해상운송에서의 제척기간에 대한 검토

Article 814 of Korean Commercial Code (“KCC”) provided one-year time for suit provision. The purpose of time for suit provision is to speed up the settlement of claims and to release the carrier from the unstable position for a long period of time. For these reasons, international conventions and national laws introduce the time for suit provision into its legal systems,which means that if the fixed time for suit expires, the claimant is no longer able to bring suit against the carrier. Hague Rules, Hague-Visby Rules and KCC adopted the prescription period. Therefore, failure to take suit within time for suit provision results in the loss of the right to claim and therefore, the carrier is completely discharged from the liability. On the other hand, Hamburg Rules and UK Limitation Act adopted the limitation period, in which the carrier is still liable for the claim and thus the claimant is entitled to set-off the claim which is time-barred against the other raised by the carrier. Rotterdam Rules adopted the limitation period. Time for suit provision of KCC is similar to Hague-Visby Rules, for example, the nature of the time for suit (i.e, prescription period), one-year time bar and indemnity suit provision against a third party who is ultimately liable for the claims. Since there are some differences between KCC and Rotterdam Rules, we should have to consider closely time for suit provision of Rotterdam Rules. Further, under the KCC, it is also needed to study whether or not one-year time bar provision is reasonable, mis-delivery claims should be governed by the one-year time bar, the 9 months time bar provision in the FIATA B/L is valid. This article deals with the above several issues regarding time for suit provision of Rotterdam Rules and KCC.