해양유류오염사고피해에 대한 손해배상의 법적 문제 - 허베이 스피리트호 기름유출사고를 중심으로 -

Abstract

ⅰ) In December 7. 2007, off the coast of Taean Korea, a crane barge of Samsung Heavy Industries Co., a nation’s heavy equipment manufacturer, has collided with a Hong Kong-registered oil tanker ‘Hebei Spirit’ and an enormous quantity of oil spilled over. About 300 kilometers of the seashore, including the coast of Taean, have been polluted and about forty thousand families have been damaged economically. According to ‘Hebei Spirit Oil Spill Report’ of IOPC(International Oil Pollution Compensation Fund), damage is estimated at 352-billion to 425-billion won. On the other hand, given the fact that victims maintain that damage counts up to trillions of won, there may be a keen controversy on the question of who will pay compensation over IOPC’s maximum compensation, 303-billion won. ⅱ) Hereupon, the legal responsibilities of the owner of Hebei Spirit and Samsung Heavy Industries Co. were reviewed in this study. With regard to the owner of Hebei Spirit, ‘non-fault responsibility’ should be applied on conformity with ‘Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage Act’ and the amount of compensation is detailedly stipulated in the law. However, the problem is that the legal responsibility of Samsung Heavy Industries Co. is not simple. There is a strong possibility that the company will refer to ‘limited liability’ in accordance with Article 746 of ‘Commercial Act.’ ⅲ) As at least ten thousand tons of oil spilled due to allision and the sea was polluted, victims are able to put in a claim for ‘obstacle removal’ or ‘obstacle prevention’ against those who caused oil spill. Since spilled oil was mostly removed by the government, victims and devoted volunteers, such expenses can be included in compensation on conformity with Article 746 of Commercial Act and Article 2 of Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage Act. Moreover, in respect to residual oil, victims can put in a claim for obstacle removal or obstacle prevention. In case that those who caused oil spill personally remove oil due to such claims, their acts may not be included in limited liability on the commercial law. ⅳ) In exercising the claim for damages, the causal relation between the harmful act and damage should be legally proved. The national court is expected to be of advantage to victims as it bases itself on probability. Specifically, the causal relationship between oil spill and damage is expected to be satisfactorily proved by probability. The problem is that compensation is difficult to be subtended. In other words, this is left the question of whether damages caused by mental anguish, unlicensed fishing, layoff, the price decrease of aquatic products, and the decrease of tourists can be compensated for. In such a case, victims should prove what they have been damaged. In order to do so, victims should collect supporting evidences and should preserve such evidences scrupulously.