UCP 600 제26조 상의 부지문언과 갑판적재표시의 법률적 효력에 관한 연구 (A Study on the Legal Effectiveness of Unknown Wording and on Deck Indication of the Article 26 of UCP 600)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 한국무역상무학회
· 수록지 정보 : 무역상무연구 / 69권 / 221 ~ 237페이지
· 저자명 : 박성철

초록

This study aims to reviewthe article 26 of UCP 600. The article 26 of UCP 600 deals with 'on deck cargo' and 'unknown wording' in L/C transaction.
The article 26 of UCP 600 says that a transport document stating that the goodsmay be carriedon deck is acceptable.UCP600 requires to reject transport documentswhich evidence that the goods are orwill be loaded on deck. So the bank will not accept the B/L containing a clause stating the goods are or will be loaded on deck.
But in practice a container cargo is carried on deck actually but we do not describe this fact on the Bill of Lading. The deck stowage is not allowed under the clean B/L. But in case of container cargo, the carrier has the right to carry the container on deck in practice. In spite of this practice the carrier can not describe this fact correctly like this : “The container cargo loaded on deck”. If carrier describes on B/L like this, the bank rejects the B/L in L/C transaction.
So the carrier describes as “the goodsmay be carried on deck” on the back of the B/L. But they loaded the container on deck actually. This article suggests some ideas on this matter.
In addition, the article 26 ofUCP600 says that a transport document bearing a clause such as “shipper's load count” or “said by shipper to contain” is acceptable. Thismeans that a carrier has no responsibility on the contents of containers. In case of FCLCargo, it is impossible for a carrier to check the details of container cargo. Therefore it is inevitable to insert the expressions such as “SLC(shipper's load and count)” or “STC(said to contain)”.
Thewording described on the face of B/L should be interpreted as intended and consistently. The intention of the carrier is not the actual quantity orweight.
So unknown wording does not represent the actual quantity or weight. But some cases showthat the carriers are indemnified by such insertion but others reject the effectiveness of such insertion. So this study emphasizes that unknownwording can not fully indemnify the carriers and that the insertion of such expressions shall be minimized.

영어초록

This study aims to reviewthe article 26 of UCP 600. The article 26 of UCP 600 deals with 'on deck cargo' and 'unknown wording' in L/C transaction.
The article 26 of UCP 600 says that a transport document stating that the goodsmay be carriedon deck is acceptable.UCP600 requires to reject transport documentswhich evidence that the goods are orwill be loaded on deck. So the bank will not accept the B/L containing a clause stating the goods are or will be loaded on deck.
But in practice a container cargo is carried on deck actually but we do not describe this fact on the Bill of Lading. The deck stowage is not allowed under the clean B/L. But in case of container cargo, the carrier has the right to carry the container on deck in practice. In spite of this practice the carrier can not describe this fact correctly like this : “The container cargo loaded on deck”. If carrier describes on B/L like this, the bank rejects the B/L in L/C transaction.
So the carrier describes as “the goodsmay be carried on deck” on the back of the B/L. But they loaded the container on deck actually. This article suggests some ideas on this matter.
In addition, the article 26 ofUCP600 says that a transport document bearing a clause such as “shipper's load count” or “said by shipper to contain” is acceptable. Thismeans that a carrier has no responsibility on the contents of containers. In case of FCLCargo, it is impossible for a carrier to check the details of container cargo. Therefore it is inevitable to insert the expressions such as “SLC(shipper's load and count)” or “STC(said to contain)”.
Thewording described on the face of B/L should be interpreted as intended and consistently. The intention of the carrier is not the actual quantity orweight.
So unknown wording does not represent the actual quantity or weight. But some cases showthat the carriers are indemnified by such insertion but others reject the effectiveness of such insertion. So this study emphasizes that unknownwording can not fully indemnify the carriers and that the insertion of such expressions shall be minimized.

참고자료

· 없음