中國 對外貿易法의 改定에 관한 小考

조종주(Jo Jong Ju) 한국무역상무학회 2005 貿易商務硏究 Vol.27 No.-

China had revised Foreign Trade Law in order to fulfill its WTO commitments and duties, and fully exercise its rights and benefits as a WTO member. The main contents of the revised Foreign Trade Law as followed. For the first time, individuals are allowed to conduct foreign trade. Intellectual property is an important component of foreign trade, and protecting intellectual property rights is a key issue. A chapter on Intellectual property protection is one of the major additions to the Foreign Trade Law. New sections have also been added to allow and provide guidance for conducting investigations and seeking relief. Finally, the new law beefs up and clarifies enforcement procedures. It regulates the setting up of early warning and emergency systems and a foreign trade statistics system.

해상운송.해상보험에서의 해상보험자 대위권 관련조항 고찰

조종주(Jo, Jong Ju),김흥기(kim, Heung gi),강용수(Kang, Yong Su) 한국무역상무학회 2010 貿易商務硏究 Vol.47 No.-

On payment of the insurance money the insurer is entitled to be subrogated to all right and remedies of the assured in respect of the interest insured in so far as he has indemnified the insured. The purpose of subrogation is to prevent the assured from recovering more than once for the same loss, e.g. where goods are lost owing to a collision, the assured cannot claim the insurance money from the insurer and then sue the owners of the ship that negligently caused the collision. Under the doctrine of subrogation the right to sue owners of the negligent ship passes from the assured to the insurer on payment of the insurance money. The insurer is subrogated to the assured 'rights against the carrier under the contract of carriage. To defeat the cargo underwriters' subrogation righters, the carriers inserted in their B/L a clause allowing the carriers to have the "benefit of the shipper's insurance. But, in the Hague Rules, Hamburg Rules, Rotterdam Rules, its makes void any clause that assigns a benefit of insurance of the goods in favour of the carrier. In practice the insurer asks the assured to sign a letter of subrogation and retains the documents in order to prosecute the rights subrogated to him.

로테르담 규칙상 유통가능 운송서류 소지인의 권리와 책임

조종주(Jong-Ju JO) 한국무역상무학회 2020 貿易商務硏究 Vol.86 No.-

로테르담 규칙은 유통가능 운송서류의 양도에 의해 소지인의 권리가 양도되며, 또한 소지인이 권리를 행사하는 경우에 책임을 부담하는 통일법제를 제정하였다. 즉, 로테르담 규칙 제57조는 소지인이 운송서류를 인도 또는 배서함으로써 운송계약에 명시된 권리를 양도할 수 있고, 제58조는 소지인의 권리행사여부에 따라 소지인의 책임이 달라집니다. 따라서 로테르담 규칙이 통일된 법제로 제기능을 수행하기 위해서는 양도가능 운송서류를 소지한 자가 어떠한 절차에 따라 어떠한 권리가 이전되며, 양도가능운송서류의 소지인이 어떠한 권리를 행사함으로써 책임을 부담하는 지를 이해하고, 이에 대한 문제점을 숙지할 필요가 있다. The Rotterdam Rules provide for a unified legislation in which the rights of holders are transferred by the transfer of negotiable transport documents, and holders who exercise their rights are responsible. Article 57 of the Rotterdam Rules provides that holders may assign the rights set forth in the contract of carriage by endorsement or delivery of the transport documents. In addition, Article 58 of the Rotterdam Rules differs according to depend on whether or not the rights of the holder are exercised. If the holder has not exercised his rights, he will not be held responsible. This means that banks who are not directly related to a contract of carriage, are not responsible for trade transactions. On the other hand, if the holder has exercised his rights, he will be responsible for what rights should he exercise. The exercise of the rights shall be classified into passive and positive acts. The passive act is regarded as a substitute for the procedural right of transport documents with an electronic transport record, the transfer of rights of the holders, and mutual procedural cooperation. Therefore, they do not hold the owner responsible. Active action is the case where the holder exercised the right to dispose of the goods during the carriage, change the terms of the contract of carriage, claim delivery for goods, and file a claim. In this case the liability shall be borne by the holder and shall be liable to the extent that it can be inserted or confirmed in the transferable transport document. In order for Rotterdam Rules to function as a unified law, legal rights and responsibilities should be identified without filing a lawsuit and should be well understood by the maritime transport parties.

로테르담 규칙하에서의 면책사유의 적용상 특징

조종주(Jong Ju JO) 한국무역상무학회 2016 貿易商務硏究 Vol.71 No.-

Internationalmaritime lawconventions concernedwith cargo liabilities have sought to achieve solutionswhichwill be acceptable to awide range of states. TheRotterdamRuleswas approved by theUNAssembly on 11December 2008. The RotterdamRules are intended to replace The Hague and Hamburg Rules. This paper is comparing The RotterdamRules with The Hague and Hamburg Rules for the carrier’ liabilities and exceptions in order to find carrier’ liability System, the burden of proof and exceptions in the Internationalmaritime Rules. The purpose of this paper is considering the carrier’s principal recourse for defending himself inmost cargo claims. The first area analyze the transfer of carrier’s fundamental Liability systemin the International Rules. The second is thematter on the appointment of proof in order to establish liability or to be relieve of liability. And the third is the change of the carrier’s possible exclusions fromliability in the International maritime Rules. From the result of the said analysis, my paper suggests differences of the exclusions intheRotterdamRules comparingwiththeHague andHamburgRules, andfeatures of theRotterdamRules applingexceptions onthebasisof theHague and Hamburg Rules with regard to carrier’s liability and burden of proof. The former is the inclusion of three exclusions, the deleted natural fault, and The provisionmaking the carrier responsible for the acts of its servants or agents in the ‘fire on the ship’ of the RotterdamRules. The latter is deleting the principle of overriding obligation related to carrier’s obligation of seaworthiness in the RotterdamRules, the burdenof proof beingdivertedfromthe carrier tothe carrier and the shipper in the cargo damage caused by two factors(one for which the carrier was liable and the other for which it was excusable) in the newrules.

로테르담 규칙상 복합운송에 대한 적용상 문제점

조종주(Jong-ju Jo) 한국해양비즈니스학회 2014 해양비즈니스 Vol.- No.29

The Hague and Hague-Visby Rules, Hamburg Rules were limited in their application strictly to marine transportation. Now that containerized transportation has become routine, it is common for the carrier to assume responsibility for an entire transport from the place of original shipment to the final destination. Therefore, A single coherent liability regimes that covers the entire period of transport without the “tackle to tackle" or “port to port" limitation is more logical from a legal perspective and more efficient from a practical perspective. The Rotterdam Rules have applied a “limited network system". The Rotterdam Rules article 26 are to examine the important aspects to see how the limited network system operates in practices. Although the limited network system largely resolved the concern over any potential conflict of conventions, article 82 eliminates the possibility that in some specific situations a contracting state under both another international convention and the Rotterdam Rules could face in compatible obligations. Therefore, the main purpose of this study is to analyse the Rotterdam Rules article 26 and article 82, to suggest the practical problems on the application of the Rotterdam Rules article 26 and article 82 in multimodal transport. The suggestions as a conclution are ① lilmit of Rotterdam Rules in appling multimadal transport, ② uncertainity of appilcation rules in multimadal transport, ③ lndetermination of carrier' liability limitation, ④ the compulsory application of Rotterdam Rules article 26 and article 82, ⑤ the dual translation of Rotterdam Rules article 26.

海上運送人의 責任期間에 관한 考察

조종주(Jong-Ju JO) 한국항만경제학회 2002 韓國港灣經濟學會誌 Vol.18 No.2

This study focuses on analysing the period of carrier's responsibility. The Hague Rules apply only while the cargo is in carriage. This period of carrier's responsibility begins when the ship' tackle is hooked on the goods for loading and continues until they are unhooked from the lifting gear after discharge. The Hague Rules are consequently said to apply from tackle to tackle. Also The Hamburg Rules lays down the basic principle that the carrier will be responsible for the goods during the time he is in charge of them at the port of loading, during the carriage and at the port of discharge. These period of carrier's responsibility should be determinated according to custom of the port of loading and discharge because of the importance of local custom in the loading and discharge of goods.

로테러담 규칙하에서의 거증책임

조종주(Jong-Ju Jo) 한국해양비즈니스학회 2010 해양비즈니스 Vol.- No.15

Practitioners involving in the law of carriage of goods by sea are used to working with a regime based on the Hague Rules(1924) as later amended by the Hague Visby Rules(1968). Most nations have ratified this Rules and have adopted national legislation based on that regime. The legal structure of the Hague Rules is the conceptualization of the interplay as a ping-pong game created by a maritime cargo case which defines the burden of proof and the respective steps in the allocation of liability and exemption. Hamburg Rules attempts to restructure the Basic principles of the preexisting laws and jurisprudence on the liability of the carrier for maritime cargo claims. The Hamburg Rules contain clear and concise provisions on both burden of proof and allocation of liability where loss is due to a combination of causes. Rotterdam Rules article 17 expressly stipulates how the burden of proof is allocated as between cargo interests and carrier, following the rather complicated ping-pong type approach of Hague Rules, rather than the simple approach taken in the Hamburg Rules. This paper analyses Rotterdam Rules article 17 comparing with the Hague Rules and Hamburg Rules

중국 반덤핑 사실과 절차에 관한 考察

趙宗柱(Jo Jong Ju) 한국무역상무학회 2006 貿易商務硏究 Vol.31 No.-

  Recently, the anti-dumping actions of China are becoming aggressive, resulting in the speculation that Korea’s trade surplus to China will be reduced. Anti-Dumping Actions by the Chinese Government are also becoming harsh.<BR>  According to KOTRA, 18 anti-dumping actions were taken by the Chinese government against Korean products. The Chinese government has opened two additional cases of dumping investigations again Korean products 2005 as well. Therefore, Korea will likely face more trade restrictions in the form of anti-dumping in China<BR>  Accordingly, the Accused party need to understand Anti-Dumping Act of China. The trade related authorities are monitoring on the China related information, and builds system barring Anti-Dumping Actions. Also, companies strongly export the differential products to the China.

[무역보험]갑판적 화물운송에 대한 운송인의 책임과 보헝담보

조종주(Jong-ju Jo) 한국국제상학회 2004 國際商學 Vol.19 No.1

Goods are to be loaded in the usual carrying places. The carrier will only be authorized to stow goods on deck. The effects of deck stowage not so authorized will be to set aside the exceptions of the B/L and to render the shipowner liable under his contract of carriage for damage happening to such goods. As the results of the study, I suggests a number of measures to be adopted by carrier and shipper when contemplating carriage of deck cargo as follows. ① in the case of the existence of A Liberty to stow goods on deck clause, whenever possible, deck carriage should be noted on the face of the B/L. ② Containers carried on deck under the Hague or Hague- Visby Rules must be so declared on the face of the B/L. ③ in the case of container cargo, domestic insurance companies must adopt the delivery method of insurance contract considering the difference between the cargo on deck of the container ships and that of the general ship. ④ P&I cover may be prejudiced if the result means the carrier's exposure is greater than that under the Hague or Hague-Visby Rules.

선화증권상 권리와 의무의 이전에 관한 연혁적 고찰

조종주(Jong-Ju JO) 한국무역상무학회 2018 貿易商務硏究 Vol.79 No.-

As the shipping documents have been passed throughmany years, their roles and functions have been established. Under the initial common law, the B/L did not fulfill its functions as a document of title. However, as the law of B/L was enactedin 1855, it was recognizedas an innovative legislation in which the rights andobligations of the B/L were transferred. But, by linking the transfer of rights and Liabilities to the passing of property in the goods, the issue of transferring rights and obligations was exposed. For example, in the case of multiple shipment issuance for goods shipped in bulk, individual B/L holders could not exercise their rights because the ownership was not transferred until the shipment was identified at the port of destination. On the other hand, there has been problems of obliging the person whoowns the B/L to fulfill the obligations under the B/L in order to exercise security for the cargo such as the bank. 1992 COGSA separates the transfer of ownership of cargo and the transfer of rights and Liabilities under the B/L and separates the exercise of rights and obligations. In other words, it stipulates that the lawfully holder of a bill of lading can exercise the rights such as the right of suit under the B/L, and solves the problems raised under the B/L Act by stipulating that the holder of B/L to be exercised the rights shall bear the obligation. Accordingly, the transfer of the rights and Liabilities on the B/L was governed by the common law, and by the B/L Act in 1855, it is disciplined for over 140 years. As a result, the 1992 COGSA has repealed the legislation of the B/L Act in 1855. and established the legal certainty of the transfer of the rights and Liabilities under the B/L. This paper deals with the functioning of B/L in accordance with British legislation. In addition, only the transfer of rights and obligations related to the B/L was analyzed, and the ship s delivery order and seaway bill stipulated in the 1992 COGSA were excluded. I will also conduct research on the mentioned above this in the future.