해양플랜트공사에 관한 법적 문제점과 개선방안
|dc.description.abstract||Abstract Due to the high oil prices sustained from the middle of 2000, the development of offshore oil and gas resources was accelerated. This enabled the offshore industry to maintain a high growth rate. After the global financial crisis of 2008, 3 big domestic shipyards(HHI, SHI, DSME) maintained a strategy for expanding offshore plant construction on a large scale as opposed to merchant ship construction. As the development of oil and gas resources in the oceans moved into deeper waters, Korean heavy industry attained the rank of the world’s foremost contractors in the field of offshore plant construction. They signed most of the new orders, including those for mobile and floating offshore plants, such as drillships and FPSO, based on their possession of the world’s top capabilities in shipbuilding. Despite the domestic offshore plant industry’s remarkable growth, there were serious problems. These included the limitation of industry structures that were hugely concentrated in the construction sector and low levels of self-reliance in engineering and equipment supply. The result was excessive competition among domestic shipyards, leading to decreases in operating profits. As resource nationalism has been extended since the 1980s, the business initiative has moved from IOCs to the NOCs of new resource-developing countries. Therefore, NOCs are strengthening the local content policy in order to maximize their profits. If a shipyard performs construction under a turnkey contract, it is fully responsible for risk and process management during the construction. Therefore, entire project management capabilities such as engineering, procurement, and commissioning have become especially important. When the shipyard receives an order, it assumes the risks associated with all these problems. Meanwhile, due to the development of shale gas and the slow growth of the global economy, oil prices plummeted in 2014. Offshore oil wells, which had relatively high production costs in comparison to onshore oil wells, suffered direct damage, and the offshore industry took a big step backward. The domestic shipyard suffered unprecedented losses as it failed to respond adequately to the environmental changes in the offshore plant market and external negative factors. This serious situation called for management to engage in the robust restructuring of the shipyard under tremendous pressure. To devote attention to reliable process management and contract fulfillment under construction, therefore, this paper reviews the main legal issues in the agreement and proposes solutions to them. If a purchaser requests a change in an order or raises the issue of contract fulfillment, the shipyard must actively cope with the claim. However, if the claim develops into a dispute case, an appropriate dispute resolution method should be suggested so that the shipyard can immediately take care of the dispute process. As a shipyard makes an EPC contract, the risks that it should cover are explained. Therefore, CAR or ICBR, which are adopted for the shipbuilding process, have limitations in the coverage of risks. In this way, insurance covers the shipyard, taking care of all possible risks during construction(an example is WELCAR 2001). However, offshore plant construction insurance, which has a relatively short history compared to marine insurance, causes a wide range of problems. With this in mind, this paper reviews the main characteristics of the WELCAR 2001 offshore plant construction insurance clauses from a legal perspective and proposes improvements to them. Finally, the offshore plant industry has had a very large impact on related industries, such as the resource development and component equipment industries. It is a major export field of the country and has expanded the scope of industry through diverse activities(for instance, developing energy resources such as methane hydrate, manganese nodules, and hydrothermal deposits). It is my hope to contribute to the continued evolution of the offshore plant industry by encouraging the composition of ecosystems across the value chains for the country's economic development.||-|
|dc.description.tableofcontents||목 차 Abstract 제1장 서 론 1 제1절 연구의 배경 1 제2절 연구의 목적 3 제3절 연구의 방법 및 범위 4 제2장 해양플랜트공사계약 및 공사보험의 개관 7 제1절 해양플랜트의 개념 7 Ⅰ. 해양플랜트의 정의와 법적 성질 7 Ⅱ. 해양플랜트산업의 정의와 연혁 16 Ⅲ. 해양플랜트산업과 계약 20 제2절 해양플랜트공사계약의 개요 30 Ⅰ. 해양플랜트공사계약의 의의 30 Ⅱ. 해양플랜트공사계약의 법적 성질 31 Ⅲ. 해양플랜트공사계약의 법적 효력 34 Ⅳ. 해양플랜트공사계약의 현황 39 제3절 해양플랜트공사보험의 개요 42 Ⅰ. 해양플랜트공사보험의 의의 42 Ⅱ. 해양플랜트공사보험의 법적 성질 44 Ⅲ. 해양플랜트공사보험의 법적 효력 47 Ⅳ. 해양플랜트공사보험의 현황 52 제3장 해양플랜트공사계약의 법적 개선방안 55 제1절 해양플랜트공사계약의 문제점 55 Ⅰ. 발주자 위주의 계약관행 56 Ⅱ. 위험노출 기간의 장기화 56 Ⅲ. 현지참여정책의 적용 강화 58 제2절 해양플랜트공사계약의 법적 쟁점 및 개선방안 59 Ⅰ. 인도지연 및 지체상금 59 Ⅱ. 소유권의 귀속 64 Ⅲ. 준거법의 적용 66 Ⅳ. 기타 69 제3절 해양플랜트공사계약 상의 분쟁해결을 위한 개선방안 74 Ⅰ. 분쟁의 원인과 특징 74 Ⅱ. 분쟁해결의 방법 81 Ⅲ. 분쟁해결을 위한 개선방안 90 제4장 해양플랜트공사보험의 법적 개선방안 97 제1절 해양플랜트공사보험의 문제점 97 Ⅰ. 보험목적물의 위험 증가 97 Ⅱ. 계약방식의 변경 100 제2절 WELCAR 2001 해양플랜트공사보험약관의 담보위험 및 주요내용 102 Ⅰ. WELCAR 2001 해양플랜트공사보험약관의 담보위험 102 Ⅱ. WELCAR 2001 해양플랜트공사보험약관의 주요내용 116 제3절 WELCAR 2001 해양플랜트공사보험약관의 개선방안 126 Ⅰ. 보험자적 측면에서의 개선방안 126 Ⅱ. 피보험자적 측면에서의 개선방안 133 Ⅲ. 기타 137 제5장 결 론 141||-|
|dc.title||해양플랜트공사에 관한 법적 문제점과 개선방안||-|
|dc.title.alternative||A Study on Legal Issues and Solutions regarding Offshore Construction : Focusing on contract and insurance issues||-|
|dc.contributor.alternativeName||Hong Jung Hyuk||-|
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.