보세창고업자의 화물 불법인도에 대한 해상운송인, 해상운송 대리인의 불법행위책임과 채무불이행책임에 관한 연구 (A Study on the liability of a sea carrier and sea carrier’s agent for the wrongful act and the breach of contract arising from the wrongful delivery of a cargo by a bonded warehouse)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 한국무역학회
· 수록지 정보 : 무역학회지 / 37권 / 3호 / 25 ~ 47페이지
· 저자명 : 이제현

초록

해상운송계약에서 운송인은 화물의 선적, 취급, 선내작업, 운송, 보관, 관리 및 양하에 관련하여 의무와 책임을 진다. 통상적으로 운송인이 보세창고업자를 선정하여 그와 임치계약을 체결하지만 우리나라의 보세화물관리제도에 의거 실수입업자가 보세창고업자와 임치계약을 체결하게 되고 운송인은 보세창고업자에게 화물을 인도하게 된다. 운송업자와 보세창고업자 간의 법률관계를 이중적임치계약 이론, 제3자를 위한 계약 이론으로 설명하고 있지만 보세창고업자가 실수입업자의 요청보다 해상운송인의 요청을 먼저 따라야 된다는 것에 대한 해답을 주지 못하여 본 논문에서는 대리 임치계약이론을 제시하였다. 해상운송인과 보세창고업자 간에 대리 임치계약이 성립되었다고 해서 보세창고업자의 불법행위에 대해 해상운송이 불법행위책임을 부담하는 것이 아니라 이들 간의 관계가사용인 또는 대리인 관계에 있으면 불법행위책임을 부담하고, 채무불이행책임은 이행보조자의 유형중에서 첫째, 셋째 유형에 속하면 책임을 지고 둘째 유형에 속하면 책임을 지지 않는다.

영어초록

Under every contract of carriage of goods by sea, the carrier shall be subject to the responsibilities and liabilities in relation to the loading, handling, stowage, carriage, custody,care and discharge of such goods. The carrier makes a deposit contract with the bonded warehouse operator normally and the bonded warehouse operator receives the delivery order issued by the carrier and delivers the goods to the presenter of delivery order . Under korean customs institution, the buyer must make a deposit contract with the bonded warehouse operator and the carrier must deliver the goods to him. This generates the conflict of the law between the buyer and the carrier, the bonded warehouse operator. The Supreme Court ruled the wrongful acts of the bonded warehouse operator by the relation of korean law that the buyer made a express deposit contract with the bonded warehouse operator and the carrier made a implied deposit contract with the bonded warehouse operator. The judgement of Supreme Court does not show correctly the reason that the implied deposit contract between the carrier and the bonded warehouse operator takes precedence of the express deposit contract with the bonded warehouse operator. This article presented the substitute deposit contract to solve this problem. The carrier, buyer, bonded warehouse operator, consignee agreed that the buyer as a substitute of the carrier must make a deposit contract with the bonded warehouse operator at time the contract of carriage concluded. The express deposit contract that the buyer make with the bonded warehouse operator is equal the express deposit contract that the carrier make with the bonded warehouse operator. The writer of this article agrees to the Supreme Court Judgement in respect of its holding that the carrier, the agent of the carrier are not liable sounding in tort for the reason that the carrier, the agent of the carrier are not in the position of an employer the bonded warehouse operator but does not agree that the Supreme Court denied the contractual liability of the carrier, the agent of the carrier for the reason that the carrier, the agent of the carrier are not in the position of an employer of the bonded warehouse operator.

참고자료

· 없음