용선계약서상 안전선석 조항의 해석에 관한 법적 문제 — 2020년 CITGO Asphalt Refining Co. v. Frescati Shipping Co. 판례를 중심으로 —

U.S. courts have been making judgments on the safety berth clause in the Second Circuit since the 1930s, and decisions in lower courts, including the Federal Court of Appeals, have been largely divided for more than 30 years as the Fifth Circuit rejected the decision of the Second Circuit. In CITGO Asphalt Refining Co. v. Frescati Shipping Co. (2020) the Supreme Court’s resolved split between the Second Circuit and the Fifth Circuit over the interpretation of the safe berth clause in the charter party. In this case, the Supreme Court determined that the language was unambiguous by concluding first, that its plain meaning imparted a duty on CARCO as charterer to select a “safe” berth and second, that since this language was unqualified, by its plain meaning the duty was absolute. The Court supported its reading by reciting the standard dictionary definitions of “safe” and “always” and finally concluded that “selecting a berth that does not satisfy those conditions constitutes a breach” and thus “binds the charterer to a warranty of safety. In this paper, first, the definition of the safety berth clause and the scope of responsibility of the charterers will be reviewed in detail, and then the difference in interpretation and opinion of the safety berth clause has been verified by examining the position of the precedents of the U.K. and the U.S, and the factual background and judgment of the Supreme Court are carefully reviewed and analyzed to draw implications for maritime transport practice.