선박충돌사고 원인제공비율 산정제도에 대한 실증적 고찰

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

In December 1998, Act on the investigation and inquiry into marine accidents was amended by inserting new Paragraph (2) of Article 4, which states “Where two or more persons are related to the occurrence of a marine accident when the Maritime Safety Tribunal(hereinafter referred to as the MST) examines the causes of a marine accident as provides for under Paragraph (1), the MST may disclose the extent to which each responsible person is related to the cause of the marine accident.” Based on this new Paragraph, the apportionment system of causation ratio in the ship collision was introduced in February 1999. However the apportionment system is adopted 12 years ago, public debate has continued about the positive and negative aspects of the system. Thus some groups advocate the system for the advantages, but other groups argue that this system should be abolished. Therefore, at first, this study analyzes the adopting background and the main reasons of the pros and cons discussion on the apportionment system of causation ratio in the ship collision. Then we conduct a survey analysis to investigate stakeholder’s satisfaction of this new system in the ship collision cases. Finally this study suggests the policy proposal to improve the apportionment system of causation ratio in the ship collision.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 이정원, "해양안전심판제도의 개선방안에 관한 입법론적 제언" 한국법제연구원 (43) : 431-460, 2012

2 Park, J. P., "Significance of Legislation of the Standard of Apportionment of the Extent of the Cause in the Ship Collision" 35 : 53-56, 2007

3 Seo, D. H., "Maritime Law·Marine Insurance Law-Case and Practice-" Bobmun Sa Press 372-, 2007

4 Korean Maritime Safety Tribunal, "Marine Accidents Statistics 2012"

5 Kim, I. H., "Fault ratio in the Collision Case and its relationship with the Marine Safety Tribunal's Decision" 562 : 91-112, 2003

6 Kim, I. H., "A Study on the Assessment of Appointment of Collision Liability of Korea Marine Accident Investigation Agency in the Perspective of Civil War" 22 (22): 123-148, 2000