항해용선계약상 도착선의 판단기준에 관한 연구

한낙현,이재성,Han, Nakhyun,Lee, Jaesung 한국항만경제학회 2012 韓國港灣經濟學會誌 Vol.28 No.3

본 연구는 항해용선계약상 목적지표시의 원칙과 그 운용에 대해 Merida호 사건을 중심으로 분석하는 것에 목적이 있다. 선박이 항에 있거나 용선자의 자유재량으로 선박의 도착이 즉각적 또는 효과적으로 용선자의 이용에 맡길 수 있는 선석으로 즉각 도달하거나 또는 그와 같은 위치에 있는 선박은 도착선이 된다. 선박이 용선계약의 조건에 의해 화물을 선적 또는 양하할 의무가 있는 장소에서 지연이 발생한 경우 선박이 선석 또는 항에 있는지의 여부에 불구하고 특정 목적지의 식별표시는 화물의 선적 또는 양하함에 있어 지연에 의해 발생한 손해사고에 대해 영향을 미친다. Merida호 사건은 2009년 4월 20일 용선자가 2명의 저명한 중재인의 최종중재재정에 대해 상소한 사안이다. 2007년 2월 5일 본선 Merida호에 대해 용선자와 선박소유자 간에 체결한 항해용선계약은 Berth Charter이기 보다는 Port Charter이었다. 선주와 용선자 간에 이 차이에 대한 기본적인 관련성은 선적항과 양륙항에서 선박혼잡에 의해 발생한 지연위험의 분담이다. 이 상소에서 제기된 법적 쟁점으로서 중재인이 이 용선계약은 Port Charter이며 Berth Charter가 아니라는 판정을 내릴 수 있는 권리가 있는지 여부이었다. 중재인은 용선자가 하역준비완료통지서의 유효성에 대해서는 논쟁하지 않았다는 것을 판정하면서 따라서 본 용선계약은 Port Charter라고 판정하였다. The purpose of the study aims to analyse the judgement criterion of arrived ship under voyage charterparty with the Merida Case. A ship is an arrived ship if she is in port and either able to proceed immediately to a berth or in such a position that she is at the immediate and effective disposition of the chaterparty. Identification of the specified destination-whether berth or port-impacts on the incidence of loss occasioned by delay in loading or discharging, when the delay is due to the place at which the vessel is obliged by the terms of the charterparty to load or discharge her cargo being occupied by other shipping. The Merida case is an appeal by the charterers from a final Arbitration award of two very experienced arbitrators, dated 20th April, 2009. The arbitrators held that a voyage charterparty, dated 5th February, 2007, of the vessel, The M/V Merida, entered into between charterers and the owners, was a port rather than a berth Charterparty. The Primary relevance of this distinction does to the allocation, as between owners and charterers, of the risk of delay caused by congestion at load and discharge ports. The question of law arising in this appeal is whether the arbitrators were right to conclude that the charterparty was a port and not a berth charterparty. The arbitrators additionary placed some reliance on a post-contractual e-mail from the agents, which suggested that charterers did not dispute the validity of the NOR-and, hence, that this was a port charterparty.

정기용선계약에서 조기반선에 의한 손해배상의 범위에 관한 연구

한낙현(Nak-Hyun Han) 한국항만경제학회 2008 韓國港灣經濟學會誌 Vol.24 No.2

본 연구의 목적은 정기용선계약 하에서 조기반선에 의한 손해배상의 범위에 관해 쟁점이 된 Golden Victory호 사건을 중심으로 분석하는 것에 있다. 이 사건의 쟁점은 선주가 회수할 수 있는 손해배상의 금액과 관련된 것이다. 선주는 이라크전쟁은 이 클레임과는 무관하며, 손해배상은 용선요율과 용선계약상 잔존한 4년 동안의 전반에 대한 시황요율과의 차액에서 평가되어야 한다고 주장하였다. 한편 용선자는 계약위반 후에 발생한 전쟁으로 인해 계약은 그 시점에서 종료되었다고 할 수 있으므로 제33조에 따라 선주에 대한 손해배상의 범위는 이라크전쟁의 발생 시까지라고 주장하였다. 즉 이 사건에서 정기용선자에 의한 조기해제에 기초한 손해배상의무의 범위는 해제된 용선계약 중에서 해제사유의 발생 시까지로 하는 것이 충분하다고 판결된 사안이다. The purpose of this study aims to explore scope of damages resulted from early redelivery under time charter with the Golden Victory case. In this case, disputes arose in relation to the quantum of damages recoverable by th owners. The owners contended that the second Gulf War was irrelevant to their claim, which was to be assessed at the difference between the charter rate and the lower market rate for the whole of the remaining four-year period of the charterparty. The charterers contended that since clause 33 would have entitled them to cancel the charter on the outbreak of the second Gulf War, two years after the repudiation, the owners' claim for damages only ran for those two years. There was no such rule as was contended for by the owners, and that the damages had to reflect the fact that, had there been no repudiatory breach, the charterparty would not have run its full term because the charterers would have cancelled the charter on the outbreak of the second Gulf War.

악의 있는 행위와 관련한 담보위험과 면책위험의 경합에 관한 분석 -B Atlantic호 사건을 중심으로-

한낙현 ( Han Nak-hyun ) 한국해법학회 2019 韓國海法學會誌 Vol.41 No.2

선주와 운항자는 자신의 전쟁위험보험이 선박의 억류로 인해 발생하는 청구에 대응할 것인지 여부를 아는 것은 필수적이다. 그것은 궁극적으로 보험조건과 억류와 관련된 환경에 달려 있다. 억류가 외국정부의 법적 행위에서 발생하는 경우, 관세법 위반이나 범죄 수사와 관련하여 전통적인 전쟁위험보험에서 제외될 가능성이 높다. 억류가 제3자의 행위의 결과이며 선주에게 귀속되지 않는 상황에서도 발생할 수 있다. B Atlantic호 사건에서의 이 결정에 대해 전쟁위험보험자는 환영할 것이다. 그 결정은 협회기간약관(선박) 제1조 제5항에 따라 “… 악의적으로 행동하는 자…”라는 문구의 범위를 좀 더 명확하게 하고 있다. 또한 한편으로는 제1조와 제3조(구금)의 손인에 대한 보상과 제4조 제1항 제5호의 세관규칙위반 또는 무역규칙위반으로 인한 압류, 구속, 억류, 몰수 또는 징발에 대한 면제 간의 상호작용을 설명하는 데 도움이 된다. 궁극적으로 마약 밀수로 인한 억류는 전쟁위험으로 간주될 수 없다는 것은 타당하다고 볼 수 있다. 이 사건에서는 두 당사자 모두 마약 밀수가 ‘악의적으로 행동하는 자’의 범위 내에 있다고 믿었기 때문에 이 판결은 선주와 보험자 모두에게 놀라운 일이 될 것이다. 이 판결은 전통적인 전쟁위험보험이라고 하더라도 피보험자의 모든 요구와 기대에 부응할 수 없으며, 따라서 모든 거래자가 특정보험계약을 선택할 때 상업적 목적을 신중하게 고려하도록 상기시키는 역할을 한다. It is essential for owners and operators to know whether their war risks insurance will respond to claims arising out of the detention of their vessels. That will ultimately depend on the terms of the insurance and the circumstances of the detention. Where the detention arises from the lawful act of a foreign government, whether for infringement of customs legislation or in the context of a criminal investigation, that is most likely excluded from traditional war risks policies. That may follow even in circumstances where the detention is the result of the act of third parties and in no way attributable to the owners. In B Atlantic case, the decision will be welcomed by War Risks insurers. It gives some further clarity to the scope of the phrase “… any person acting maliciously…” under Clause 1.5 of the Institute Time Clauses-Hulls. It also helps explain the interaction between cover for the perils at Clause 1 and Clause 3 (Detainment) on the one hand, and the exclusion for arrest, restraint, detainment, confiscation or expropriation by reason of infringement of customs or trading regulations at Clause 4.1.5 on the other hand. Ultimately, taking a step back, it must be correct that detainment due to the (unknown) smuggling of drugs cannot be considered a war risk. This decision may come as a surprise to owners and insurers alike, seeing as both parties in this case believed that the smuggling of drugs fell within the scope of a ‘person acting maliciously’. The judgement emphasize that traditional war risks insurance may not cover all the needs and expectations of an assured, thus, acting as a reminder for all traders to consider carefully their commercial objectives when opting for a specific insurance policy.

항해중의 감항능력유지의무에 관한 문제점 고찰 -UNCITRAL 초안 제l3조를 중심으로-

한낙현 ( Nak Hyun Han ) 한국해법학회 2004 韓國海法學會誌 Vol.26 No.2

At common law a shipowner by contracting to carry goods a voyage in a ship, in the absence of express stipulation, impliedly undertakes that his ship is seaworthy. Where the Flague-Visby Rules applies, the common law absolute undertaking of seaworthiness ie replaced by an undertaking that the shipowner will before and at the beginning of the voyage exercise due diligence to make the seaworthy. However, Draft Article 13(1) is defined that the carrier shall be bound, before, at the beginning of, [and during] the voyage by sea, to exercise due diligence to : (a) make [and keep] the ship seaworthy, (b) properly man, equip and supply the ship, (c) make [and keep] the holds and all other parts of the ship in which the goods are carried, including containers where supplied by the carrier, in or upon which the goods are carried fit and safe for their reception, carriage and preservation. It was noted that three sets of square brackets remained in the text of this paragraph, and that removing the square brackets and retaining the text would make the carrier`s duty of due diligence for seaworthiness a continuing obligation. I think that the text in square brackets should be deleted so as to ensure that the carrier`s obligation to keep the ship seaworthy existed only prior to and at the beginning of the voyage. It was observed that this would continue the approach taken in article Ⅲ.1 of the Hague and Hague-Visby Rules, and it was suggested that this approach had worked well to date. It was suggested that making the obligation to provide a seaworthy vessel a continuing obligation would place too great a burden on the carrier, and that it would considerably alter the overall allocation of risk between the carrier and cargo interests in the draft instrument.

해상운송에 있어서 해사조직의 안전문화 확립 방안에 관한 연구

한낙현(Nak-Hyun Han),박명섭(Myong-Sop Pak),김인선(In-Sun Kim),박지문(Jee-Moon Pak),이동은(Dong-Eun Lee) 한국해양비즈니스학회 2015 해양비즈니스 Vol.- No.30

This study aims to analyse plans for establishing safety culture in sea transportation in light of recent ferry Sewol disaster. As in every industry at risk, the human and organizational factors constitute the main stakes for maritime safety. Furthermore, several events at sea have been used to develop appropriate risk models. The investigation on maritime accidents is, nowadays, a very important tool in identifying the problems related to human error and can support accident prevention and the improvement of maritime safety. Safety culture is more than merely avoiding accidents or even reducing the number of accidents, although these are likely to be the most apparent measures of success. In terms of shipboard operations, it is to do the right thing at the right time in response to normal and emergency situations. Operation of ships is full of regulations, instructions and guidelines also addressing human errors and safety culture to enhance safety. An 'safety conscious organization' is one that gives appropriate priority to safety and realizes that safety has to be managed like other areas of the business. And the attitude adopted will, in turn, be shaped to a large degree by the culture of the shipping company. However, even after safety culture has been established, there are still serious barriers to the breakthrough of the safety management. The fact that vessel's safety management is largely determined by the education background, suggests that efficiency of vessel's safely operation would greatly improve by introducing suitable safety management system.

컨테이너화물의 배상클레임에 관한 실무적 고찰

한낙현(Nak-Hyun, Han) 한국해양비즈니스학회 2012 해양비즈니스 Vol.- No.21

The purpose of this study aims to analyse the practical study on the indemnity claims of container cargo with NVOCC. An NVOCC is an intermediary between the shipper of the goods and the operator of the ship that is to carry these goods. He fulfills basically the same function as the groupage operator: he combines the goods of various shippers into a single shipment, contracts with an ocean carrier for the carriage of the goods, and delivers the goods to the ship. In the US, the development of the concept of the NVOCC would seem to have helped to promote the idea that a forwarder can assume the responsibilities of a Hague Rules carrier so that the bill of lading issued by him falls within the results as applied by the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1936(USCOGSA). The NVOCC construction does not particularly help to remedy the confusion between freight forwarders and carriers. An NVOCC may act as freight forwarder, as agent pure and simple for the cargo interests, so the distinction is not made any simpler. The NVOCC and the ocean carrier with which it contracts are jointly and severally responsible towards the cargo claimant for the loss or damage sustained by the goods during carriage, subject, of course, to a right of indemnity by one of the jointly and severally liable co-defendants against the other who was primary liable the ocean carrier and/or the carrying ship are not subject to USCOGSA, however, unless the statute is expressly incorporated by reference in the bill of lading between the NVOCC and the ocean carrier.

선하증권상의 Himalaya 조항에 관한 실무적 고찰

한낙현(Nak-Hyun, Han) 한국해양비즈니스학회 2013 해양비즈니스 Vol.- No.24

The purpose of this study aims to analyse the practical study on the Himalaya clause under Bills of Lading. The clause takes its name from a decision of the English Court of Appeal in the case of Adler v. Dickson (The Himalaya) [1954] 2 Lloyd's Rep 267, [1955] 1 QB 158 [1]. A clause in a transportation contract purporting to extend liability limitations which benefit the carrier, to others who act as agents for the carrier such as stevedores or longshoremen. Usually, a Himalaya clause will be placed within the bill of lading or such other transportation contract. By such a device, the carrier or shipper attempts to cover and shield companies or persons it employs to assist in the transportation or loading or unloading of goods, with whatever liability exemptions, limitations, defences it may have with the owner of the goods. Although the decision in The Himalaya is clear and unambiguous, the reasoning underpinning the case is still the subject of some debate. The courts at various times have suggested that the exception to the common law rules of privity of contract may be founded upon "public policy" reasoning, the law of agency, trust arrangements or (with respect to goods) by the law of bailment rather than the law of contracts.

국제해운계약상 정기용선자의 선주에 대한 안전항담보의무에 관한 연구 -Ocean Victory호 사건을 중심으로-

한낙현 ( Han Nak-hyun ),주세환 ( Joo Se-hwan ) 한국해운물류학회(구 한국해운학회) 2018 해운물류연구 Vol.34 No.4

본 연구는 Ocean Victory호 사건을 중심으로 특히 정기용선자의 선주에 대한 안전항담보의무위반 여부의 논점에 대해 영국대법원 판결을 분석하여 그 시사점을 도출하는 것에 목적이 있다. 이 사건에서 선체보험자의 하나인 Gard는 정기용선자가 용선계약을 위반하여 불안전한 항구로 선박의 항해를 지시했다고 하여 정기용선자에 대한 구상청구를 위하여 선박소유자와 선체용선자의 권리를 양도받았다. 그 청구는 성공했지만 항소법원에서는 이 결정을 번복하였다. 영국대법원은 안전항, 공동보험,책임제한 등 세 가지 중요한 문제에 대해 판결을 내렸다. 특히 안전항 문제에 관해서, 영국대법원은 용선자가 용선계약을 위반하지 않았으며 안전항담보의무의 의미내에서 항구가 불안전하지 않았다고 판시하였다. This study analyse the safe port warranty undertaking for shipowner of time charterer with the Ocean Victory Case. Litigation ensued between those in the charterparty chain. When the hull insurer, Gard, took an assignment of the rights of the vessel’s owners and demise charterers in a claim against the time charterers that the vessel had been ordered by them to an unsafe port in breach of the charter. Although the claim succeeded, the Court of Appeal overturned the decision. The Supreme Court delivered its judgment on May 10, 2017, dealing with three important issues, safe port, joint insurance, and limitation of liability. Especially on the safe port issue, the court held that the port was not unsafe within the meaning of the safe port undertaking so the charterers were not in breach of it. The conditions in the port amounted to an abnormal occurrence as that expression is understood.

영미의 손해배상제도에 관한 비교연구

한낙현(Nak-hyun Han) 한국국제상학회 2009 國際商學 Vol.24 No.2

The fountainhead of the limitation of foreseeability is the famous English case of Hadley v. Baxendale, which in 1854 laid down general principles that are honored today. For a time seemed that courts, both America and in England, might transform the contemplation test into an even stricter limitation. Some courts suggested that one was not liable for consequential damages unless, when one made the contract. one had made a tacit agreement to assume the risk of that liability. More notice to a party of circumstances making the loss foreseeable would not then be enough. The tacit agreement test has been generally rejected as overly restrictive and doctrinally unsound, and it is explicitly condemned in the comments to the Uniform Commercial Code. The modern trend is, on the contrary, toward narrowing the limitation imposed by Hadley v. Baxendale by phrasing the test in terms of foreseeability. But in American legal system such specific relief is the exception rather than the rule. Usually a court grants the promise substitutional relief by awarding a sum of money untended to compensate for the harm to the promisee’s interests caused by the promisor’s failure to perform the promise. It is common to discuss the measure of this liability of the promisor in terms of the promisee’s exception, reliance, and restitution interests. This study aims to analyze the key differences on damages system of U.K. and U.S. in the International commercial transaction.

양자간 투자조약상 중재판정부의 관할 판단에 관한 연구

한낙현 ( Han Nak-hyun ) 경남대학교 산업경영연구소 2023 지역산업연구 Vol.46 No.2

양자간 투자조약(BIT)은 서명국 국민이 서로의 영토에서 수행한 민간 투자를 촉진하고 보호하기 위한 상호 약속을 포함하는 두 국가 간에 체결된 조약이다. 이러한 조약은 한 국가의 국민이 권리와 보호를 포함하여 다른 국가에 투자하는 조건을 설정한다. BIT는 다른 서명국 국민의 소유권 또는 경제적 이익을 훼손할 수 있는 BIT 서명자에 의한 외국 자산의 불법적 국유화 및 수용 및 기타 행위로부터 보호를 제공한다. BIT는 서명 당사자 간의 협상 계약이므로 그 조건이 매우 다양하다. 그러나 일반적으로 내국민대우, 최혜국 대우, 공정하고 공평한 대우와 수용의 경우 보상과 같은 권리와 보호가 포함된다. BIT에 따른 주요 보호 장치 중 하나는 외국인 투자자가 BIT 위반에 대한 청구를 법원이 아닌 중재에 부탁하여 직접 청구할 수 있도록 허용한다는 것이다. BIT는 체결한 시점 및 발효한 시점, 그리고 발효 후 사실관계의 변화 등으로 인하여 적용 및 해석 시에 문제가 제기될 수 있다. 원칙적으로 BIT는 발효 이전에 발생한 행위나 사태에는 적용되지 않고, 발효 이후에 발생한 행위나 사태에만 적용되는 것으로, 즉 BIT는 소급적용되지 않는다는 것이다. Oded Besserglik v. Republic of Mozambique 사건에서는 관할 항변 제기가 지연된 경우에도 관할권 결정권에 의해 중재판정부는 자발적으로 관할의 유무를 검토할 수 있으며, 남아프리카와 모잠비크 간의 BIT는 발효 요건(양국간의 상호 통고)을 충족하지 않아 미발효이기 때문에 중재판 정부는 관할을 갖지 않는다고 판정하였다. 본 연구에서는 이 사건을 중심으로 BIT 발효 정보, BIT의 발효요건, 투자자측의 입증책 임, 투자자의 신뢰보호(금반언)와 중재관할에 대해 고찰한다. An treaty made between two countries containing reciprocal undertakings for the promotion and protection of private investments made by nationals of the signatories in each other's territories. BITs provide protection against illegal nationalisation and expropriation of foreign assets and other actions by a signatory of the BIT that may undermine the ownership or economic interest of a national of the other signatory. As BITs are negotiated agreements between the signatory parties, their terms vary. However, they generally include the following rights and protections: national treatment, most-favoured-nation treatment, fair and equitable treatment, compensation in the event of expropriation. One of the main protections under a BIT is that it allows foreign investors to sue states directly by submitting claims for breach of the BIT to arbitration rather than to local courts. However, problems may arise in the interpretation and application of investment treaties due to the time of conclusion and entry into force, and changes in facts after entry into force. In principle, an investment treaty applies only to acts or events occurring after its entry into force, and not to acts or events occurring prior to its entry into force. In other words, treaties do not apply retroactively. In Oded Besserglik v. Republic of Mozambique, even if the filing of a jurisdictional defense is delayed, the arbitral tribunal may voluntarily review the presence or absence of jurisdiction by the jurisprudence decision, since the Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT) between South Africa and Mozambique did not meet the requirements for entry into force (mutual notification between the two countries), the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction. Focusing on this case, this study examines BIT enforcement information, BIT entry requirements, investor's burden of proof, investor's trust protection (estoppel), and arbitration jurisdiction, and suggests its implications.