2005년 중요 해상법 판례평석

The writer makes comments on the 6 maritime cases rendered by the Korean Supreme court during the year of 2005. On July 28, 2005 Korean Supreme Court (hereinafter the “Court”) rendered that the legal nature of the demurrage is a kind of special compensation rather than liquidated damage and thus set-off is not allowed. On January 27, 2005 the Court rendered that the shipping agent is not the master of the warehouse keeper because the warehouse keeper is the independent contractor and thus the shipping agent is not vicariously liable. On March 24, 2005 the Court rendered that the carrier who issued a void bill of lading should hold liable for the loss of the bona fide holder. On October 13, 2005 the Court rendered that the special lien for wages prevails over the maritime lien when both claims is competing, because the former is allowed for the purpose of protecting workers while the latter aims at balancing the shipowner and claimants. On March 25, 2005 the Court rendered that the insurer could avoid the insurance contract when the insured cheated the insurer on the price of the insured object even after the conclusion of the contract. The Court interpreted that Section 17 of Marine Insurance Act is applicable even after the insurance contract was concluded. On November 11, 2005 the Court interpreted Section 39(5) of MIA and rendered that the insurer was not liable because the insured sent the vessel under unseaworthy condition and he was with the privity of it. On November 25, 2005 the Court confirmed that the English law jurisdiction clause under the marine insurance contract between Korean insured and Korean insurer still valid. Under time policy the insurance claims was rejected because the insured had the privity on the unseaworthy condition.