해상운송인의 적하손해배상책임에 대한 법적 고찰 - 쌍방과실충돌약관의 타당성 검토를 중심으로 -

The Ship’s collision accident may occur by the act of God but most of accidents result from inappropriate operat by the seaman. For this reason, it was decided to fault ratio as both vessels of fault extent. And in most ship collision accidents both are to be blamed about collision. If the case, where two or more vessels were accident of the both to blame collision then occurred cargo loss, both vessels decided to fault ratio and theirs accepted liability of compensation as that fault ratio. But on the practical business, the most of maritime carrier is insert contents where the bills of lading’s inside clause which the shipper indemnify for loss of cargo’s amount as ship’s operators fault ratio to marine carrier. We this clause called the both to blame collision clause. This clause was formed and developed under prerequisite of the navigational fault and now retained to bills of lading’s clause and marine cargo insurance clause. However, it is not easy to understand that this clause contents only. Because the both to blame collision clause does not make logic that the clause text itself of grammatical interpretation only. On the practical of shipping business, the indemnification liability system of maritime carriers is prominently different with indemnification liability system of general civil laws. This marine carrier’s widely exemption is able to controversy that the equity and balance to judicial system like limitation of liability from navigational fault. For this reason, the principle of the maritime law was fixed and customized during long time. This paper reviewed to the legal principles which the liability of cargo damages caused by the both to blame collision among the marine carrier’s liabilities of ship’s collision.