http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
- 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
- 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
RISS 인기검색어
- 검색키워드
- 저자 : 조성극(Cho Sung Keuk) (검색결과 2 건)
- 무료
- 기관 내 무료
- 유료
-
조성극(Cho Sung Keuk) 한국보험법학회 2013 보험법연구 Vol.7 No.1
손해보험에서 사고(Occurrence) 횟수 판단의 문제란, 손해보험에서 보험사고를 1개의 보험사고로 판단할지 아니면 복수의 보험사고로 판단할지에 대한 문제이다. 보험약관에 사고(Occurrence)에 대한 정의 규정이 있는 경우, 그 정의 규정에 따라서 사고 횟수를 판단하여야 할 것이다. 그렇지만 정의 규정이 있는 경우에도, 구체적 사안에서 사고 횟수를 판단하는 것은 어려운 문제이다. 따라서 정의 규정이 있는 경우에도 사고 횟수를판단하는 적절한 기준이 필요하다. 더 나아가 보험약관에 사고에 대한 정의 규정이 없는 경우에는 더더욱 사고 횟수를 판단하는 적절한 기준이 필요하다. 이러한 적절한 기준으로, 원인(cause), 장소(locality), 시간(time), 의도(intent) 상 일체성(unity)을 요구하는 영국법상의 4개의 일체성 테스트(four unities' test)는, 우리나라의 보험사고에서도 유용한 기준이 될 수 있다고 판단한다. Determination of one occurrence under non-life insurance is an issue to determine whether a series of accidents may be deemed to one occurrence or plural occurrences. If there is a definition clause in the insurance policy, the determination of number of occurrences will depend on the definition clause. Even when there exists such a definition clause, to determine the number of occurrences in the actual case is a difficult task. Thus, there is a need for a proper criterion to determine the number of occurrences even when there exists a definition clause, not to mention the case when there is no such definition clause in the insurance policy. I believe that four unities' test requiring the unity of cause, locality, time, and intent, in order for the accidents to be considered 'one occurrence', which has been suggested by English case law, may also be a useful standard for Korean insurance law cases.
-
판례를 통해 본 해상복합운송주선업자 (Ocean Freight Forwarder)의 법적 지위
조성극 ( Sung Keuk Cho ) 한국해법학회 2004 韓國海法學會誌 Vol.26 No.2
In this essay, an ocean freight forwarder is defined to be the person who, as agent for the customer requesting for ocean transportation of cargo, perform all the services such as arranging for consolidation, warehousing, loading, carrying, taking insurance and delivery of the cargo, from the moment of receipt of cargo from a shipper until delivery, as well as, under the intermodal transport system, as a party to the carriage contract, undertaking the responsibility for the entire period of transportation upon issuing the intermodal bill of lading as intermodal carrier. Our case law suggests that when an ocean freight forwarder issues a bill of lading in his name, such ocean freight forwarder becomes the ocean carrier. However, if an ocean freight forwarder does not issue a bill of lading in his name, such ocean freight forwarder is, in general, considered to be only the ocean forwarding agent. Nevertheless, it was held by an appeals court that when an ocean freight forwarder separately concluded a voyage charterparty with the shipper, then such ocean freight forwarder was the ocean carrier, even if he did not issue a bill of lading in his name. As discussed on the Supreme Court Decision (Case no. 99Da40944 dated 7 September 2001), in my view, it would be desirable to view, more positively, an ocean freight forwarder as the ocean carrier, in light of the fact that the freight that he receives is different, in nature, from a commission an ocean forwarding agent receives, even when the ocean freight forwarder does not issue a bill of name in his name.
KCI연관 검색어 추천
이 검색어로 많이 본 자료
활용도 높은 자료
