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

논문 기본 정보

자료유형
학술저널
저자정보
저널정보
한국해법학회 한국해법학회지 한국해법학회지 제39권 제1호
발행연도
2017.1
수록면
151 - 182 (32page)

이용수

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

초록· 키워드

오류제보하기
Korean Commercial Act adopted the article Ⅲ, rule 1 of the Hague-Visby Rules in respect of a carrier’s duty to provide a shipper with the seaworthy ship and therefore, the carrier should exercise the due diligence in terms of seaworthiness before and at the beginning of the voyage in accordance with the article 794 of the Korean Commercial Act. However, it is unclear what it exactly means for the carrier to exercise the due diligence in terms of seaworthiness. The author opines that the strict criteria for the carrier’s due diligence should be applied, considering that the carrier is entitled to seek the exemption of liability as per the article 795 (2) and 796 of the Korean Commercial Act. In this regards, it is noteworthy that the English Court has applied the test of prudent carrier in deciding whether or not the carrier exercised the due diligence in terms of seaworthiness. Therefore, the author analyses the test of prudent carrier which has been developed in the English cases and suggests its implication. Even though the Korean Commercial Act adopted the Hague-Visby Rules, the legal principle for the exemption of liability of the Korean Commercial Act are stipulated differently from that of the Hague-Visby Rules. In other words, the carrier should bear the burden of proof for his due diligence in terms of seaworthiness as per the article 794 of the Korean Commercial Act if he invokes the exemption of liability arising out of the navigational error or the occurrence of fire in the article 795 (2), but once he invokes the exemption of liability in connection with the occurrence of the events described in the article 796, the burden of proof for the carrier’s diligence is shifted to the claimant. Furthermore, it is unclear who should bear the burden of proof for not only unseaworthiness itself but also the casual connection between the unseaworthiness and the loss of or damage to cargo with regards to the application of the article 794, 795 (2) and 796 of the Korean Commercial Act. Bearing those issues in mind, the author studies and proposes the balanced burden of proof between the carrier and the claimant in order to reasonably coordinate the interests.

목차

등록된 정보가 없습니다.

참고문헌 (34)

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