운송물 불법인도로 인한 손해배상채권의 선박소유자책임제한채권 해당 여부 - 대법원 2014. 5. 9. 선고 2014마223 선박책임제한 (Whether the claim caused by the wrongful delivery of warehouse keeper against the carrier falls within the claims for the shipowner limitation of liability - Korean Supreme Court Decision 2014Ma223 de)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 사법발전재단
· 수록지 정보 : 사법 / 1권 / 29호 / 107 ~ 134페이지
· 저자명 : 김인현

초록

운송인은 상법상 허용된 포장당책임제한과 선박소유자책임제한의 이익중 자신에게 유리한 것을 택하여 주장할 수 있다. 창고업자의 불법행위로 운송물 불법인도에 의한 손해배상책임을 부담하는 운송인이 선박소유자책임제한절차의 신청을 하였다. 하급심과 대법원은 그 손해는 상법 제769조 제1호의 “선박운항과 직접관련한 손해”가 아니라고 판시하였다. 1976년 선박소유자책임제한의 입법 취지가 선박의 항해 중 위험을 보호하기 위한 것이므로 선박의 운항은 양륙에서 종료된다는 근거를 법원은 제시하였다.
이러한 판결 내용은 운송인으로 하여금 책임제한이 되는 구간과 되지 않는 구간을 차별받게 하였다. 강행규정의 적용을 받는 양륙에서 인도까지에 대하여 운송인은 책임제한을 하지 못하고, 운송, 보관, 양륙 등의 구간에서는 이것이 가능하게 된다. 운송인의 책임구간 모두에 대한 보호가 필요하다.
우리 상법은 영국, 일본, 중국 등과 달리 함부르크 규칙과 같이 운송인의 강행적인 구간을 확장하여 양륙까지를 넘어서서 인도에 까지 이르고 있기 때문에 선박소유자책임제한의 대상이 되는 채권을 고려함에 있어서도 이러한 입장이 반영되어야 한다. 선박의 운항이란 기계적인 조종 혹은 항해의 개념을 넘어서서 영업적인 측면까지 포함되어야 한다. 현행 상법규정의 입법 취지에서도 당시 개정위원들은 선박의 운항을 항해에서 추가하여 영업까지 포함하는 것으로 본 기록이 나타난다.
필자는 이러한 점에서 평석 대상의 대법원판결과 다른 견해이다.

영어초록

The carrier has the right to invoke limitation of its liability by package under the Korean Commercial Act. Its right of global limitation is still effective regardless of the presence of the package limitation right under the Korean law. The cargo was wrongfully delivered to the importer without exchange of the B/L by the intentional act of the warehouse keeper at the warehouse. The shipper as the holder of the B/L demanded the delivery of the cargo to the carrier. The carrier applied for the commencement of global limitation for the claim raised by the shipper. The carrier argued that the claim fell within the definition of claim “‘occurring in direct connection with the operation of the ship’ under the Article 769 of the Korean Commercial Act. However, the lower courts and Korean Supreme Court decided that the claim which occurred after discharging the cargo at the warehouse did not fall within the definition of operation of the ship. The rationale behind the decision is that the global limitation system intends to protect the shipowner which runs business at sea with great risks.
The decision resulted in the different treatment between the claims occurred after discharging and the other claims before discharging in terms of sequence of the cargo flow. The carrier is allowed to limit its claims occurred during navigation whereas it is not allowed to limit its claims if the claims occurred after discharging the cargo from the ship. The carrier should be protected in the whole scope of the liability if the Korean law aims at protecting the carrier.
The Korean Commercial Act is different in that the scope of the carrier’s responsibility is wider than that of UK, Japan or China. The latter countries have the rules that the scope of the carrier’s responsibility does not include the receipt of the cargo and delivery of the cargo, just like the Hague-Visby Rules. However, the carrier has a duty to deliver cargo and it is not allowed to contract out under the Korean law. As a result, the Korean carrier should compulsorily pay damages to the holder of the B/L where the cargo was wrongfully delivered to the importer. Therefore, this different law should be reflected in the interpretation of the definition of the “operation of the ship” in the global limitation. The author argues that the “operation of the ship” under the Korean Commercial Act should be read including cargo claims even after discharging and thus it should be inclusive of the claims caused by the wrongful delivery of the cargo by the warehouse keeper at the warehouse after discharging of the cargo from the ship. The author shows other evidence that the law makers also intended to interpret the definition of “the operation of the ship” broad enough to include the business of the ship in addition to the navigation when they revised the relevant part of the Korean Commercial Act in 1991. In this respect, the author has different view from the decision of the Korean Supreme Court.

참고자료

· 없음