논문 : 정기용선계약상 화물클레임에 대한 ICA의 적용에 관한 연구 -불감항과 손해와의 인과관계를 중심으로-

한낙현 ( Nak Hyun Han ) 한국해운물류학회(구 한국해운학회) 2009 해운물류연구 Vol.25 No.2

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.

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.

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.

영국법의 준거법과 관련한 선하증권 면책약관의 효력에 관한 연구

한낙현(Nak-Hyun Han),정준식(Jun-Sik Jung) 한국항만경제학회 2006 韓國港灣經濟學會誌 Vol.22 No.4

지상조항은 수출용의 선하증권에 대해 적용하는 것을 원칙으로 하지만 미국과 일본과 같이 수출입 모두에 적용하는 국가도 있다. 경합하는 경우에는 법원은 자국의 법률에 의해 규율하는 것이 된다. 그 경우에도 Hague 규칙의 내용을 적용하고 있다면 타국의 국내법이라도 상관하지 않는다는 의미이다. 이 경우 국내법이 Hague 규칙을 기초로 하고 있는 이상 Hague 규칙에 위반하는 조항은 무효가 된다. 법정지중에는 Hague 규칙을 체결하지 않는 국가도 있으므로 결국 이것을 유효하게 할지의 여부는 법원이 결정하게 된다. 한편 Irbenskiy Proliv호 사건에서는 준거법을 영국법, 재판관할을 영국의 지방법원(High Court)으로 하는 브라질에서 일본까지의 선하증권에 의한 운송에 있어서 하주가 운송인의 과실 또는 본선의 불감항에 의해 화물손해가 발생했다고 주장하여 운송인에게 손해배상을 청구하였다. 법원은 당해 선하증권상의 광범한 면책약관을 해석하는데 있어서 보통법의 문제로서 그 효력을 인정하여 운송인의 면책에 대한 주장을 인정하였다. 본 연구에서는 Irbenskiy Proliv호 사건을 중심으로 영국법의 준거법과 관련된 선하증권 면책약관의 효력에 대해 분석하고 또한 선하증권 면책약관의 효력에 관한 여러 사례를 체계적으로 고찰함으로써 무역업계와 학계에 기여하고자 함이 본 연구의 필요성이자 연구의 목적이다. 우리나라의 경우에도 1991년 개정상법은 1968년 Hague-Visby 규칙의 주요 규정을 원용하고 있는데, 지상약관ㆍ준거법 등과 관련된 Irbenskiy Proliv호 사건의 판결내용은 향후 이와 관련된 우리나라의 법체계에 있어서도 그 시사하는 바가 크다고 생각한다. In the Bill of Lading of The Irbenskiy Proliv is not subject to the Hague-Visby Rules in accordance with paragraphs (A) and/or (E) of cl.1 or to the Hague Rules in accordance with paragraphs (B) and/or (D) of cl.1. The Irbenskiy Proliv is very rare case that is effective to exempt the carrier as literal words of Bill of Lading. The action concerns cargoes of perishable goods shipped from Brazil to Japan, under Bills of Lading each of which contained an extensive carrier’s exemption clause. A preliminary issue was ordered to be determined on the question whether cl.4 is effective to exempt the carriers from any potential liability for the claims in this case. The court held that there is no reason to reject cl.4 as part of each of the contracts contained in or evidenced by the bills of lading; and it protects the carrier where damage to the goods shipped results from such causes. It is therefore effective to exempt the carriers from any potential liability for those claims.

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.

보험회사의 청구권 대위와 관련된 시효에 대한 사례연구

한낙현 ( Nak Hyun Han ) 한국보험학회 2005 保險學會誌 Vol.72 No.-

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.