메뉴 건너뛰기
.. 내서재 .. 알림
소속 기관/학교 인증
인증하면 논문, 학술자료 등을  무료로 열람할 수 있어요.
한국대학교, 누리자동차, 시립도서관 등 나의 기관을 확인해보세요
(국내 대학 90% 이상 구독 중)
로그인 회원가입 고객센터 ENG
주제분류

추천
검색
질문

논문 기본 정보

자료유형
학술저널
저자정보
권기훈 (경상대학교)
저널정보
한양법학회 한양법학 한양법학 제29집
발행연도
2010.2
수록면
255 - 279 (25page)

이용수

표지
📌
연구주제
📖
연구배경
🔬
연구방법
🏆
연구결과
AI에게 요청하기
추천
검색
질문

초록· 키워드

오류제보하기
There was a major revison to improve and complement Chapter 5 of the Commercial Law on July 3, 2007. The most significant change is that Chapter 5 categorizes the activities of maritime corporations into two parts-carriage and charter. The articles on voyage charter, time charter and bare-boat charter are under the broader section on charter, while affreightment in general ship and passenger marine carriage are dealt under the carriage section. Voyage charter is a contract of carriage in its legal nature, regardless of its name. Therefore, the maritime law revision has a problem in that it put voyage charter under the charter section, which could cause misunderstanding that voyage charter is a type of contract different from contract of carriage. The revised maritime law classifies the parties of a contract into shipowner and charterer, regardless of the type of the contract by charter party. As a result, the definition of shipowner varies in different articles, which leads to individual interpretation of the definition of shipowner in different articles. In regards to the definition of shipowner, I do not approve of the view that include bare-boat charterer, time charterer and sub charterer in the category of shipowner and co-owner. The term “charterer” also has to be interpreted in every article to clarify whether it means voyage charterer, time charterer and/or bare-boat charterer.
A certain term must have a same meaning within a code of law as long as there is no specific cause. When a term could or should be interpreted differently in different articles within a code of law, the choice of the term is not an appropriate one.
This thesis studies the different interpretations of the terms such as shipowner, charterer and carrier, points out the problem and suggests alternative solution. In the case of contract of carriage, the term “carrier” is more appropriate than the term “shipowner”, since “carrier” includes on contract by voyage charter party, the term “charterer” must be specified into voyage charterer, time charterer and bare-boat charterer. The term “charterer” must be used only when it includes all three types of the charterer to avoid confusion.

목차

Ⅰ. 서론
Ⅱ. 구별하여 규정해야 할 용어와 문제점
Ⅲ. 다의적으로 사용되는 용어의 해결방안
Ⅳ. 개별 법조문에 대한 개정안
Ⅴ. 결론
참고문헌
Abstract

참고문헌 (23)

참고문헌 신청

함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문

논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!

이 논문의 저자 정보

최근 본 자료

전체보기

댓글(0)

0

UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2013-360-000498237