its affirmative case in order to recover. In effect, such a burden-shifting scheme means not exceptional but illustrative regulation of Article 390 under the Korean Civil Code.
참고문헌 (49)
- 곽윤직, "민법주해(Ⅸ), 채권(2)" (2002), 박영사
- 손주찬, (2006), 한국사법행정학회
- 이은영, "채권총론" (2009), 박영사
- 정찬형, "상법강의(상) 및 상법강의(하)" (2014), 박영사
- 최종현, "해상법상론" (2009), 박영사
- "상법개정특별분과위원회 회의록(Ⅱ", 법무부, ~ (1990)
- 권기훈, "이행보조자의 과실에 대한 운송인의 불감항책임", 해사법연구, 20(1), pp.87~110 (2008), 한국해사법학회
- 권기훈, "해상운송물 손해에 관한 감항능력 입증책임", 법과정책연구, 7(2), pp.461~484 (2007), 한국법정책학회
- 김선옥, "해상물건운송계약에 있어서 제3자의 권리에 관한 고찰: 최근영미판례를 중심으로", 무역학회지, 29(6), pp.211~232 (2004), 한국무역학회
- 김선옥, "항해과실과 상업과실에 대한 해상운송인의 법적 책임", 한국해운학회지, (27) (1998), 한국해운학회
- 김영주, "히말라야 約款의 效力에 관한 比較法的 考察", 성균관법학, 19(3), pp.325~362 (2007), 법학연구소
- 서광민, "채무불이행에 있어서의 귀책사유", 저스티스, 30(3) (1997), 한국법학원
- 양석원, "해상물건운송에 있어서 실제운송인의 법적 지위", 상사판례연구, 21(3), pp.165~201 (2008), 한국상사판례학회
- 양창수, "이행보조자의 의미와 구분에 관한 약간의 문제", 민법연구, 4 (1997), 박영사
- 이광후, "화주의 운송인 등에 대한 배상청구- 대법원 2007.4.27. 선고, 2007다4943 판결과 관련하여 -", 인권과 정의, (377), pp.216~231 (2008), 대한변호사협회
- 이균성, "해상운송인의 감항능력주의의무", 한국해법회지, 2(1) (1980), 한국해법회
- 이정원, "히말라야약관(Himalaya clause)과 상법 제799조의 관계", 법학연구, 51(4), pp.563~594 (2010), 법학연구소
- 이주흥, "해상물건운송인의 감항능력주의의무", 사법논집, 11 (1980), 법원행정처
- 정영석, "항만하역사업자의 책임", 상사판례연구, 15 (2004)
- 지상규, "독립계약자에 대한 히말라야 약관적용 문제 및 특별규정안의 제안", 법학연구, (52), pp.363~382 (2013), 한국법학회
- 최성경, "이행보조자에 관한 연구", 박사, 법학, pp.2004
- 최세련, "상법 제798조 제2항의 해석 및 적용에 대한 검토", 해상·보험법연구, 5(1) (2009)
- "한국해법학회지", 2005, 267~294, pp.한국해법학회
- 韓雄吉, "履行 補助者 責任과 使用者 責任에 관한 연구", 박사, pp.1990
- 中村眞澄, "海商法" (2011), 成文堂
- 戶田修三, "註解 國際海上物品運送法" (1997), 靑林書院
- 落合誠一, "運送責任の基礎理論" (1994), 弘文堂
- 田中誠二, "海商法詳論" (1985), 千倉書房
- 平井宜雄, "債權總論" (1985), 弘文堂
- 小町谷操三, "統一船荷證券法論" (1983), 千倉書房
- 我妻榮, "民法硏究Ⅴ, 債權總論" (1968), 有斐閣
- 星野英一, "民法講座 第4卷(債權總論)" (1985), 有斐閣
- 落合誠一, "補助者の行爲による運送人の責任", 法學協會雜誌, 95(1) (1977)
- 我妻榮, "履行補助者の過失に因る債務者の責任", 法學協會雜誌, 55(7) (1962)
- Chorley, Lord, "Shipping Law" (1970), Sir Isaac Pitman
- Medicus, Dieter, "Schuldrecht Ⅰ" (1994), C. H. Beck'sche Verlagsbuchhandlung
- Richardson, J., "A Guide to the Hague and Hague Visby Rules" (1984), Lloyd’s of London Press Ltd
- Schmitthoff, Clive M., "Export Trade" (1990), Stevens & Sons
- Sturley, Michael F., "The Rotterdam Rules -The UN Convention on Contracts for the International Carriage of Goods Wholly or Partly by Sea" (2010), Sweet & Maxwell
- Tetley, William, "Marine Cargo Claims" (1988), Blais
- Todd, Paul, "Bills of Lading and Bankers’ Documentary Credits" (1993), Lloyd’s of London Press Ltd
- Treitel, G. H., "Caver on Bills of Lading" (2005), Sweet & Maxwell
- Von Ziegler, Alexander, "The Rotterdam Rules 2008-Commentary to the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Carriage of Goods Wholly or Partly by Sea" (2010), Kluwer Law International
- Wilson John F., "Carriage of Goods by Sea", pp.2008, Pearson
- Mankabady, "Samir, Comments on the Hamburg Rules", in the Hamburg Rules on the Carriage of Goods by Sea (1978)
- Sturley, M. F., "Modernizing and Reforming U. S. Maritime Law : The Rotterdam Rules in the United States", Texas International Law Journal, Spring (2009)
- Sturley, Michael F., "An Overview of the Consideration Involved in Handling the Cargo Case", Tulane Maritime Law Journal, 21 (1997)
- Tetley, William, "The Proposed New United States Senate COGSA : The Disintegration of Uniform International Carriage of Goods by Sea Law", Journal of Maritime Law & Commerce, 30(4) (1999)
- Von Ziegler, Alexander, "The Liability of the Contracting Carrier", Texas International Journal, 44 (2009)