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.

공동해손의 구조보수 문제에 관한 고찰

한낙현(NakHyun Han) 한국해양비즈니스학회 2003 해양비즈니스 Vol.- No.2

Expenditure incurred by the parties to the adventure in the nature of salvage, whether under contract or otherwise, shall be allowed in general average provided that the salvage operations were carried out for the purpose of preserving from peril the property involved in the common maritime adventure. Expenditure allowed in general average shall include any salvage remuneration in which the skill and efforts of the salvors in preventing or minimising damage to the environment such as is referred to in Article 13 paragraph (b) of the International convention on Salvage. 1989 have been taken into account. Special compensation payable to a salvor by the shipowner under Article 14 of the said Convention to the extent specified in paragraph 4 of that Article or under any other provision similar in substance shall not be allowed in general average. When any party to the common maritime adventure makes a separate and independent settlement with the salvors prior to the arbitration proceedings, or makes a separate and independent appeal against the award of the original arbitrator, hen the community of interest between the parties to the adventure which prevailed at the time of the salvage services has been utterly broken and cast aside, and the separate payments in respect of Ship and Cargo etc. have no place in general average. In such circumstances the differing salvage awards and separate legal costs should be allowed to lie just where they fall, and be treated as a special or particular charge on the individuals properties saved to which they relate. This would serve to preserve to the parties the individual benefit-or prejudice-brought about by their separate and differential settlement of the salvage award and legal costs, and could be achieved by a slight amendment to Rule VI. Nevertheless, at the subsequent revision of the Rules there was only very limited support in favour of altering the 1990 wording in relation to differential salvage and Rule VI was left intact.

테러행위와 관련된 원자력손해배상책임 보험체계에 관한 고찰

한낙현(Nakhyun Han) 법무부 국제법무정책과 2007 통상법률 Vol.- No.78

In nuclear energy liability, the reason for special concern is of course the magnitude of the potential loss. Explosions in the time of war and testing have graphically demonstrated the destructive potential of atomic reaction. The experience of the decades suggests that loss-prevention activities have been very successful. Still the catastrophe loss potential remains, so some form of insurance protection is essential.

국제물류보안제도상 24시간 규칙의 시사점에 관한 연구

한낙현(Han, Nakhyun),허윤석(Hur, YunSeok) 한국물류학회 2012 물류학회지 Vol.22 No.5

본 연구에서는 국제물류보안제도상 미국 국토안보부 산하의 세관·국경보호국에서 제도화된 24시간 규칙에 관한 일반적인 분석을 하고, 2014년 3월에 시행할 예정인 일본의 JP24를 중심으로 분석한 후 그 시사점을 도출하고 있다. 24 시간 규칙은 미국의 주요한 해상화물보안프로그램의 하나인데, 이 프로그램은 미국으로 향하는 컨테이너가 외국항에서 선박이 출발하기 24시간 전에 외국항에서 선박에 컨테이너화물을 적재하는 것과 관련하여 CBP에 전자정보를 제공할 것을 컨테이너선사에 요구하는 것이다. 이와 같은 정보는 의심되는 컨테이너의 사전 검사와 표적화를 위해 고려하는 것이다. 외국항을 출발하여 미국에 도달하는 모든 해상운송인과 NVOCC에게 이 규칙을 지킬 것을 강요하고 있다. 이 규칙은 2002년에 채택된 CSI와도 관련이 있다. 수입업자 보안정보신고(ISF)에 대한 요구사항은 송하인이 제공해야 할 많은 정보로까지 확대되는데 미국에서는 이것을 10+2 규칙으로 부르고 있다. 이들 통지규칙의 목적은 수입국의 세관당국이 서류업무를 검사할 수 있는 위치에 있으며, 또한 궁극적으로 운송인에게 선적하기에 부적당한 화물에 대해 경고를 하기 위한 것이다. The purpose of this study aims to analyse the implications of the Japanese JP24 with 24-hour rule instituted by the U.S. CBP agency in the international logistics security system. A major US maritime cargo security programme is the 24-hour rule. This programme requires container shipping lines to provide information electronically to the CBP about container cargo on board their ships at foreign ports, but destined for US ports, at least 24 hours prior to the departure of these ships from foreign ports. The submitted information allows for the pre-screening and targeting of suspected containers. This rule obliges all ocean carriers or NVOCC departing from a foreign port to reach the US. The enforcement of this rule is a responsibility of the CBP which operates under the DHS. This rule is related to the CSI that was also adopted in 2002. The requirements of the Importer Security Filing expand the number of points of information that the shipper must provide, and it has become better known in the US as the 10+2 rule. The purpose of these advanced notification rules is that the importing country’s Customs authorities are able to inspect the paperwork, and eventually warn the carrier that something may be inappropriate with the shipment.

해상보험과 위험관리에 대한 고찰

한낙현(Han NakHyun) 한국해양비즈니스학회 2005 해양비즈니스 Vol.- No.5

  The marine insurance from insurance field and area of study is becoming to all sinking sun tendency. Namely, the marine insurance was to a non-life insurance field and as the founder reigning it did, at history and with one phased dignity insurance field than also it compared at non-marine insurance field it was located. But the market share of marine insurance falls gradually with rise of auto insurance and change of social economy, and as founder of non-life insurance reigning doing is pushed the position now and with the insurance which is special field it is located.   There is to a tendency where also the marine insurance as study is identical. Namely, currently the scholar who from domestic has interests in marine insurance is only excessively in decimal.   It is published special books which the Williams·Heins, the Dennenberg and the Mehr·Hedges write and also the curriculum of the college is changed due to an internationalization and information time and the book"s name which these write is included in course subject of the college. In these books, it treats insurance in the risk transfer which is one means of risk management. Namely, the insurance is to a risk management and there is a possibility of saying that excessively it is only in the study one part hold.   In addition to, the risk management from the sea is the method which it disposes against the various risks. For examples, they are trade logistics risk of goods, liability risk of carrier and economic loss of the shipping manager in vessel operation which relates with the transport by sea which accompanies to the international trade.   Consequently concrete contents of various marine insurance, the international conventions and rules regarding the maritime affairs which are, it must be familiarized the person in charge of the enterprise and shipping company, to be to a person in charge of the bank or insurance company which takes charge of an international finance settlement and the indispensability is a possibility of doing. The risk compared to becomes diversification more and it is becoming complicated, also new convention, also the rule continues and it is established. Consequently the enterprise it will not do to be positive, is not only a possibility which it will exist the dangerously.   The purpose of this paper aims to explain relation of marine insurance and risk management.

항해용선계약상 집단대표중재관련의 사례분석

한낙현(Nakhyun Han) 한국항만경제학회 2011 韓國港灣經濟學會誌 Vol.27 No.1

본 연구에서는 항해용선계약상 Asbatankvoy 서식을 중심으로 집단대표중재의 효과에 관한 분석을 하는데 목적이 있다. 이를 위한 자료로서 미국에서 쟁점이 된 Stolt-Nielsen 사건을 분석하고 있다. 이 사건에서 집단대표중재원칙은 중재조항이 집단대표중재를 허용할지의 여부를 결정하는 것은 중재인에게 요구하고 있다는 것이다. 당사자는 중재패널을 선임하고 중재지를 뉴욕시로 지정하였다. 또한 중재조항은 집단대표중재문제에 대하여 침묵한다는 것을 규정하고 있었다. 중재패널은 중재조항은 집단대표중재를 허용한 것이라고 판정하였지만, 지방법원은 중재판정을 무효라고 판정하였다. 그러나 제2순회구항소법원은 청구자는 집단대표중재에 대한 관례·관습과 관련된 해사원칙을 적용할 권한이 없다는 것을 인용하고 있기 때문에 중재인의 판정은 해사법의 명백한 무시를 한 것이 아니라고 판결하였다. 즉 중재인은 집단대표중재에 대한 원칙을 확립하지 않고 있는 뉴욕법을 명백하게 무시한 것이 아니라는 것이다. 그러나 미국 연방최고법원은 당사자들이 중재합의를 하였으나, 개별분쟁이 아닌 집단을 당사자로 하는 집단분쟁을 중재로 해결할지에 관하여 침묵하고 있는 경우에 집단대표중재를 강제할 수 있는지에 관하여 중재를 강제할 수 없다는 판결을 선고하였다. 최고법원에 따르면 연방중재법 상 당사자들이 분쟁을 중재로 해결하는 것을 허용하기로 합의하지 않았다면 중재를 강제할 수 없는 것이 원칙이라고 판시하고 있다. The purpose of this study aims to analyse the effect of class arbitration under voyage charter with Asbatankvoy form. This study analyses the Stolt-Nielsen case as a data. In this case, One Class Rule requires an arbitrator to determine whether an arbitration clause permits class arbitration. The parties selected an arbitration panel, designated New York City as the arbitration site, and stipulated that their arbitration clause was silent on the class arbitration issue. The panel determined that the arbitration clause allowed for class arbitration, but the District Court vacated the award. But the Second Circuit reversed, holding that because petitioners had cited no authority applying a maritime rule of customs and usage against class arbitration, the arbitrators’ decision was not in manifest disregard of maritime law; and that the arbitrators had not manifestly disregarded New York law, which had not established a rule against class arbitration. However, the Supreme Court held, imposing class arbitration on parties who have not agreed to authorize class arbitration is inconsistent with the Federal Arbitration Act.

정기용선계약상 본선회수에 따라 발생한 손해에 관한 연구

한낙현(Nakhyun Han) 한국항만경제학회 2013 韓國港灣經濟學會誌 Vol.29 No.4

본 연구는 정기용선계약 하에서 MT Kos호 사건을 중심으로 선박 회수에 따라 발생한 손해를 분석하는 것에 있다. 이 사건에서 용선자는 선주의 회수통지를 받으면 화물을 양하할 것과 본선은 Angra doe Reis에서 하루 동안 체선할 것에 합의하였다. 그런데 거기에서 본선은 2.64일 동안 체선하였다. 그 쟁점은 선주가 이 동안 선박에 소요된 연료비를 포함한 비용을 지급받을 수 있는지의 여부이었다. 선주는 ①용선계약의 사용과 보상조항, ② 새로운 계약의 성립, ③ 임치법을 근거로 청구권의 존재를 주장하였다. 제1심 법원은 선주의 청구를 인정하였는데, 그 근거로서 ③의 임치만을 인정하고 다른 근거는 완전히 배척하였다. 항소법원은 ③의 임치도 부정하였지만, 화물 양륙에 실제로 소요된 연료비에 대한 청구는 인정하였다. MT Kos호 사건판결의 중요성은 원칙적으로 보상클레임을 지지한 것에 있다. 그런데 이 사건의 반대의견에서는 관련조항의 범위를 부당하게 확장한 것이라고 하여 비판적인 견해를 개진하였다. 이 사건에서 임치법은 적정한 구제수단으로서 제공되고 있지만, 특히 계약상의 확실성이 매우 중요한 해운분야에서 용선계약표준서식상의 보상 범위로까지 확대할 필요는 없다고 본다. 그런데 향후 보상조항과 관련된 클레임의 경우 정기용선계약상의 보상조항이 적용되는 상황에까지 확대될 가능성을 모색할 수도 있기 때문에, 이 사건 이후의 판례의 결과가 주목된다. The purpose of the study aims to analyse the loss incurred by withdrawal of ship under time charter based on the English Law with the MT Kos case. In this case, it is agreed that if the charterers had begun to make arrangements for the discharge of their cargo as soon as they received the owner's notice of withdrawal, the vessel would have been detained at Angra doe Reis for one day. As it was, she was detained there for 2.64 days. The issue is whether the owners are entitled to be paid for the service of the vessel during that 2.62 days, and for bunkers consumed in the same period. Their claim is put forward on three bases-① under clause 13 of the charterparty; ② under an express or implied new contract made after the vessel was withdrawn, to pay for the time and bunkers; and ③under the law of bailment. The judge held they were entitled to succeed on basis ③,but rejected every other basis which they put forward. The Court of Appeal rejected the claim on all three bases, except that they allowed the owners to recover the value of bunkers consumed in actually discharging the cargo.

국제상거래상 Frustration이론에 관한 고찰

한낙현(Nakhyun Han),허윤석 법무부 국제법무정책과 2010 통상법률 Vol.- No.91

The purpose of this study aims to analyse the doctrine of frustration in international commercial contracts with English law. It is generally acknowledged that the principle of pacta sunt servanda, meaning that contracts should prima facie be enforced according to their terms, may have to be qualified by exemption such as force majeure, frustration, rebus sic stantibus or hardship. Where contracting parties elect to incorporate into their contract a force majeure clause they can make provision, not only for what constitutes a force majeure event, but also for the consequences of such an event. For example, provision can be made for the granting of extensions of time, the suspension or variation of the contract or even the termination of the contract. The variety of such clauses and their flexibility are such that the consequences of the occurrence of a force majeure event must depend primary upon the proper interpretation of the clause at issue, although in certain cases, where the force majeure clause itself does not deal with all eventualities, it may be possible to have resort to common law rules. But in the case of frustration the story is a rather different one; here greater reliance has, historically, been placed upon the general law, both common law and statute, rather than upon contractual terms negotiated by the parties. For example, a contract which is discharged on the ground of frustration is brought to an end automatically by the operation of a rule of law, irrespective of the whishes of the parties.

우리나라 덤핑防止關稅의 制度的 考察

박명섭(PAK MYONG SOP),한낙현(Nakhyun Han) 법무부 국제법무정책과 2002 통상법률 Vol.- No.47

A product is to be considered as being dumped, i.e. introduced into the commerce of another country at less than its normal value, if the export price of the product exported from one country to another is less than the comparable price, in the ordinary course of trade, for the like product when destined for consumption in the exporting country. When there are no sales of the like product in the ordinary course of trade in the domestic market of the exporting country or when, because of the particular market situation or the low volume of the sales in the domestic market of the exporting country, such sales do not permit a proper comparision, the margin of dumping shall be determeined by comparision with a comparable price of the like product when exported to an appropriate third country, provided that this price is representatives, or with the cost of production in the country of origin plus a reasonable amount for adaministartive, selling and general costs and for profits. Therfore, This Work shall be discussed as follows: 1. The meaning of Anti-Dumping Duty 2. The comparision between the WTO Agreement and the Korean Customs Law of Anti-Dumping Duty 3. The procedure to charge Anti-Dumping Duty in Korea 4. The present situation of Anti-Dumping Duty in Korea

P&I 보험에 있어서 운송인의 손해배상책임 담보에 관한 소고

조종주(JongJoo Cho),한낙현(NakHyun Han) 한국해양비즈니스학회 2003 해양비즈니스 Vol.- No.2

A contractual agreement for the carriage of goods by sea is described as contract of carriage. A person who has entered into a contract of carriage with the shipper of goods is described as a carrier. The carrier's primary obligations in the respect of the cargo are those contained in the contract of carriage. However, the carrier may also have duties in tort, or under the law of bailment. to care for the cargo. P&I club rule provides cover for the liability or loss, namely, liability or loss relating to the loss, shortage or damage of cargo. liability resulting from delay in the carriage of cargo. The cover provided by P&I club rule is subject to a number of restrictions and exclusions. There are some problems in these cover for the liability or loss relating to the cargo. These problems are as follows. ① unseaworthiness of vessel. ② increase of litigations ③ carrier's condition precedent to pay any liability or loss covered. ④ container's deck cargo. ⑤ Hamburg Rules.