2013년 해상법 중요 판례 소개 = Comments on the Korean Court`s Maritime Law Cases during the year of 2013

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

In the Changwon District court 2013.4.10. Docket No. 2012na5173, whether the seaman had a maritime lien against the shipowner or not was at issue. The court decided the Korean law as the governing law because Korea had the substantial relation with the case even though the flag of the vessel was Panama. In the Seoul Central District Court case 2013.11.1. Docket No. 2013chag2decision, the carrier`s right to limit its liability was denied. In the Inchon District court case 2013.5.24. Docket No. 2011gahap17126, the double limitation proceeding for the shipowner continued. The court did not admitted the effect of the decision of the Japanese limitation court. The case highlighted the urgent need for Korea`s ratification of the 1976 LLMC. In the Korean Supreme Court case 2013.10.31. Docket No. 2011da16431, the court decided that the carrier`s name should be inserted together with the agent`s signature on half of the carrier. In the Inchon disctrict court case 2012.8.8. Docket No. 2011gahap 19740, the carrier`s right to invoke fire exemption was denied. In the Korean Supreme Court case 2013.9.13. Docket No 2011da81190, the court decided that the abandonment of the insured was not fully effected and thus the insurer did not have duty to pay insurance money. In the Seoul Southern District Court 2013.6.5. Docket No. 2012gahap 7046, the court rendered that the governing law for the direct action was the English law because the direct action was derived from the insurance contract and thus the English law rather than the Korean law became the governing law for the direct action. In the Korean Supreme court case 2013.10.24. Docket No. 2011da13838, after the court admitted the liability of the Pusan Port Authority, the court decided that the expense for damage assessment fells upon the insurer and therefore it is not the subject of the subrogation for the benefit of the insurer. In the Seoul Central District Court case 2013.11.21. Docket No. 2011gahap98377, the court decided that the pure economic loss can be compensated by the defendant. In the Korean Supreme Court case 2012.12.25. Docket No. 2009da77754 the court decided that the Korean court has the jurisdiction if the case has the substantial connection with Korea even though the defendant had domicile in a foreign country.