해사채권 가압류 제한에 관한 소고 - 미국 연방민사소송규칙 보칙 중 해사규칙 B 가압류 사건을 중심으로 -
A Brief Review on the Restriction of Maritime Attachment: Focusing on the U.S. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Supplemental Admiralty Rule B
0
조회
0
다운로드
3
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
갈수록 해운산업이 확대되고 국제화 되고 있는 현실에서 우리의 의지와는 상관없이 우리 해상기업들이 외국 사법관할권의 법적 판단에 기속될 수밖에 없는 상황이 펼쳐지고 있다. 특히 영미법제가 해운관련 국제사법관할권의 중요한 준거법으로 통용되는 현실을 감안할 때 이들 국가의 법제를 정확히 이해하는 것이야말로 우리나라 기업의 보호와 국가이익에도 도움이 된다 할 것이다. 이런 연유에서 본고는 미국연방민사소송규칙의 보칙인 해사규칙 B에 의한 해사채권가압류 제도의 여러 법적 쟁점을 개관하였다. 미국은 연방헌법에 의하여 해사법원이 연방법원 차원에서 별도로 존재하고 있고 각 개별사건에 적용되는 법리도 우리 법제와 여러 면에서 차이가 있다. 우리나라는 채권자가 가지는 채권의 종류를 불문하고 채권자는 채무자의 재산을 가압류할 수 있는데 미국법원은 채권자의 권리가 오로지 해사채권으로 인정되어야 해사법원에 관할권이 생긴다. 이런 점을 고려하여 본고에서는 해사채권의 개념을 자세히 설명하였다. 이어서 본고는 가압류 대상 재산으로서 논란이 되고 있는 전자자금 이체과정 중 중개은행의 수중에 있는 자금을 가압류할 수 있는지를 살펴보고, 원고가 가압류를 해야만 하는 이유 즉, 보전의 필요성에 대하여 연방법원에서 진행된 개별사건의 변천과정을 살펴보았다. 마지막으로 본고는 실제 사례연구를 통하여 실무대응 능력을 배양하고자 하였다. 해사규칙 B 가압류에는 소송실무상 어떤 쟁점이 있는지 사실관계의 분석을 통하여 해결하고자 하였다.
Abstract
This article explores the maritime attachment system regulated by the U.S. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Supplemental Admiralty Rule B. It would be impossible to cover all issues regarding maritime attachment in one article, but in this piece I highlight some of the more “controversial” elements such as jurisdiction, subjects, and requirement of attachments. Especially, the discussion includes “need” and “unfair” relating to when a Rule B attachment may be had. Furthermore, I study one case recently filed at the U.S. Federal Court and then discuss some of the impacts on the practice that the order has already had. Admiralty Rule B, with its supplemental counterparts, has proved to be a dynamic remedy, whose utility only appears to be growing. To say that the law of Rule B maritime attachments has been a moving target would be a bit of an understatement. Some aspects of the Rule, such as the attachment of electronic fund transfers, remain controversial, but based upon the recent court decision, the message seems clear, at least to the federal district courts in New York, that the plain text of the Rules should be strictly adhered to. The Rule continues to stand the test of time and remains a popular weapon in a maritime litigant’s arsenal. For the Korean maritime enterprise the two implications may be suggested concerning how to avoid Rule B attachments: first, register with Secretary of State of New York, Division of Corporations, and second, appoint agent for service of process “within the federal District” (i.e., within NYC). Where a defendant is not personally served and does not personally appear in the lawsuit, he will typically enter a restricted appearance limited to protecting the attached asset from the claim. In these circumstances, the judgment rendered is limited to the value of the property attached. There is some authority that a Rule B attachment cannot be used where the sole purpose is to obtain security. Other cases state that a plaintiff’s motive for attachment is irrelevant, and as long as the required elements have been met, the attachment should be maintained. Further, once a defendant’s property has been attached, he cannot defeat the process by consenting to accept service of process or by appointing an agent to accept service after the fact. This article will provide the possible grounds to vacate Rule B attachments as follows. As a practical matter, it is very difficult, if not impossible, to vacate a Rule B attachment if a maritime claim has been properly asserted by a plaintiff. Nevertheless, in limited circumstances, a Court may vacate an attachment where a defendant sufficiently demonstrates: (i) The defendant is subject to suit in a convenient adjacent jurisdiction; (ii) The plaintiff can obtain in personam jurisdiction over the defendant in the district where the plaintiff is located; and (iii) The plaintiff has already obtained sufficient security for the potential judgment.
참고문헌 (41)
- 법무부, "미국의 사법제도", 법무자료, 239, pp.33~ (2001)
- 윤배경, "해사채권에 기초한 미국 'Rule B 집행'에 대하여", 해양한국 (2009)
- 윤배경, "EFT(전자자금이체)에 대한 'Rule B' 압류금지 미(美)판례 동향", 해양한국 (2009)
- Lawrence Rutkowski, "Rule B and its Impact on the Transnational World", Benedict's Maritime Bulletin, 7, pp.10~ (2009)
- , 2005
- "Allied Maritime, Inc. v. The Rice Corp., 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20353 (S.D.N.Y. 2004)", ~ (2004)
- "Aqua Stoli Shipping Ltd. v. Gardner Smith Pty Ltd., 460 F.3d 434, 2006 A.M.C. 1872 (2nd Cir.(N.Y.) Jul. 31, 2006) (NO. 05-5385-CV) 409 F.Supp.2d 316, 2006 A.M.C. 82", ~ (2006)
- "Atkins v. Fibre Disintegrating Co., 85 U.S. (18 Wall.) 272 (1873)", ~ (1873)
- "Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Interstate Oil Transp. Co., 784 F.2d 106 (2d Cir. 1986)", ~ (1986)
- "Aurora Maritime Co. v. Abdullah Mohamed Fahem & Co., 85 F.3d 44 (2d Cir. 1996)", ~ (1996)
- "Blake Maritime, Inc. v. Petrom S.A., No. 05 Civ. 8033 (PAC), 2005 WL 2875335 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 31, 2005)", ~ (2005)
- "Both Integrated and Central Hudson Gas and Elec. Corp. v. Empresa Naviera Santa, S.A., 845 F.Supp. 150, 153 (S.D.N.Y. 1994)", ~ (1994)
- "Daeshin Shipping Co. Ltd. v. Meridian Bulk Carriers, Ltd., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22409 (S.D.N.Y. 2005)", ~ (2005)
- "Eitzen Sealift A", S v. Cementos Andinos Dominicanos, SA, No. 05 Civ. 4550, 2005 WL 2218025, (S.D.N.Y. Sep. 9, 2005), 2005
- "Evergreen Marine Corp. (Taiwan) Ltd. v. Global Terminal & Container Servs., No. 99 Civ. 10544, 2000 WL 1683449, (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 9, 2000)", ~ (2000)
- "Green v. United States, 260 F.3d 78 (2d Cir. 2001)", ~ (2001)
- "Greenwich Marine, Inc. v. S.S. Alexandra, 339 F.2d 901 (2d Cir. 1965)", ~ (1965)
- "HBC Hamburg Bulk Carriers, BmbH & Co. KG v. Proteinasy Oleicos S.A. de C.V., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8009 (S.D.N.Y. 2005)", ~ (2005)
- "Hibiscus Shipping, Ltd. v. Novel Commodities S.A., No. 04 Civ. 2344 (S.D.N.Y. July 8, 2004)", ~ (2004)
- "Integrated Container Services, Inc. v. Starlines Container Shipping Ltd., 476 F.Supp. 119 (S.D.N.Y. 1979)", ~ (1979)
- "Jamie Shipping, Inc. v. Oman Insurance Company, No. 08 Civ. 6882, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6775 (S.D.N.Y. Sep. 8, 2008)", ~ (2008)
- "Kalafrana Shipping, Ltd. v. Sea Gull Shipping Co. Ltd., No. 08 Civ. 5299, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78247 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 2, 2008)", ~ (2008)
- "Manro v. Almeida, 23 U.S. (10 Wheat.) 473 (1825)", ~ (1825)
- "Parkroad Corp. v. China Worldwide Shipping Co., Ltd., 2005 WL 135034 (S.D.N.Y. 2005)", ~ (2005)
- "Patricia Hayes Assoc. v. Cammell Laird Holdings U.K., 339 F.3d 76 (2d Cir. 2003)", ~ (2003)
- "Rolls Royce Industrial Power (India) v. M.V. FRATZIS M, 1996 A.M.C. 390 (S.D.N.Y. 1995)", ~ (1995)
- "Royal Swan Nav. Co. Ltd. v. Global Container Lines, Ltd., 868 F.Supp. 599 (S.D.N.Y. 1994)", ~ (1994)
- "Salazar v. The ATLANTIC SUN, 881 F.2d 73 (3d Cir. 1989)", ~ (1989)
- "SeaPlus Line Co. LTD v. Bulkhandling Handymax AS, 05 CV 4813 (JGK) (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 13, 2005)", ~ (2005)
- "Seaplus Line Co. Ltd. v. Bulkhandling Handymax AS 409 F.Supp.2d 316 (S.D.N.Y.,2005. Dec. 13, 2005)", ~ (2005)
- "Seatrans Shipping Corp. v. Interamericas Marine Transp., Ltd., No. 97 Civ. 2329, 1997 WL 214939 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 29, 1997)", ~ (1997)
- "Shipping Corp. of India, Ltd. v. Jaldhi Overseas Pte Ltd., No. 08 Civ. 4328, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49209 (S.D.N.Y. Jun. 27, 2008)", ~ (2008)
- "Staronset Shipping Ltd. v. North Star Nav. Inc., 659 F.Supp. 189 (S.D.N.Y. 1987)", ~ (1987)
- "Swift & Co. Packers v. Compania Colombiana Del Caribe, S.A., 339 U.S. 684 (1950)", ~ (1950)
- "T&O Shipping, Ltd. v. Lydia Mar Shipping Co., 415 F.Supp.2d 310 (S.D.N.Y. 2006)", ~ (2006)
- "Transfield ER Cape Ltd. v. Industrial Carriers, Inc. 2009 WL 1940859 C.A.2 (N.Y.), (Jul. 8, 2009)", ~ (2009)
- "U.S. Nat’l Bank of Or. v. Indep. Ins. Agents of Am., 508 U.S. 439 (1993)", ~ (1993)
- "Wajilam Exps. (Sing.) Pte. Ltd. v. ATL Shipping Ltd., No. 05 Civ. 7955, 2006 WL 3019558 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 23, 2006)", ~ (2006)
- "Western Bulk Carriers (Australia), Pty. Ltd. v. P.S. Int’l, Ltd., 762 F.Supp. 1302 (S.D. Oh. 1991)", ~ (1991)
- "Wm. Passalacqua Builders, Inc. v. Resnick Developers South, Inc., 933 F.2d 131 (2d Cir. 1991)", ~ (1991)
- "Winter Storm Shipping, Ltd. v. TPI, 310 F.3d 263 (2d Cir. 2002)", ~ (2002)