본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

海上物件運送人의 責任制限 排除要件에 관한 考察

A Review of Reasons of Exception of the Limitation of Marine Carrier’s Liability under the Maritime Law

정준우
한국상사법학회|2008.11|상사법연구 (KOREAN COMMERCIAL LAW ASSOCIATION)|제27권 제3호|pp. 173-206

0

조회

0

다운로드

9

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

고의계약운송인실제운송인책임제한무모한 행위책임제한 배제사유Actual Carrier개품운송계약Contractual Carrier해상물건운송인Carriage of Individual GoodsWilful MisconductRecklessLimitation of Liability for Maritime ClaimsException of the Limitation of LiabilityCarrier of Goods by Sea
주제분류법학

초록

In the article 797 of the Maritime Law amended 2007, it is provided the limitation of liability for maritime claims and the reasons of exception of the limitation of marine carrier’s liability. This provision is, however, received from the article 4 of the Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims 1976, which is provided that a person shall not be entitled to limit his liability if it is proved that the loss resulted from his personal act or omission committed with the intent to cause such loss, or recklessly and with knowledge that such loss would probably result, and received from the Hague-Visby Rules article 4 paragraphs 5 (e), which is provided that neither the carrier nor the ship shall be entitled to the benefit of limitation of liability if it is proved that the damage resulted from an act or omission of the carrier done with intent to cause damage, or recklessly and with knowledge that damage would probably result. But these articles are received from the article 13 of the Protocol to Amend the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to International Carriage by Air Signed at Warsaw on 12 October 1929, which is provided that the limits of liability specified in article 22 shall not apply if it is proved that the damage resulted from an act or omission of the carrier, his servants or agents, done with intent to cause damage or recklessly and with knowledge that damage would probably result. There is, however, no definition regulations on the meaning of an act or omission of the carrier, done with intent to cause damage or recklessly and with knowledge that damage would probably result and the concept & scope of carrier by sea. Thus the dispute often arise from these issues. In this paper, thus, I have investigated the legal problems of provisions of the Maritime Law and the Conventions with regard to the concept and scope of the carrier by sea and the reasons of exception of limitation of liability, and suggested the measures for improvement on the legal problems of the Maritime Law.

Abstract

In the article 797 of the Maritime Law amended 2007, it is provided the limitation of liability for maritime claims and the reasons of exception of the limitation of marine carrier’s liability. This provision is, however, received from the article 4 of the Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims 1976, which is provided that a person shall not be entitled to limit his liability if it is proved that the loss resulted from his personal act or omission committed with the intent to cause such loss, or recklessly and with knowledge that such loss would probably result, and received from the Hague-Visby Rules article 4 paragraphs 5 (e), which is provided that neither the carrier nor the ship shall be entitled to the benefit of limitation of liability if it is proved that the damage resulted from an act or omission of the carrier done with intent to cause damage, or recklessly and with knowledge that damage would probably result. But these articles are received from the article 13 of the Protocol to Amend the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to International Carriage by Air Signed at Warsaw on 12 October 1929, which is provided that the limits of liability specified in article 22 shall not apply if it is proved that the damage resulted from an act or omission of the carrier, his servants or agents, done with intent to cause damage or recklessly and with knowledge that damage would probably result. There is, however, no definition regulations on the meaning of an act or omission of the carrier, done with intent to cause damage or recklessly and with knowledge that damage would probably result and the concept & scope of carrier by sea. Thus the dispute often arise from these issues. In this paper, thus, I have investigated the legal problems of provisions of the Maritime Law and the Conventions with regard to the concept and scope of the carrier by sea and the reasons of exception of limitation of liability, and suggested the measures for improvement on the legal problems of the Maritime Law.

참고문헌 (48)

  1. 강남호, "?해상법의 법률지식?" (1996), 청림출판
  2. 姜永虎, "海上運送人의 責任制限", 司法論集, 28 (1997), 법원행정처
  3. 金東勳, "改正 海商法上 船主責任制限債權의 喪失事由", 韓國海法學會誌, 15(1) (1993), 韓國海法學會
  4. 金二洙, "船舶所有者의 責任制限”, ?海商·保險法에 관한 諸問題(上)", 裁判資料, 52 (1991), 법원행정처
  5. 金仁顯, "?(第2版)海商法?" (2007), 법문사
  6. 金昌俊, "운송인의 책임제한 배제사유", 韓國海法學會誌, 29(2) (2007), 韓國海法學會
  7. 김효신, "해상기업주체에 대한 책임제한의 조각사유로서 “고의 또는 손해발생의 염려가 있음을 인식하면서 무모하게 행한 작위 또는 부작위”의 의미", 企業法硏究, 10 (2002), 韓國企業法學會
  8. 박용섭, "해상법론" (1998), 형설출판사
  9. 裴炳泰, "船舶所有者 責任制限法의 改正案에 관하여”, ?考試界?", ~ (1989)
  10. 裵炳泰, "註釋 海商法" (1981), 韓國司法行政學會
  11. 徐燉珏, "商法講義(下)" (1996), 법문사
  12. 孫珠璨, "?(第8訂增補版)商法(下)" (2000), 박영사
  13. 宋相現, "海商法原論" (1993), 박영사
  14. 양석완, "해상물건운송에 있어서 실제운송인의 법적 지위", 商事判例硏究, 21(3) (2008)
  15. 李均成, "國際海上運送法硏究" (1981), 삼영사
  16. 李基秀, "?(第5版)保險法·海商法學" (2000), 박영사
  17. 李基秀, "商法學(下)" (1999), 박영사
  18. 李宙興, "海上運送法?" (1992), 박영사
  19. 林東喆, "再運送契約과 船舶所有者의 責任-運送責任의 主體와 관련하여-", 韓國海法學會誌, 15(1) (1993), 韓國海法學會
  20. 林東喆, "海商法·國際運送法 硏究" (1990), 진성사
  21. 傳延中, "海上貨物運送에서 實際運送人의 責任에 관한 硏究", 韓國海法學會誌, 27(2) (2005), 韓國海法學會
  22. 정재영, "해상법상 운송인의 손해배상책임에 관한 연구-중국 해상법상의 개정방향을 중심으로-", 박사, pp.2006
  23. 鄭埈雨, "海上企業主體의 責任制限制度", 漢陽法學, 9 (1998), 漢陽法學會
  24. 鄭埈雨, "國際航空運送에 있어서 被害者의 保護에 관한 硏究-Warsaw 體制下의 旅客運送을 中心으로-", 박사, pp.1995
  25. 鄭燦亨, "?(第10版)商法講義(下)?" (2008), 박영사
  26. 蔡利植, "商法講義(下)" (2003), 박영사
  27. 蔡利植, "商法(Ⅳ)(保險法·海商法)" (2001), 박영사
  28. 蔡利植, "船舶所有者 및 海上運送人(艤裝者)의 槪念", 韓國海法學會誌, 24(1) (2002), 韓國海法學會
  29. 천종호, "船舶賃借人의 法的 地位", 判例硏究, 17 (2006), 釜山判例硏究會
  30. 崔基元, "?(第13版)商法學新論(下)" (2004), 박영사
  31. 최종현, "개정 해상법 하에서의 해상운송인의 지위 - 해상운송인의 손해배상책임제도를 중심으로 -", 한국해법학회지, 30(1), pp.49~83 (2008), 한국해법학회
  32. 崔埈璿, "商法上 重過失과 故意의 同一視問題", 商事法學, (창간) (1994), 商事法硏究會
  33. 崔埈璿, "國際航空運送法論", 삼영사
  34. 洪承仁, "海上企業主體의 責任制限에 관한 硏究", 박사, pp.1991
  35. 국회 법제사법위원회, "상법 일부개정법률안 심사보고서", ~ (2007)
  36. 落合誠一, "運送責任の基礎理論" (1994), 弘文堂
  37. 石井照久, "海商法(法律學全集第30卷)" (1964), 有斐閣
  38. 受川環大, "“國際海上物品運送人責任制限阻却事由”, ?海事法硏究會誌? 第153卷(海事法硏究會", ~ (1999)
  39. 田中誠二, "海商法詳論?" (1985), 勁草書房
  40. 重田晴生, "故意又は認識ある無謀な行爲(intention", recklessly with knowledge)?の法律構成”, ?現代企業·金融法の課題(上)?(信山社, 2000
  41. 重田晴生, "海商法" (1994), 靑林書院
  42. 坂本昭雄, "國際航空運送法論" (1992), 有信堂
  43. Marsden, "Collison at Sea(12ed)", ~ (1998)
  44. Patrick Griggs et. al., "Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims(4th ed.)" (2005), LLP
  45. R. C. Seward, "The Insurance View Point" (1986), London Sweet & Maxwell
  46. Temperley, "The Merchant Shipping Acts(British Shipping Laws Series Vol. Ⅱ), 6 ed", Waldo Porges and Michael Thomas
  47. William Tetley, "Marine Cargo Claims, 2nd ed." (1978), Toronto, Butterworths
  48. Wilson, "Carriage of Goods by Ses(3rd ed)", ~ (1998)

관련 논문AI추천

개정상법상 해상물건운송인의 손해배상책임에 관한 고찰김재두한국경영법률학회 · 경영법률2011 · 제21권 제3호운송인의 책임제한 배제사유김창준한국해법학회 · 한국해법학회지2007 · 제29권 제2호A Study on the Carrier’s Duty to Exercise the Due Diligence in terms of Seaworthiness under the Korean Law김찬영한국해법학회 · 한국해법학회지2017 · 제39권 제1호선하증권에 관한 운송인의 책임제한 배제사유양석완한국사법학회 · 비교사법2009 · 제16권 제2호해상운송인의 책임제한 배제사유에 관한 고찰김선옥, 최영봉한국해운물류학회 · 해운물류연구2006 · 제49권 海上旅客運送人의 責任制限에 관한 試論孫珠瓚한국해법학회 · 한국해법학회지2004 · 제26권 제1호

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (8건)

명의차용자의 불법행위와 상법 제24조의 적용 문제 － 명의대여자의 사용자책임을 포함하여－한기정pp. 9-37영국의 회사법제상 이사의 의무 및 입법적 효용성오성근pp. 39-88골프 회원증의 유가증권성 ― 일본의 판례 및 이론을 중심으로 ―이성웅pp. 89-135간접보유증권의 선의취득에 관한 연구 ― UNIDROIT 간접보유증권협약안을 중심으로 ―정경영pp. 137-172프로젝트 파이낸스(Project Finance)의 理論的 存立根據와 金融構造에 대한 法的 考察진홍기pp. 207-263
원문 보기