해상운송에서의 제척기간에 대한 검토
A Study on the Time for Suit on a Carriage of Goods by Sea
0
조회
0
다운로드
8
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Article 814 of Korean Commercial Code (“KCC”) provided one-year time for suit provision. The purpose of time for suit provision is to speed up the settlement of claims and to release the carrier from the unstable position for a long period of time. For these reasons, international conventions and national laws introduce the time for suit provision into its legal systems,which means that if the fixed time for suit expires, the claimant is no longer able to bring suit against the carrier. Hague Rules, Hague-Visby Rules and KCC adopted the prescription period. Therefore, failure to take suit within time for suit provision results in the loss of the right to claim and therefore, the carrier is completely discharged from the liability. On the other hand, Hamburg Rules and UK Limitation Act adopted the limitation period, in which the carrier is still liable for the claim and thus the claimant is entitled to set-off the claim which is time-barred against the other raised by the carrier. Rotterdam Rules adopted the limitation period. Time for suit provision of KCC is similar to Hague-Visby Rules, for example, the nature of the time for suit (i.e, prescription period), one-year time bar and indemnity suit provision against a third party who is ultimately liable for the claims. Since there are some differences between KCC and Rotterdam Rules, we should have to consider closely time for suit provision of Rotterdam Rules. Further, under the KCC, it is also needed to study whether or not one-year time bar provision is reasonable, mis-delivery claims should be governed by the one-year time bar, the 9 months time bar provision in the FIATA B/L is valid. This article deals with the above several issues regarding time for suit provision of Rotterdam Rules and KCC.
Abstract
Article 814 of Korean Commercial Code (“KCC”) provided one-year time for suit provision. The purpose of time for suit provision is to speed up the settlement of claims and to release the carrier from the unstable position for a long period of time. For these reasons, international conventions and national laws introduce the time for suit provision into its legal systems,which means that if the fixed time for suit expires, the claimant is no longer able to bring suit against the carrier. Hague Rules, Hague-Visby Rules and KCC adopted the prescription period. Therefore, failure to take suit within time for suit provision results in the loss of the right to claim and therefore, the carrier is completely discharged from the liability. On the other hand, Hamburg Rules and UK Limitation Act adopted the limitation period, in which the carrier is still liable for the claim and thus the claimant is entitled to set-off the claim which is time-barred against the other raised by the carrier. Rotterdam Rules adopted the limitation period. Time for suit provision of KCC is similar to Hague-Visby Rules, for example, the nature of the time for suit (i.e, prescription period), one-year time bar and indemnity suit provision against a third party who is ultimately liable for the claims. Since there are some differences between KCC and Rotterdam Rules, we should have to consider closely time for suit provision of Rotterdam Rules. Further, under the KCC, it is also needed to study whether or not one-year time bar provision is reasonable, mis-delivery claims should be governed by the one-year time bar, the 9 months time bar provision in the FIATA B/L is valid. This article deals with the above several issues regarding time for suit provision of Rotterdam Rules and KCC.
참고문헌 (66)
- 곽윤직, "민법총칙, (제7판)" (2002), 박영사
- 곽윤직, "채권총론, (제6판)" (2007), 박영사
- 곽윤직, "민법주해, Ⅲ권 총칙(3)" (2000), 박영사
- 김인현, "해상법, (제2판)" (2007), 법문사
- 김인현, "해상법연구Ⅱ" (2008), 삼우사
- 김정호, "상법강의(하), (제2판)" (2005), 법문사
- 서울지방법원, "국제거래·상사 소송의 실무", ~ (1997)
- 서희원, "영미법강의, (개정판)" (1992), 박영사
- 석광현, "국제물품매매계약의 법리" (2010), 박영사
- 손주찬, "주석 상법, 총칙·상행위(2)" (2003), 한국사법행정학회
- 송상현, "해상법원론, (제4판)" (2008), 박영사
- 심재두, "해상운송법" (1997), 길안사
- 유기준, "해상보험 판례연구" (2002), 두남
- 이균성, "신해상법 대계" (2010), 한국해양수산개발원
- 이시윤, "신민사소송법" (2003), 박영사
- 이영준, "민법총칙, (개정증보판)" (2007), 박영사
- 이주흥, "해상운송법" (1992), 박영사
- 임동철, "해상법·국제운송법연구" (1996), 효성출판사
- 정영석, "국제해상운송법, (개정판)" (2008), 범한서적주식회사
- 정찬형, "상법강의(상), (제13판)" (2010), 박영사
- 정찬형, "상법강의(하), (제12판)" (2010), 박영사
- 채이식, "상법강의(하), (개정판)" (2003), 박영사
- 최종현, "해상법상론" (2009), 박영사
- 최준선, "보험법·해상법, (제3판)" (2008), 삼영사
- 한국해양수산개발원, "로테르담 규칙(Rotterdam Rules) 제정과 발효, 협약의 주요내용 해설, 우리나라 대책" (2009), 한국선주협회
- Alexander von Ziegler, "The Rotterdam Rules 2008" (2010), Wolters Kluwer
- Institute of Maritime Law, "Southhampton on Shipping Law" (2008), Informa
- John F Wilson, "Carriage of Goods by Sea, 4th ed." (2001), Pearson Longman
- William Tetley, "Marine Cargo Claims, 4th edition" (2008), Thomson
- Yvonne Baatz, "The Rotterdam Rules : A Practical Annotation" (2009), Informa
- 落合誠一, "運送法の課題と展開" (1994), 弘文堂
- 김인현, "2007년 改正 商法 海商篇의 개정 내용과 의의", 한국해법학회지, 31(1), pp.99~156 (2009), 한국해법학회
- 김인현, "복합운송증권상 9개월 제소기간 및 지상약관의 효력 (대법원 2009.8.20. 선고 2008다58978 판결)", 인권과 정의, (405), pp.102~131 (2010), 대한변호사협회
- 김인현, "2010년 법무부 복합운송법 제정안의 성립 경위와 중요 내용", 상법(복합운송규정) 개정 공청회 자료 (2010), 법무부
- 김인현, "2009년도 해상법 등 중요 판례 평석", 한국해법학회지, 32(2), pp.351~391 (2010), 한국해법학회
- 김현태, "大陸法과 英美法의 우리 民法에의 交錯", 연세논총, 10 (1973), 연세대학교 대학원
- 목진용, "각국의 해상법상 제소기간에 관한 비교고찰", 해운산업연구, (121) (1994)
- 박성호, "상법 제811조 제척기간 적용에 관한 비판", 부산법조논집, (3) (2008), 부산지방변호사회
- 송덕수, "時效 및 除斥期間 관련 개정논의 예상 主要論點과 立法例", 민사법학, (46), pp.51~116 (2009), 한국민사법학회
- 이홍렬, "除斥期間에 관한 小考", 성균관법학, 19(3), pp.627~670 (2007), 법학연구소
- 정영석, "運送人에 대한 請求權의 존속 및 소멸기간에 관한 고찰", 한국해법학회지, 30(2), pp.125~152 (2008), 한국해법학회
- 조희대, "해상운송인의 책임은 어느 때 소멸하는가, 대법원판례해설, 1997년 하반기(29호), 법원도서관", ~ (1998)
- 조희대, "상법 제811조의 해석(雲坡朴駿緖先生華甲紀念)", 민사재판의 제문제, 10 (2000), 민사실무연구회
- 최세련, "해상운송계약에서의 약관규제법의 적용", 한국해법학회지, 31(1), pp.71~98 (2009), 한국해법학회
- 최세련, "상법상 육상운송인의 책임제도와 그 개선방안 - 해상운송인의 책임제도와의 비교를 중심으로 -", 한국해법학회지, 31(2), pp.145~175 (2009), 한국해법학회
- 최종현, "상법 제811조(단기제소기간)의 적용범위", 상사판례연구, 4 (2000)
- 최종현, "개정 해상법 하에서의 해상운송인의 지위 - 해상운송인의 손해배상책임제도를 중심으로 -", 한국해법학회지, 30(1), pp.49~83 (2008), 한국해법학회
- 최종현, "몬트리얼 협약상 항공화물운송인의 책임 - 해상운송 및 도로운송 조약과의 비교법적 고찰", 국제거래법연구, 17(2), pp.173~202 (2008), 국제거래법학회
- 최종현, "한국 해상법의 발전 방향", 한국해법학회지, 31(1), pp.7~56 (2009), 한국해법학회
- 스기우라 야스토모, "｢国連国際物品売買に関する時効条約｣に加入すべきか", 법학연구, 51(1), pp.311~356 (2010), 법학연구소
- 법무부, "유엔 국제상거래법위원회 자료집(II)", 법무자료, 101 (1988)
- 법무부, , 상법개정특별분과위원회 회의록(보험·해상편), Ⅱ권 (1990)
- 상법 일부개정법률안(정부 제출) 검토보고서, "국회 법제사법위원회", ~ (2006)
- 김인현, "제18차 유엔 운시트랄 운송법회의 보고서", 한국해법학회지, 29(1) (2007)
- 김인현, , 개정 해상법 설명회 자료집 (2007), 한국선주협회
- 김인현, "제20차 운시트랄 운송법회의 보고서", 한국해법학회지, 30(1) (2008)
- "Yearbook of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law, (II)", ~ (1971)
- "Yearbook of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law, (III)", ~ (1972)
- "Yearbook of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law, (IV)", ~ (1973)
- "Yearbook of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law, (X)", ~ (1979)
- "A", CN.9, pp.2006, ~
- A, "CN.9", 616 (Report of Working Group III (transport law) on the work of its eighteenth session), pp.2006, ~