FIO 약정의 법적 쟁점에 관한 로테르담 규칙과 헤이그 비스비 규칙의 비교검토

It should be noted that the essence of the Renton and The Jordan Ⅱ decisions is now codified at paragraph 2 of article of the Rotterdam Rules. It seems that it must be a good thing that any uncertainty on the point is removed and all parties are aware from the inception of a set of rules as to which responsibilities or duties are subject to freedom of contract and which are not. As for consequences of the arrangement, its extent is a general one. The agreement affects not only the costs but also the liability. Until now there was a consensus that the FIO Clauses had an effect on the costs - loading or unloading costs were transferred to the shipper or to the consignee; but to go further and state that the clauses might exonerate the carrier of liability was not the prevailing interpretation. It can be argued that FIO cluases would be contrary to article Ⅲ(2) of the Hague-Visby Rules and therefore is invalidated by article Ⅲ(8) of the same Rules. In United Kingdom who is leading player in the field of maritime law, the House of Lords in the Jordan Ⅱ now reaffirmed that the cargo interests and the carrier are free to reallocate the responsibility for these cargo handling operations, without being invalidated by article Ⅲ(8) of the Hague-Visby Rules. The purpose of this study is to analyse the issues whether the carrier's liability to load and discharge is shifted to the cargo interests or not, and whether the FIO clauses are null and void because it makes carrier less liable than the Korean Commercial Code article 795 and thus it is against the obligatory provision of article 799, which is equivalent to Hague-Visby Rules article Ⅲ(8).