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.
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
When fire exception is taken in a broad sense, the protection for the parties concerned of the cargo is significantly damaged. The view that not only the fire on the boarding the ship but also the fire outside the ship should be the cause for exemption is unilaterally advantageous to the carrier, therefore unfair. Thus, “fire” in Article 795 Clause 2 of the Commercial Law should be interpreted as “fire on the boarding the ship”, though the interpretation does not reflect the intention of the Commercial Law revision.
In fact, it is difficult to assume the fire caused by carrier’s intention or negligence, except for the fire caused by carrier’s unseaworthiness. Giving an immunity to fire caused by the negligence of the crew, for instance, is against the principle of equity. Therefore, it is desirable to “carrier” in Article 795 Clause 2 Sentence 2 of the Commercial Law includes “employees including the crew.”
For the following reasons, the carrier must prove all the facts regarding the fire. ① Giving an immunity for the damage caused by the fire is an exception in itself, and the burden of proof lies in the person who profits from the exceptional clause. ② It is practically impossible for the party concerned to prove the intention or negligence of the carrier. Therefore, the carrier cannot claim immunity unless he/she proves that the fire is not caused by one’s intention or negligence.
There was a heated debate over the exemption for fire at the Working Group III of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law, which was held to establish a new Convention on the Carriage of Goods by Sea. As a result, not only the fire caused by the carrier but also the fire cause by employees’ intention or negligence was exempted from immunity and the proposal that gives an immunity only to the fire on the boarding the ship was adopted. Such proposal is highly desirable.
In fact, it is difficult to assume the fire caused by carrier’s intention or negligence, except for the fire caused by carrier’s unseaworthiness. Giving an immunity to fire caused by the negligence of the crew, for instance, is against the principle of equity. Therefore, it is desirable to “carrier” in Article 795 Clause 2 Sentence 2 of the Commercial Law includes “employees including the crew.”
For the following reasons, the carrier must prove all the facts regarding the fire. ① Giving an immunity for the damage caused by the fire is an exception in itself, and the burden of proof lies in the person who profits from the exceptional clause. ② It is practically impossible for the party concerned to prove the intention or negligence of the carrier. Therefore, the carrier cannot claim immunity unless he/she proves that the fire is not caused by one’s intention or negligence.
There was a heated debate over the exemption for fire at the Working Group III of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law, which was held to establish a new Convention on the Carriage of Goods by Sea. As a result, not only the fire caused by the carrier but also the fire cause by employees’ intention or negligence was exempted from immunity and the proposal that gives an immunity only to the fire on the boarding the ship was adopted. Such proposal is highly desirable.
목차
Ⅰ. 서론
Ⅱ. 화재면책조항의 적용요건
Ⅲ. 선박화재의 입증책임
Ⅳ. 화재면책이 인정되지 않는 경우
Ⅴ. 결론
참고문헌
Abstract
참고문헌 (47)
참고문헌 신청
함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
해상법상 손해배상책임 제도의 문제점
한양법학
2011 .11
-
해상운송기업의 운송물 손해에 대한 면책 및 책임제한제도에 관한 고찰 : 해기과실 및 화재로 인한 운송물의 손해에 대한 면책제도를 중심으로
기업법연구
2006 .06
-
개정상법상 해상물건운송인의 손해배상책임에 관한 고찰
경영법률
2011 .01
-
해상물건운송인의 책임
경영법률
2006 .01
-
해상운송인과 적화보험자의 책임기간에 관한 연구 : 함부르크규칙과 신협회적화약관을 중심으로
무역학회지
2004 .02
-
해상운송법제상 상업용 수상무인선박과 해상운송인의 면책사유에 관한 고찰
해사법연구
2019 .01
-
여객의 인적 손해에 관련된 해상운송인의 손해배상책임에 관한 비판적 검토
기업법연구
2014 .06
-
LCC(저비용항공사)와 FSC(전통항공사)의 재무적 특징 및 차이점에 관한 실증적 연구
관광레저연구
2012 .09
-
海上運送法에서 契約自由의 原則과 그 制限
기업법연구
2004 .12
-
商法 航空運送編 制定試案의 問題點 檢討
기업법연구
2008 .09
-
몬트리올 협약상 국제항공화물운송에 관한 연구 : 항공화물운송장과 항공운송인의 책임을 중심으로
무역상무연구
2011 .02
-
국제항공화물의 운송 지연에 대한 항공운송인의 책임
중재연구
2004 .01
-
저가항공 서비스에 관한 비교 연구
한국항공경영학회지
2008 .01
-
國際海上運送과 航海過失免責
한국해법학회지
2011 .01
-
상법상 실제운송인의 손해배상책임에 관한 비판적 고찰과 입법론
무역상무연구
2016 .02
-
비교법에서 본 육상운송법의 현황과 과제
동북아법연구
2009 .01
-
항공사 승무원의 직업존중감이 직무만족, 이직성향에 미치는 영향 : 대형항공사와 저비용항공사의 비교연구
관광레저연구
2010 .09
-
國際運運條約上의 運送人 責任增加와 保險에 관한 硏究
산업경제연구
1993 .11
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2013-360-000498606