법무법인 정동국제
  - 법무법인
  - 공지사항
  - 찾아오시는 길
  - 자료실
  - 판결소개
  - 진행프로젝트
홈 > 회사소개 > 공지사항

내 / 용 / 보 / 기
글작성자
 관리자 2008-08-19 18:13:31 | 조회 : 16322
제      목  News Quarterly 2
첨부파일
  Quarterly_2.pdf (1.09 MB) Download : 538
The attached document is News Quarterly 2 published in October 2001.

Please consider the following instructions revised for the attached Quarterly 2.


In Issue 2 of the Suh & Co Maritime News Quarterly (published October 2001), we stated inaccurately that the Supreme Court Judgment of July 10, 2001, in re 99 Da 58327, marked a significant departure from previous Supreme Court decisions equating the rights and liabilities of time charterers with that of vessel lessees (See Supreme Court Judgment of Jan. 28, 1994, in re 93 Da 18167; Supreme Court Judgment of Feb. 25, 1992, in re 91 Da 14215). The vessel lessee comparison is significant as Article 766 of the Korean Commercial Code affords lessees all "the same rights and duties as the shipowner . . . ." It was the position of the Supreme Court prior to its Judgment of July 10, 2001 that time charterers, like lessees, were to be treated the same as shipowners under Korean law and that position was, contrary to our previous explanation, not altered by the concerned Judgment.

In its Judgment of July 10, 2001, the Supreme Court was asked to consider whether a subrogated cargo insurer could bring suit against a time charterer in contract or tort for losses occuring at sea when a sub-voyage charterer (not the time charterer) had issued a master B/L in its own name. The Supreme Court concluded that, in this situation, there was no privity between the time charterer and the holder of B/L, thus the cargo insurer could not bring a subrogated contractual claim against the time charterer. Moreover, the cargo insurer could not state a claim in tort against the time charterer because it could not carry its burden of proving negligence as required by Korean law. In this way, the Supreme Court held that the cargo insurer could not pursue a cause of action against the time charterer, however, its analysis did not turn on whether the time charterer wass liable as a shipowner under Korean law and in no way undermined previous holdings to that effect. The Judgment of July 10, 2001 should not be read as breaking with prior cases in this regard.
이전글 | News Quarterly 1 관리자   2008/08/19
다음글 | News Quarterly 3 관리자   2008/08/19

Copyright 1999-2019 Zeroboard / skin by daerew