英國法에서 船上의 人命損害에 대한 船主相互保險 補償에 대한 沿革的 考察

정영석(Yeong-Seok Cheong) 한국해사법학회 2000 해사법연구 Vol.12 No.1

항만당국의 개입과 오프 하이어의 성립

정영석(Yeong Seok Cheong) 한국해법학회 1998 韓國海法學會誌 Vol.20 No.2

N/A

1999 년 미국 해상물건운송법 개정안의 개론적 고찰

정영석(Yeong Seok Cheong) 한국해법학회 2002 韓國海法學會誌 Vol.24 No.1

In the carriage of goods by sea law system, the effort for international unionization of regal system has been continued according to this ideology clearly and an international convention has been selected by this effort and an international unification has been realized substantially by the method to make the domestic law with an international convention. The Unity Convention about the COGSA that be signed until a recent date is classified roughly in the Hague Rules structure(including the Hague Visby Rules.) and the Hamburg Rules structure, but in fact the Hague Rules structure play a role of the unified law that is accepted most widely. First of all, the 1924 Hague Rules and the 1968 Hague Visby Rules have nearly same meanings except the contents of several technological amendments and are to accomplish the commercial consultation as the reward relation reducing shipper`s fare toward to charge a burden of carrier`s risk to shipper by introducing the modified principle of liability in negligence that is characterized by the immunity of navigation negligence. Hague Visby Rules supplemented and amended by the 1968 Visby protocol has fulfilled its function as the law of international unity and has been supported widely in the investigation of CMI. Compared with this, Hamburg Rules that is the international invention selected in the United Nation Conference on Trade and Development laying stress on the United States of America is to approach the typical liability in negligence by abolishing immunities headed by navigation negligence about the allocation of danger between carrier and shipper for the damage of cargo. This can be said that a principle of law is reasonable for Hague Rules structure, but does not fulfill the function of the unified law because maritime power under nearly 5% adopts it by not achieving the commercial consultation. In the meantime, the United States of America has applied the Hater Act selected in last 1893 to the coast marine transport etc. and has been using the COGSA, 1936, accommodating the Hague Rules, originally without revision for last over 60 years. There upon, all American shipowners and shippers felt the necessity of revision for this but couldn`t touch a hand because it was difficult for them to control the opinion between the Hamburg Rules preference of shippers and the Hague Visby Rules preference in academic circles. But, In 1993, the MLA started the amending work for the COGSA, 1936 and after the work of 4 years made the amending proposal of COGSA that mixed with the system of limitation of liability in Hague Visby Rules, abolished the immunities of navigation negligence, the most feature of Hamburg Rules, and proposed to the Senate the COGSA, 1999 that was amended extensively in terms and structure for this bill again according to the modernization plan of the american law in the American congress. Although this bill has an excellent intention as result that is composed of the legislative bills compromised in the position of many persons concerned, it contains many problems. And in case of carrying out this Act that has these problems, the estimated effects and the urgent counterplans are as follows. First, it may bring about the result going back on the international unionization. Second, the circle of the domestic marine insurance business needs the flexible confrontation for the extent of compensation by this Act and the clause according to the readjustment of loss ratio by the diversification and the extension of an extent in the exercise of light of indemnity, and the rationalization. Also, it needs to develop the products of carrier`s liability insurance by a non-life insurance company as well as a owner mutual insurance company for the long run. Third, the American law becomes the exclusive the law of authority cited, only the court and the arbitration forum in America have the jurisdiction of litigation and the jurisdiction of arbitration, in addition the agreement of

행정심판과 해양안전심판의 인적 요소에 대한 비교 고찰

정영석(Cheong, Yeong Seok) 부산대학교 법학연구소 2017 법학연구 Vol.58 No.3

운송물 손해의 발생구간과 복합운송인의 책임 -대법원 2009.8.20. 선고 2007다 87016 판결의 평석을 중심으로-

정영석 ( Yeong Seok Cheong ) 한국상사판례학회 2009 상사판례연구 Vol.22 No.4

항해용선계약하에서 액체화물 인도시기 -2008다33818 사건을 중심으로-

정영석 ( Yeong Seok Cheong ) 한국상사판례학회 2010 상사판례연구 Vol.23 No.1

중국 해상법상 용선계약에 관한 고찰

정영석(Cheong, Yeong-Seok),성해연(Cheng, Hai-Yan) 동아대학교 법학연구소 2016 東亞法學 Vol.- No.70

용선계약법의 원조라 할 수 있는 영국이 용선계약에 관한 성문법규를 가지고 있지 않는 판례법인 반면 중국은 중국 해상법이라는 성문법규에서 용선계약에 관한 명문의 규정을 두고 있다는 점에서 성문법규성, 서면계약성, 해사성을 특징이라 할 수 있다. 임의법규성은 부합계약이 아닌 용선계약에서는 당연한 특징으로서 전 세계 모든 해상법이 그렇게 해석하고 있다고 본다. 다만, 항해용선계약은 중국 해상법 제4장 해상화물운송계약의 제7절에서 규정하고 있고, 동장의 제1절 일반규정에서 제4장의 규정을 모두 강행법규로 규정하고 있기 때문에 해석상 문제가 될 수 있다. 입법상 개품운송계약과 구분하지 못한 오류가 아닌가 판단한다. 선체용선계약은 전형적인 임대차계약의 일종으로 「중국 해상법」은 선박소유자의 권리와 의무, 용선자의 권리와 의무에 대하여 비교적 상세한 규정을 두고 있는데, 대체로 Barecon 89의 내용을 수용하고 있어서「중국 해상법」 의 특징은 미미한 것으로 보인다. 정기용선계약은 Baltime, 항해용선계약은 Gencon의 내용을 수용하고 있다는 점에서 역시 「중국 해상법」의 특징은 찾아보기 어렵다. 다만, 해상법을 제정할 당시 영국법을 대폭 수용하려는 의도를 보였지만, 최초 제정 당시의 전문가들이 일본의 학계의 영향을 많이 받은 상태였기 때문에 영국과는 달리 정기용선계약과 선체용선계약을 선박임대차 계약이라는 관점에서, 항해용선계약은 운송계약이라는 관점에서 입법하게 된것으로 보인다. As of the end of the year 2013, Korea was ranked number one in the import of China and China was the biggest trade partner of Korea, which directly shows the economic development between the two countries. Most of the import or export goods are carried by sea transportation. In this sense charter parties are widely used as an important contract type for carriage of goods by sea. Therefore maritime law can be said to be a very important source of law in international transaction. Considering the volume of the trade and the shipping power of both countries, the Korean Commercial Code or the Chinese Maritime Code should be the governing law with respect to the trade between Korea and China, though English law is still chosen as the governing law in many contracts. Nevertheless we need to enhance our understanding on the charter party law of China in preparation for the future when the Korean Commercial Code or the Chinese Maritime Code are more often chosen as the governing law of contracts. While English law, which can be said to be the origin of the charter party law, has a case law system and does not have a written code for the charter party law, China has a written code, i.e. the Chinese Maritime Code, which regulates charter party contracts. Thus, the Chinese Maritime Code can be said to have features for written codes and written contracts and it has the maritime procedure and courts under the Maritime Litigation Special Code. As a manifest feature of the Chinese Maritime law, disputes under the charter parties belong to the maritime litigation. A charter party law is a dispositive law, which is a natural feature of it. All the maritime laws of the world are interpreted in that way. A bare boat charter party is one of the typical leasing (or demise charter) contracts and the Chinese Maritime Code has relatively specific regulations for the rights and obligations of the ship owners and the rights and obligations of the charterers. It has adopted the contents of Barecon 89 in general and thus does not have its own features. For time charter parties, the Chinese Maritime Code has adopted the contents of Baltime and, for voyage charter parties, it has adopted Gencon. It does not have its own features for both time charterparty and voyage charterparty, too. Nevertheless, though the Chinese law makers tried to adopt English law widely, they were already influenced by the Japanese academia and they regulated time charter party and bareboat charter party under the concept of the vessel leasing contract and regulated voyage charter party under the concept of contract of carriage of goods.

편의치적선의 준거법 결정에 있어서 선적국법주의의 예외 -대상판결 : 대법원 2014. 7. 24. 선고 2013다34839 판결-

정영석 ( Cheong Yeong-seok ),두완수 ( Doo Wan-soo ) 건국대학교 법학연구소 2018 一鑑法學 Vol.0 No.40

이 사건은 국제사법 제8조 제1항을 적용한 최초의 대법원 판결로, 편의치적선에 관한 선박우선특권의 결정과 관련하여 그 적용요건을 제시하였다는 점에서 큰 의미가 있는 판결이다. 다양한 요소를 고려하여 국제사법 제8조 제1항이라는 예외규정을 적용함으로써 동법 제60조 선적국법주의의 경직성을 완화하고 구체적 사건에서 타당한 준거법을 찾은 점에서 긍정적인 면이 크다고 하겠다. 대상판결이 판단의 근거로 삼은 ① 사건 선박이 편의치적이 되어 있어 그 선적만이 선적국과 유일한 관련이 있을 뿐이라는 점, ② 실질적인 선박소유자나 선박 운영회사의 국적과 주된 영업활동장소, ③ 선박의 주된 항해지와 근거지 등은 형식적 선주와 실질적 선주를 구분할 수 있는 일반적 기준이 될 수 있다고 본다. This case is the first case of Supreme Court applying Article 8 of the “Private International Act”, which is meaningful in that it provides the application requirements in relation to the decision of priority right upon a ship on flag of convenience ship. The object judgment is positive in that it reduces the rigidity of the law of the country of ship registry by applying the exception provision of Article 8 of the “Private International Act” in consideration of various factors and finds a valid reference law in concrete cases. In view of the actual use of flag of convenience ship, the judgment is based on the judgment of the ship, which is the only ship related to the shipping country, and the actual ship owner or the ship operator’s nationality and the main business activity place. After the case, the Supreme Court decided that the fact that there is a bareboat charter party and a bareboat charter registration is not enough to be a general rule to construe any cases based on general rule.

연구논문(硏究論文) : 해상운송계약에서 최고약관의 효력 -선하증권 뒷면약관을 중심으로-

정영석 ( Yeong Seok Cheong ) 한국해법학회 2010 韓國海法學會誌 Vol.32 No.1

외국적 요소가 개입된 해상운송계약이 체결되는 경우에는 운송물손해와 관련된 모든 법적 분쟁에서 법정지의 선택과 함께 준거법(applicable law, governing law)의 결정이 법률적 쟁점이 된다. 이는 통상 국제사법상 준거법의 결정원칙에 의하여 정해지는데, 해상운송계약에서는 준거법약관 외에 이와 유사한 최고약관이 동시에 설정되는 경우가 많아서 이 두 약관이 충돌하는 경우가 생길 수 있다. 운송인의 입장에서는 국제협약상의 책임제한과 면책의 이익을 향유하기 위하여 국제협약을 우선적용하려는 의도로 최고약관을 삽입하고 약관의 명칭에서 조차 `최우선`(paramount)이라는 용어를 사용하고는 있지만, 이는 부합계약에서의 운송인이 일방적으로 삽입한 하나의 약관에 불과한 것으로 단순히 그 명칭에 의하여 우선적 효력을 가진다고 볼 수는 없다. 우리 법상으로는 선하증권 발행 시 국제협약을 수용한 특정국가의 법률을 구체적으로 지정한 경우에만 저촉법적 지정으로 인정할 수 있고, 그 밖의 경우에는 계약의 내용의 일부를 구성하는 실질법적 지정으로 구체적 내용에 따라 계약내용 상호간의 우열을 가려야 할 일반 약관으로 해석하는 것이 타당하다. 최고약관이 헤이그 규칙이나 헤이그-비스비 규칙을 준거법으로 하려는 의도에서 삽입되기 시작한 것이라는 점에서 이미 헤이그-비스비 규칙의 내용을 실질적으로 수용하고 있는 우리 상법의 해석상 대한민국 법을 준거법으로 지정한 이상 최고약관의 삽입이 해당 선하증권의 해석상 실질적인 차이를 가져오기는 어려울 것으로 보인다. 따라서 대한민국 법을 준거법으로 지정한 경우 굳이 최고약관을 삽입할 필요가 있는지는 의문이다. In case of contract of carriage of goods by sea issuing a bill of lading, into which foreign factors are intervened, it should be firstly resolved to decide the venue of lawsuit and the governing law in every and all lawsuit disputes regarding a damage on carried goods. In such a contract, each contracting party is from a different country, and there are many cases in which the execution place and the conclusion place of a contract is different with each other. Since the effect or execution method of a contract can be different according to which law is applied, I think that it is very important to decide on which law should be applied to the contract concerned. This is usually decided by the decision on the governing law, but, in case of contracts of carriage of goods by sea, there are many incidents in which the paramount clauses are established at the same time other than the governing law clauses, and there could be some cases in which these two kinds of clauses conflict with each other. In case that the paramount clauses conflict with the other clauses in Hague Rules, Hague-Visby Rules or Carriage of Good by Sea Act, 1936, USA, it is stipulated that these rules or regulations are given a priority. However, actually, it is inevitable that there could be an interpretation conflict between the paramount clauses and the governing clauses. From the viewpoint of a carrier, in order to enjoy the advantages of the limitation of liability and exemption clauses in the international regulations, the carrier indicates the paramount clauses with an aim to apply the international regulations in priority, and furthermore, the carrier uses the term `paramount` as a nomination for such clauses. However, they are merely solitarily inserted clauses by the carrier in Contract of Adhesion, and we don`t think they can have priority effects just for the reason that they have such a nomination. Thus, under the Korean law, I think that the regulatory conflict can be acknowledged only in case that the law of certain country which accepted the international regulations is specifically stipulated on the bill of lading concerned. Then, in other cases, I think that the paramount clauses should be considered to be one of the regular clauses in which the priority among contract contents should be decided according to the specific matter by designating an actual law to be applied as contents into the contract concerned. But, according to U.K. Carriage of Good by Sea Act, 1971, the paramount clauses may have their legal effects, and, only in case that the effects of certain law are acknowledged in certain country, an agreement regarding governing law can be excluded. Except these particular cases, I think that the governing law should be decided according to the regulations in the private international law regarding decision on the governing law and its judgements and the regulations in each country`s transportation- related law and its judgements. In conclusion, I think that these matters will result in the question of whether to acknowledge the effects of the clauses based on the governing law and the paramount clauses and in the legal interpretation problem regarding these two kinds of clauses by each country.

연구논문(硏究論文) : 선체용선계약에서 선박의 인도 -Barecon 2001을 중심으로-

정영석 ( Yeong Seok Cheong ) 한국해법학회 2012 韓國海法學會誌 Vol.34 No.2

선체용선계약은 선체용선자가 본선을 점유하고 선원을 고용하여, 본선 및 선원의 관리와 통제를 맡는다는 점에서 선박의 리스 또는 임대차계약으로서의 성질을 가지고 있다. 우리 상법은 제847조 내지 제850조의 5개 조항의 명문규정을 두고 있으나, 선체용선계약상 발생하는 당사자간의 분쟁에 대하여 구체적 규정을 둔 것은 아니기 때문에 민법의 임대차관련 규정을 준용하도록 하고 있다. 반면, 대부분의 용선계약서에서 준거법으로 채택하고 있는 영국에서는 명문의 규정이 없이 계약의 방식이나 내용에 있어서 완전한 자유가 보장되는 계약에 속한다. 이는 부합계약의 성질을 띤 개품운송계약과는 달리 용선계약은 당사자의 자유로운 의사와 수요와 공급에 의한 시장원리가 가장 잘 적용된다는 특징에서 유래된 것으로 보인다. 선체용선계약에서는 사실상 Barecon 2001이 전 세계에 걸쳐서 통일된 표준서식의 역할을 하고 있는 유일한 계약서식이다. 따라서 선체용선계약에 대하여는 Barecon 2001의 해석론이 곧 선체용선계약에 대한 법적 해석론이라고 볼 수 있다. 이 서식은 Part Ⅱ에서 중고선의 선체용선계약을 중심으로 작성되어 있고, Part Ⅲ에서 신조선의 선체용선계약에 적용되는 특수한 사항에 대한 규정으로 구성되어 있다. 선체용선계약은 선박의 인도로부터 이행이 개시된다고 볼 수 있는데, 중고선의 경우에는 선박소유자와 선체용선자의 양 당사자의 계약이행만 문제가 되지만, 신조선의 경우에는 선박건조자, 선박소유자, 선체용선자의 3자가 선박인도의 당사자가 된다고 할 수 있다. 또 선체용선계약의 특성상 선체용선자가 실제로 선박을 사용수익할 목적으로 선박을 건조하는 것이기 때문에, 선박인도에 있어서도 선체용선자의 의사를 반영하도록 한것이 특징이라 할 것이다. 준거법을 영국법으로 하건 미국법으로 하건 또는 한국법으로 하건 임대차계약은 계약을 지배하는 강행법규가 별도로 없고 당사자자치의 원칙이 가장 잘 보장되는 유형의 계약이기 때문에 당사자의 의사가 명확하게 표시된 이상 Barecon 2001은 계약조항 자체의 해석에 있어서 크게 차이가 날 것은 없어 보인다. 적어도 선박의 인도와 관련된 Barecon 2001의 해석론 상으로는 한국법을 준거법으로 지정한다고 하여 영국법이나 미국법을 준거법으로 하는 경우에 비하여 특별한 해석상 의문이 발생할 가능성은 없어 보인다. A bareboat charter party has the characteristics of demise or lease contract in that the bareboat character obtains full management and control of a vessel and crew by possessing the vessel and hiring the crew. Although the five provisions of Article 847 to 850 of the Korean Commercial Code shall be expressly made, it does not make specific provisions for any dispute arising between the parties. Therefore, it requires to apply the provisions related to lease in the Korean Civil Law. On the other hand, in Britain, most charter parties are adopted as applicable Common laws and belong to the contracts being guaranteed absolute freedom in the contract method and details without provision. Unlike contract of affreightment with the characteristics of contract of adhesion, it is considered that the charter party was derived from the characteristics that parties` free will and market mechanisms by supply and demand are the most appropriately applied. In fact, Barecon 2001 is the only form of contract that has played a role as the unified standard form worldwide. Therefore, with respect to the bareboat charter party, it is possible to consider that the interpretation of Barecon 2001 is the legal interpretation of the bareboat charter party. This form is made based on bareboat charter party of used vessels under the provisions of Part 2, and consists of the provisions for the specific matters applied to bareboat charter party of newly constructing vessels in Part 3. It can be considered that the bareboat charter party begins to be executed at the time of ship delivery. In the case of used vessels, only the contract performance between the parties, shipowner and bareboat charterer. However, in the case of new vessels, it can be said that the three parties, shipbuilder, shipowner and ship charterer, are the parties of ship deliver. In addition, because of the nature of the bareboat charter party, the bareboat charterer builds vessels for the purpose of use and profit. Therefore, it can be said that the ship delivery is characterized by reflecting the will of the bareboat charter. Whether the acceptable law is based on the English law, American law or Korean law, the lease contact has no separated jus cogens, that is, a peremptory norm governing contracts, and is the type of contract that guarantees the principle of party autonomy. Therefore, it seems that there is no great difference in interpretation of the contract clause of Barecon 2001 as the parties` will is clearly expressed. At least in the interpretation of Barecon 2001 related to ship delivery, it is unlikely to provoke particular interpretive question even if the Korean law is designated as the applicable law compared with the case that the England law or American law are designated as the applicable law. From the perspective of judicial economy, it is considered that efforts are required to designate the Korean law as the applicable law at least in bareboat charter party related to domestic companies even if Barecon 2001 is used as the contract form.