이젠 데이터를 통합을 위한 방법론이 필요하다

김인현,Kim, In-Hyeon 한국데이터베이스진흥원 1999 디지털콘텐츠 Vol.2 No.-

수컷 랫드(Sprague-Dawley)에서 2-부톡시에탄올(2-butoxyethanol)의 단회 기도내 투여에 따른 급성 독성시험

김현영 ( Hyeon-young Kim ),김인현 ( In-hyeon Kim ),김민석 ( Min-seok Kim ),김성환 ( Sung-hwan Kim ),이규홍 ( Kyuhong Lee ) 한국산업보건학회 2021 한국산업보건학회지 Vol.31 No.4

Objectives: The present study aimed to evaluate the potential toxicity of 2-butoxyethanol after intratracheal instillation in male rats. Methods: In order to calculate median lethal dose (LD₅₀) of 2-butoxyethanol using Probit analysis with SAS program, the 2-butoxyethanol was administered with dose levels of 0, 101.64, 203.28 and 406.56 mg/kg by once intratracheal instillation to male rats. During the test period, clinical signs, mortality, body weights, organ weights, hematology, and serum biochemistry were examined. At the end of 14 days observation period, all animals were sacrificed and gross finding and histopathological examination were performed. Results: All animals of 406.56 mg/kg group died within 2 weeks after the administration of 2-butoxyethanol. Treatment-related clinical signs, gross observation and histopathological changes (mucous cell hyperplasia, alveolar macrophage aggregation, and hemorrhage) of lung exhibited an increased in 2-butoxyethanol treated groups in a dose dependent manner. However, there were no changes in the organ weights, hematology and serum biochemistry, and histopathology of any other organ except lung. Conclusions: On the basis of the results, it was concluded that a single intratracheal instillation of 2-butoxyethanol in male Sprague-Dawley rats resulted in some adverse effects on mortality, clinical sign, and histopathology in the lung. In the experimental conditions, the LD₅₀ of 2-butoxyethanol was considered to be 287.2 mg/kg and lung was founded to be the target organ of 2-butoxyethanol.

판례평석 : 2001년도 해상법 관련 중요판례 평석

김인현 ( In Hyeon Kim ) 한국해법학회 2002 韓國海法學會誌 Vol.24 No.2

This article deals with the major Korean Maritime case of 2001, which are composed of one case regarding the liability of the time charterer, three cases regarding the carrier`s liability as the issuer of bills of lading, one time bar case and one case regarding insurer`s exemption of liability. On February 9, 2001 Korean Supreme court rendered that if the carrier issue a bill of lading with unknown clause(word) the shipper might have a burden of proof on the condition of cargo at loading port in case of FCL cargo. If LCL cargo is the case, the carrier might have a burden of proof against the written contents on bill of lading. On April 10, 2001 Korean Supreme court simply followed several previous decisions that the carrier must take responsibility for damages of the bona fide holder of bill of lading in case of the delivery of cargo without the production of original bill of lading. On April 27, 2001 Korean Supreme court confirmed again that the master`s wilful misconduct does not affect the right of package limitation of the carrier. On May 15, 2001 Korean Supreme court rendered that unseawortiness is not enough for hull insurer to exempt the liability in case of time policy, which followed the English Marine Insurance Act Article 39(5). On July 10, 2001 Korean Supreme court rendered that the time charter might be vicariously responsible for the negligence of the crew`s commercial error on the ground that the time charterer has control over the crew on the commercial aspect of the time chartered vessel. On October 30, 2001 Korean Supreme court expounded on Article 811 of the Korean Commercial Code. It rendered that the above article is not applicable to the recourse claim. Therefore, when the contractual carrier who paid claims to the cargo interests try to invoke a recourse claim to the actual carrier, one year time bar is not applied.

판례평석 : 2003년도 해상법 판례 평석

김인현 ( In Hyeon Kim ) 한국해법학회 2004 韓國海法學會誌 Vol.26 No.2

The writer makes comments on the 7 maritime cases rendered by the Korean Supreme Court during the year of 2003. On January 10, 2003 Korean Supreme Court(2000da70064) rendered that the straight bill of lading whithout the remaks of non-negotiable can be transferred by endorsement. Even though the B/L was not endorsed, the transferee can prove the transfer of the right with other methods. On February 14, 2003 Korean Supreme Court(2002da39326) confirmed that a freight forwader does not have a duty to investigate the possibility of arrest of the vessel due to not paying port charge in a particular port when she arrange forwarding at the request of the merchant. On August 22, 2003 Korean Supreme Court(2001da65977) rendered that the main obligor of the collision damages was shipowners rather than time charterer. The court premised on that under the time charter party the shipowner has the right and obligation on the ship`s navigation while the time charterer has them on ship`s commercial operation. This decision is in line with the court`s previous decision. On October 24, 2003 Korean Supreme Court(2001da72296) decided that the newly issued bill of lading after the consignee receive the cargo is invalid therefore the holder can not have the right to claim damages of cargo. On June 13, 2003 Korean Supreme Court(2001da42660) rendered that the cargo insurance coverage ends, under English law, when the insured subject departs from the normal course of transit, which is under control of the insured. On December 11, 2003 Inchon District Court(2001gadan82438) decided that a provision of Presidential Decree of Seaman`s Act which requires shipowners to enter an insurace contract, naming the crew as the insured, is invalid, viewing the nature of direct action of the relevant provision of Seaman`s Act.

한국과 미국의 해상물건운송법에 대한 비교법적 연구

김인현 ( In Hyeon Kim ) 한국해법학회 2004 韓國海法學會誌 Vol.26 No.2

In this article the writer tries to compare the laws between Korea and U.S. on the carriage of goods by sea. Essentially, the Korean Commercial Code (KCC) and U.S. COGSA are the same in that the carrier has both duties to make the ship seaworthy and to exercise due diligence for the cargo. Carriers can enjoy the benefits of packagelimitation and the excepted liability. A bill of lading is a prima facie evidence of receipt by the carrier. These resemblances resulted from both law`s enactment of the Hague Rule, although the KCC revised the law in accordance with the Hague-Visby Rule. However, there are several significant differences between the KCC and U.S. COGSA as followings. (1) The KCC is applicable for not only the carriage of particular goods with the common carrier but also the carriage of goods by the voyage charter party, whereas the U.S. COGSA applies to the carriage of goods by sea coupled with the bill of lading. The coverage of the carrier`s duty of care for the cargo in the KCC is extended to receipt and delivery beyond loading and discharging, which is the case of the U.S. COGSA. (2) The KCC does not have any compulsory governing law clause, whereas the U.S. COGSA does. (3) In relation to the burden of proof and exemption, the KCC separates the exemption provisions, such as the error of navigation and fire exemption, from those of the other 11 shifting burden of proof cases, as opposed to the unified codification of both kinds in the same provision of the U.S. COGSA. The KCC shifts the burden of proof of seaworthiness to the claimants in 11 shifting burden of proof cases, which force the cargo claimants to disfavored position. (4) The KCC has a more advanced package limitation regimes of Hague-Visby Rule, as opposed to the retarded regimes of the U.S. COGSA of Hague Rule. However, the US court adopts fair opportunity rule as safeguard against the limitation of the carrier. (5)While Korean court allow only a carrier for the particular carriage of goods by sea, the U.S court open doors to allow double carriers simultaneously such as a carrier plus a shipowner or a carrier in personal action plus the ship itself in the acton in rem. In conclusion, the write assesses that the KCC is more advanced than the U.S. COGSA but it has many provisions to protect the carrier much more than that to protect the cargo owner, compared with the U.S. COGSA.

FIO 계약조건(契約條件)과 그 유효성(有效性) 및 선상도(船上渡)의 법률관계(法律關係) (대법원 2004.10.15. 선고 2004다2137판결)

김인현 ( In Hyeon Kim ) 한국상사판례학회 2006 상사판례연구 Vol.19 No.1

철도운송인(鐵道運送人)의 히말라야 약관(約款)상 책임제한규정(責任制限規定) 원용가능성 -미국(美國) 연방대법원(聯邦大法院) 2004.11.9 커비 사건을 중심으로-

김인현 ( In Hyeon Kim ) 한국상사판례학회 2006 상사판례연구 Vol.19 No.3

선박충돌(船舶衝突)에서 과실비율(過失比率)과 해양안전심판재결(海洋安全審判裁決)과의 관련성에 대한 고찰

김인현 ( In Hyeon Kim ) 법조협회 2003 法曹 Vol.52 No.7

船舶衝突은 雙方過失이 대부분이고, 雙方過失에 의한 船舶衝突은 법적 성질로는 共同不法行爲를 구성한다. 우리 상법 제846조는 민법 제760조의 共同不法行爲者의 連帶責任 규정을 변경하여, 物的 損害에 대하여는 過失比率에 따른 分割責任으로 하고 있다. 따라서 船舶衝突의 손해배상문제 해결을 위하여는 양 선박사이의 過失比率의 산정이 중요하게 된다. 실무적으로는 行政審判의 일종인 海洋安全審判의 裁決 결과를 民事의 過失比率로 환원하여 사용하는 경향을 보이고 있다. 그런데, 海洋安全審判院은 船舶衝突 등과 같은 海洋事故의 원인을 판단하는 행정기관으로서, 船舶衝突을 야기한 海技士의 過失에 대한 海洋安全審判院의 시각이 반드시 民事에서의 시각과 같지 않을 뿐만 아니라, 裁決書에 나타나는 원인제공 정도도 主因과 一因의 형태를 취할 뿐이지 정확한 수치로 나타나지 않는다. 그러므로, 海洋安全審判에서의 裁決 결과를 民事에서의 過失比率로 적절히 환원할 필요성이 대두된다. 船舶衝突에서의 過失比率은 海上交通法上의 航法違反에 대한 非難可能性(혹은 有責性)과 그 航法違反行爲가 사고에 미친 因果的 影響力의 크기에 의하여 결정된다. 海洋安全審判院의 裁決을 이용하여 民事에서의 過失比率을 산정함에는 아래와 같은 과정을 거치는 것이 좋다는 의견을 필자는 제시한다. 즉, 제1단계로서 海洋安全審判院의 裁決 내용을 숙지할 것, 제2단계로서 航法違反 사항을 추출할 것, 제3단계로서 航法違反 사항들이 衝突事故와 因果關係가 있는지를 파악할 것, 제4단계로서 因果關係가 있는 航法違反 행위들이 각각 어느 정도의 非難可能性이 있는지를 파악할 것 그리고 제5단계로서 航法에 위반한 因果關係가 있는 행위들로부터 각 행위의 因果的 影響力의 크기를 파악할 것 등이다.

선하증권상 FIO 특약의 개념과 효력 -대법원 2010.4.15.선고 2007다50649판결을 중심으로-

김인현 ( In Hyeon Kim ),박영준 ( Young Joon Park ) 한국상사판례학회 2011 상사판례연구 Vol.24 No.3

FIO terms are widely used in the voyage charter parties in Korean practices. Under the FIO terms, several issues are raised. The first issue is whether the shipowner`s liability to load and discharge is shifted to the charterer or not. In the Korean Supreme Court case 2010.4.15. Docket No. 2007da50649, the Court accepted that the liability of the carrier (shipowner) to load, stow and discharge is shifted to the charterer. The second issue is whether the FIO terms is null and void because it makes the carrier less liable than the Korean Commercial Code Art. 795 and thus it is against the obligatory provision of Art. 799, which is equivalent to Hague-Visby Rules Art. 3(8). In the above case, the Court rendered that it was not against Art. 799. The authors address legal issues of FIO term and analyse the judgment of the above Korean Supreme Court on the meaning of FIO term and submit a proposal for improving the legal status of the FIO term in the Korean Commercial Code.

2015년 중요해상판례

김인현 ( In Hyeon Kim ) 한국해법학회 2016 韓國海法學會誌 Vol.38 No.1

운송계약과 관련한 2015.5.28. 선고 2014다88215 판결에서, 대법원은 운송주선인을 주선인으로 기능한 것이 아니라 계약운송인이었다고 판시하였다. 대법원은 2015.4.23.선고 2012다115847판결에서 FO 약정이라도 영업용 보세장치장에 입고된 경우 운송인의 인도의무는 여전히 존속되고 창고업자는 인도지시서와 상환하여 운송물을 인도할 의무가 있고 이를 위반한 경우 선하증권소지인에게 손해배상책임을 부담한다고 판시하였다. 2015.11.17.선고 2013다61343판결에서 대법원은 화재면책, 포장당 책임제한 그리고 총체적 책임제한 규정은 일종의 임의규정이라서 계약당사자에 의하여 적용이 배제될 수 있다고 판시하였다. 대법원은 또한 2015.12.10.선고 2013다3170판결에서 운송물이 인도된 다음이라서 운송인이 운송물을 점유하고 있지 않은 경우에 발행된 선하증권은 무효이고, 따라서 선하증권의 소지인으로서 송하인은 운송인에게 운송물대금을 청구할 수 없다고 판시하였다. 대법원은 2014.11.27. 선고 2012다14562 판결에서 항공과 육상운송이 결합된 복합운송의 경우 항공운송장의 약관상 책임제한규정은 육상에서 발생한 사고에도 적용된다고 판시하였다. 선박건조계약과 관련하여, 2015.2.26. 선고 2012다79866 판결에서 대법원은 선수금환급보증서를 일반보증이 아니라 독립보증으로 간주하였고, 그 결과 건조계약에서부터 발생한 항변은 선수금환급보증서의 유효성에 영향을 미치지 않는다고 판시하였다. 대법원은 또한 2015.7.9. 선고 2014다6442 판결에서 선수금환급을 요구하는 수익자인 발주자의 권리남용의 법리는 아주 제한적으로만 인정되어야 한다고 보았다. 영국법을 준거법으로 하는 해상보험과 관련한 2015.3.20.선고 2012다118846판결에서 대법원은 한국의 강행규정은 지정된 준거법을 제외하고 모든 사실들이 한국과 관련된 경우에만 한국의 강행규정이 적용된다고 판시하였다. 2015.6.9. 선고 2012나29269 판결에서 피해자인 제3자의 직접청구권에 적용될 준거법을 정함에 있어서 서울고등법원은, 직접청구권은 보험계약에서부터 발생된 것이고 당사자 사이의 보험계약의 준거법은 영국법이었기 때문에 피해자와 보험자 사이의 직접청구권을 규율하는 준거법도 영국법이어야 한다고 판시하였다. 유류오염사고시 방제조치를 한 경우 이것이 국가에 대한 사무관리가 되는가가 쟁점이 된 2014.12.11.선고2012다15602판결에서 대법원은 유류오염사고시 국가는 방제의무를 부담하므로 사무관리가 성립한다고 판시하였다. The Korean Supreme Court (KSC) rendered 9 maritime law related case during the year of 2015. In the KSC case 2015.5.28. Docket No. 2014da 88215 involved in the contract for the carriage, the Court regarded a freight forwarder as the contractual carrier rather than intermediary. In the KSC case 2015.4.23. Docket No. 2012da115847, the Court rendered that if the cargo was stocked at the business warehouse after discharge under the FO agreement, the delivery of the cargo took place when the cargo was released at the warehouse and thus the warehouse keeper was required to exchange the cargo with the B/L or delivery order. In the KSC case 2015.11.17. Docket No. 2013da61343, the Court also decided that the provisions of fire exemption, package limitation and global limitation was a kind of default rule and thus they could be contract out by the parties agreement in the contract. In the KSC case 2015.12.10.Docket No. 2013da3170, the Court further decided that the Bill of Lading issued after the cargo had been delivered and thus the carrier did not possess the cargo was null and void, and therefore, the shipper as the holder of the B/L was not allowed to claim the loss of cargo price to the carrier. In the KSC case 2014.11.27. Docket No. 2012da14562, the Court decided that package limitation clause in the general terms of the air waybill was applicable for the case that the accident occurred at land leg. In the KSC case 2015.2.26. Docket No. 2012da79866 involved in the ship building contract, the Court regarded the refund guarantee (R/G) as the independent guarantee rather than the traditional guarantee, as a result which the defences stemming from the underlying contract did not affect the validity of the R/G. In the KSC case 2015.7.9. Docket No. 2014da6442, the Court also decided that the beneficiary`s abuse of right to call the R/G should be very narrowly allowed. In the KSC case 2015.3.20.Docket No. 2012da11846 involved in the marine insurance cases with English governing law clause, the Court decided that the Korean mandatory rules were allowed to be applied only when all related factors except designated governing law are relevant to the Korea. In the Seoul High Court case 2015.6.9. Docket No. 2012na29269, when the governing law was at issue in relation to the direct action of the third party victim, it decided that the governing law regulating the direct action between the victim and the liability insurer should be English law because the direct action was stemmed from the contract for the insurance and, the insurance contract between the parties was English law. In 2014.12.11.Docket No. 2012da15602, the Court rendered that the cleaning company was allowed to claim the expenses to the government because its cleaning work falls within the definition of other person`s affair under the Civil Code.