세월호 사건에서 예상되는 손해배상책임의 제문제

The Cheonghaejin as the owner of M/V Sewol has two functions as a carrier forpassenger and goods as well. It’s liability as the passenger carrier is limited to 350 Million KoreanWon per person in accordance with general terms. It enjoy the benefit of nautical fault exemption,package limitation and shipowner’s limitation of liability. However, the M/V Sewol sailed in theunseaworthy condition. If such unseaworthy conditions of the vessel contributed to the accident,the carrier is likely to be deprived of such benefits. The owner of MV Sewol entered into the hull insurance and liability insurance. The liability fordamages imposed upon the Cheonghaejin is supported by the marine insurance. Where theCheonghaejin as the insured applies for the insurance proceeds to the liability insurer, the KSA islikely to argue the exemption of liability due to the breach of insurance contract. At the sametime, the victims have right to claim directly against the insurer. Whether the insurer has the benefit of exemption of liability against the victims or not depends on the legal nature of the directaction. If the Korean court takes the position that the legal nature of the direct action is one ofobligatory nature, the insurer is not allowed to be exempted from liability. The Korean government is likely to have liability for the loss of lives of the passengers due tothe delayed rescue. The KSA also seems to have liability as the employer of the safety inspector. Therefore, the Korean government, KSA and Cheonghaejin will be liable for the damages ofvictims as mutually committed tortfeasors in the Sewol case.