지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
이 논문의 연구 히스토리 (2)
- 이 논문의 후속연구가 궁금하신가요?
- 연관 학술논문 또는 학술발표를 통해 보다 발전된 연구결과를 확인하실 수 있습니다.
- 이 논문의 연구 히스토리 확인하기
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
Although, through international efforts, a unified convention that will regulate international multimodal transport (United Nations Convention on International Multimodal Transport of Goods, 1980) has been adopted, it is not yet in effect. Furthermore, since definitions of international multimodal transport in each country have not been unified, and different statutes govern individual transportation transactions in practices, confused situations have increased.
At present, multimodal transport is regulated by general terms and conditions (standard transport bill of lading form or uniform rules presented by dominant private groups such as FIATA, BIMCO, ICC), not by unified statutes.
As Korea didn’t have systematic legislation, there was a preceding necessity to properly establish domestic legislation, which would lead to the systematization of legal issues that involve multimodal transport.
As such, in a situation that required efforts to improve the safety of international multimodal transport and the efficiency of operation of the system and to prepare for legal disputes, new provisions governing the liabilities of multimodal transport operators were revamped in Article 816, Section 5 “Marine Commerce”, Commercial Code based on the existing legislative theories.
More specifically, the revised Commercial Code that referred to the UN Convention on International Multimodal Transport of Goods, 1980 stipulates that multimodal transport operators take liabilities according to the laws which would apply to the transport section in which damages or loss occurred (declaration of network liability system), or take liabilities according to the laws which would apply to the main transport section if the section in which damages or loss occurred is unclear, and they take secondary liabilities according to the laws which would apply to such sections for which freight rates are the highest.
The efforts to regulate the multimodal transport, though domestically, to prevent any confusion were desirable.
However, it is difficult to effectively govern the complicated legal issues of international multimodal transport with the simple one article of Commercial Code. Accordingly, it is necessary to have detailed provisions throughout multimodal transport.
According to the added provisions, only when the main section is determined, applicable principles and coverage of liabilities come out. Moreover, sometimes judgment by the court may be required to determine the main section. Accordingly, rather than giving an answer to a question in a way of leaving room for interpretation, it is required to reconsider the provisions so as to anticipate the coverage of liabilities by setting liability criteria clearly.
Furthermore, as the methodology to determine unclear accident sections, it is suggested to consider properly referring to one of marine related transport conventions or setting limitations of liability of the operators under the Korean Commercial Code.
In terms of the legislative system, it is suggested to consider establishing a chapter that includes land transportation as well as marine transportation in the Section “Commercial Activities”. Tentatively, it is possible to establish a separate part in the next of the part “Maritime Transportation”, but it is desirable to consider to enact an independent act that only covers multimodal transport.
In addition, when considering the principles and period of liabilities in multimodal transport and the owner and coverage of liabilities, it is necessary to continuously explore what is the best way to treat interested parties fairly so as to reflect it into legislation.
At present, multimodal transport is regulated by general terms and conditions (standard transport bill of lading form or uniform rules presented by dominant private groups such as FIATA, BIMCO, ICC), not by unified statutes.
As Korea didn’t have systematic legislation, there was a preceding necessity to properly establish domestic legislation, which would lead to the systematization of legal issues that involve multimodal transport.
As such, in a situation that required efforts to improve the safety of international multimodal transport and the efficiency of operation of the system and to prepare for legal disputes, new provisions governing the liabilities of multimodal transport operators were revamped in Article 816, Section 5 “Marine Commerce”, Commercial Code based on the existing legislative theories.
More specifically, the revised Commercial Code that referred to the UN Convention on International Multimodal Transport of Goods, 1980 stipulates that multimodal transport operators take liabilities according to the laws which would apply to the transport section in which damages or loss occurred (declaration of network liability system), or take liabilities according to the laws which would apply to the main transport section if the section in which damages or loss occurred is unclear, and they take secondary liabilities according to the laws which would apply to such sections for which freight rates are the highest.
The efforts to regulate the multimodal transport, though domestically, to prevent any confusion were desirable.
However, it is difficult to effectively govern the complicated legal issues of international multimodal transport with the simple one article of Commercial Code. Accordingly, it is necessary to have detailed provisions throughout multimodal transport.
According to the added provisions, only when the main section is determined, applicable principles and coverage of liabilities come out. Moreover, sometimes judgment by the court may be required to determine the main section. Accordingly, rather than giving an answer to a question in a way of leaving room for interpretation, it is required to reconsider the provisions so as to anticipate the coverage of liabilities by setting liability criteria clearly.
Furthermore, as the methodology to determine unclear accident sections, it is suggested to consider properly referring to one of marine related transport conventions or setting limitations of liability of the operators under the Korean Commercial Code.
In terms of the legislative system, it is suggested to consider establishing a chapter that includes land transportation as well as marine transportation in the Section “Commercial Activities”. Tentatively, it is possible to establish a separate part in the next of the part “Maritime Transportation”, but it is desirable to consider to enact an independent act that only covers multimodal transport.
In addition, when considering the principles and period of liabilities in multimodal transport and the owner and coverage of liabilities, it is necessary to continuously explore what is the best way to treat interested parties fairly so as to reflect it into legislation.
#복합운송
#복합운송인의 책임
#구간이종책임제도
#전구간동일책임제도
#운송물의 멸실 또는 훼손이 생긴 운송구간이 확인된 이른바 “확인된 손해”의 경우와 이것이 확인이 되지 않은 “숨겨진 손해”의 경우
#국제도로물건운송협약
#국제철도물건운송협약
#헤이그규칙
#헤이그-비스비규칙
#바르샤바조약
#UN국제물건복합운송협약
#상법 816조
#multimodal transport
#liabilities of multimodal transport operators
#network liability system
#uniform liability system
#known damage
#concealed damage
#CMR
#CIM
#Hague Rules
#Hague-Visby Rules
#Warsaw Convention
#UN Convention on International Multimodal Transport of Goods 1980
#Korean Commercial Code Article 816
목차
Ⅰ. 서론
Ⅱ. 복합운송인의 책임제도
Ⅲ. 각 운송법규상 책임주체
Ⅳ. 각 운송법규상 책임기간
Ⅴ. 각 운송법규상 책임원칙
Ⅵ. 각 운송법규상 책임범위
Ⅶ. 상법 제816조에 대한 검토
Ⅷ. 결론
참고문헌
〈Abstract〉
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청이 논문과 연관된 판례 (2)
-
대법원 1972. 6. 13. 선고 70다213 판결
가. 선박충돌로 인하여 생긴 손해의 배상에 관하여는 상법규정(본조)만이 적용되고 민법상 공동불법행위에 관한 규정은 그 적용이 배제된다.
자세히 보기 -
대법원 1992. 2. 25. 선고 91다14215 판결
가. 당사자 간에 체결된 정기용선계약이 그 계약 내용에 비추어 선박에 대한 점유권이 용선자에게 이전되는 것은 아니지만 선박임대차와 유사하게 용선자가 선박의 자유사용권을 취득하고 그에 선원의 노무공급계약적인 요소가 수반되는 것이라면 이는 해상기업활동에서 관행적으로 형성 발전된 특수한 계약관계라 할 것으로서 이 경우 정기용선자는 그 대외적인 책
자세히 보기
함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
복합운송에 대한 2010년 상법개정안의 분석과 비판
한양법학
2011 .05
-
복합운송에 관한 입법논의와 외국입법의 검토
기업법연구
2008 .09
-
복합운송인의 책임제한 방식과 한도액
무역상무연구
2018 .02
-
복합운송에 관한 2015년 상법개정안에 대한 비판적 검토
한양법학
2015 .11
-
복합운송법 제정안에 관한 검토
한국해법학회지
2012 .01
-
複合運送에 관한 商法規定의 新設
한국해법학회지
2004 .01
-
복합운송에 관한 입법론
한국해법학회지
2010 .01
-
중국의 복합운송법에 관한 고찰
외법논집
2006 .01
-
복합운송에 관한 2011년 상법개정안의 비판적 검토
법학연구
2011 .07
-
복합운송계약과 그 준거법의 결정
法學論文集
2013 .01
-
복합운송규정의 개정과 과제
중앙법학
2011 .06
-
복합운송에 관한 상법의 문제점 및 개선방안 검토 : 2015년 상법개정안을 중심으로
국제거래와 법
2016 .04
-
복합운송의 물류경쟁력 강화를 위한 실천적 방안
통상정보연구
2007 .06
-
국제복합운송계약에서 로테르담 규칙의 적용상 문제점에 관한 연구
무역상무연구
2010 .05
-
複合運送人의 責任과 保險問題
기업과혁신연구
1992 .01
-
운송법제의 개정동향과 개선과제
중앙법학
2011 .06
-
複合運送人의 責任에 관한 硏究 -UN複合運送制約을 中心으로-
기업과혁신연구
1988 .07
-
A Study on the Legal Concept of the Terms Covering at Least Two Different Modes of Transport
해사법연구
2015 .01
-
컨테이너 복합운송인의 책임에 관한 연구
기업과혁신연구
2005 .04
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2009-360-018423589