한국해양대학교

Detailed Information

Metadata Downloads

항만하역사업자의 책임에 관한 연구

DC Field Value Language
dc.contributor.author 이원태 -
dc.date.accessioned 2017-02-22T07:19:56Z -
dc.date.available 2017-02-22T07:19:56Z -
dc.date.issued 2004 -
dc.date.submitted 56823-11-10 -
dc.identifier.uri http://kmou.dcollection.net/jsp/common/DcLoOrgPer.jsp?sItemId=000002176260 ko_KR
dc.identifier.uri http://repository.kmou.ac.kr/handle/2014.oak/10643 -
dc.description.abstract According to the trend of a large-sized vessel and a industrial carrier, the harbor is realizing the exclusive use berth and the mechanization of stevedoring work. Also the function of harbor is extending the base of physical distribution and is developing into the base of general cargo distribution that include the function of stevedoring, storage, ware- housing , loading, unloading, stowage, trimming, dunnaging and lashing as well as the function of distributing center and information center. Therefore the international unification of legal principle of liability for all distribution is a matter of importance to the revitalization of general cargo distribution and also the legal system on the liability of terminal operators is an important matter on the whole legal system of liability for cargo distribution But there is no legal system on the liability of terminal operators in korea. Practically it depends on the principle of civil law and normal business practice. If the contract of terminals is concluded, it is very important who is the contractor. Because the contents of liability vary greatly with the contractors. As a general rule, the shippers have three ways to claim damages resulting from loss of or damage to the goods. First, he can claim a compensation for damage from the carrier under the contract. In this case, it can be settled by the interpretation of general principle of civil law and commercial law. Second, he can claim damages on tort against the carrier. This case is almost the same as the upper cases. Third, he can claim damages on tort against the terminal operators. In this case, if the Himalaya clause, any person whomsoever carriage is performed or undertaken(including all sub-contractors of carrier) can be invoked the benefit of every right, defence and limitation of the carrier, is expressly existed in the contract, the operator will enjoy the benefit of every right as a carrier. But the problem is that the range of compensation for shipper is changed by the clause of a special contract. In spite of the same payment of shipper, why it is that the range of damage compensation for shipper is different? The purpose of this paper is to solve the upper problem. Moreover, the contract of terminal operators, according to the form of a contract, is divided into two forms. First, In the case of the charter-party, the stevedoring contract is concluded between the operator and a shipper. If any damages for goods occurs, the shipper will claim against the operator and have a compensation for damages. Second, In the case of the liner-contract, the shipper is used to enter into a contract with a carrier. Therefore the shipper claims against the carrier for cargo damages. After compensation for damages, the carrier will have the right of compensation for the operator. According as the korean commercial law, the carrier can enjoy the right of immunities and limits of liability for cargo damages of the shipper but the operator must cover all the expanses for the carrier`s damages. Also, if the shipper claims in tort against the operator directly, the operator must have a liability in accordance with the contents of the contract. In the same manner way as upper problem, why must the contents of a claim of damage for the same contract become different with the contractor? This contradiction must not be solved by the present legal system. For that reason, it is need to legislate for the law on the liability and legal position of the operator. So this paper suggests the three principles of legislation. First, it needs to be in harmony with the international unification and the present law on the liability of a carrier. Second, the benefit of immunity and limit of liability of carrier must expand into the liability in tort of the sub-executor of terminal operators. Third, it needs to provide expressly the scope of application on the liability in tort of the sub-executor of terminal operators. In conclusion, this paper suggests new terminal operator's legal liability system. -
dc.description.tableofcontents 第1章 머리말 1 第1節 硏究의 目的 1 第2節 硏究의 範圍 및 方法 3 第2章 港灣荷役事業者의 責任의 內容 6 第1節 港灣荷役事業의 意義와 法的 性質 6 Ⅰ. 港灣荷役事業의 意義 6 Ⅱ. 港灣荷役事業의 法的 性質 7 第2節 港灣荷役事業者의 責任의 內容 10 Ⅰ. 債務不履行責任 10 Ⅱ. 不法行爲責任 13 第3章 港灣荷役約款上의 責任 22 第1節 港灣荷役約款의 意義 22 Ⅰ. 約款의 目的 22 Ⅱ. 約款의 法的 性質 22 Ⅲ. 港灣荷役約款의 補充的 效力 23 第2節 一般埠頭의 港灣運送事業(荷役)約款 24 Ⅰ. 責任의 主體 24 Ⅱ. 歸責事由 24 Ⅲ. 責任期間 24 Ⅳ. 免責事由 24 Ⅴ. 責任의 範圍 26 第3節 컨테이너專用埠頭의 港灣荷役約款 27 Ⅰ. 責任의 主體 27 Ⅱ. 歸責事由 27 Ⅲ. 責任期間 28 Ⅳ. 免責事由 28 Ⅴ. 責任의 範圍 29 第4章 海上運送人의 履行補助者의 責任關係 30 第1節 히말라야約款에서의 責任關係 30 Ⅰ. 意義 30 Ⅱ. 히말라야約款 採擇 以前의 責任 33 Ⅲ. 히말라야約款의 意義와 效力 46 Ⅳ. 히말라야約款과 港灣荷役事業者의 責任關係 50 第2節 海上運送協約에서의 責任關係 56 Ⅰ. 海上運送協約에서 히말라야約款의 受容 56 Ⅱ. 헤이그規則 63 Ⅲ. 헤이그/비스비規則 70 Ⅳ. 함부르크規則 77 ·第5章 1989年 國際貨物터미널運營者의 責任에 관한 協約 84 第1節 協約의 意義와 制定經緯 84 Ⅰ. 協約의 意義 84 Ⅱ. 制定經緯 86 第2節 協約의 內容 88 Ⅰ. 適用範圍 88 Ⅱ. 責任의 主體 92 Ⅲ. 責任의 內容 96 Ⅳ. 責任制限 101 Ⅴ. 責任의 確保 112 Ⅵ. 證券의 發行 120 Ⅶ. 다른 國際運送協約과의 關係 122 第6章 立法論的 改善方案 124 第1節 港灣荷役事業者의 責任에 관한 法律의 限界 124 Ⅰ. 使用者의 契約責任과 履行補助者의 不法行爲責任 124 Ⅱ. 免責約款과 履行補助者의 法的 責任의 限界 130 Ⅲ. 港灣荷役契約의 法的 構造上의 問題點과 限界 132 第2節 立法論的 改善方案 133 Ⅰ. 意義 133 Ⅱ. 立法原則 134 Ⅲ. 港灣運送事業法 改正案 136 第7章 맺음말 144 參考文獻 149 附錄 1 港灣運送事業(荷役)約款 153 附錄 2 컨테이너터미널荷役約款 158 附錄 3 UN國際貨物터미널運營者責任協約草案 原文 166 -
dc.language kor -
dc.publisher 한국해양대학교 대학원 -
dc.title 항만하역사업자의 책임에 관한 연구 -
dc.title.alternative A Study on the Legal Liability of Terminal Operators -
dc.type Thesis -
dc.date.awarded 2004-02 -
dc.contributor.alternativeName Lee Won-Tae -
Appears in Collections:
해사법학과 > Thesis
Files in This Item:
000002176260.pdf Download

Items in Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

Browse