해상운송에서의 제척기간에 관한대법원 판례의 경향 및 검토

As the limitation period is not legislatively regulated in Korea, the legal doctrine has evolved through interpretation by the court. In particular, it is understood that many of the Supreme Court precedents on the limitation period since 2000 pertain to contracts of carriage of goods by sea, and it can be said that the legal principle on the limitation period is being developed through maritime law. Due to its nature, the limitation period is very important in maritime transportation, just as in other fields, since the parties' claims and obligations are extinguished when such period lapses. Furthermore, in marine transportation, the starting point of the limitation period is determined based on the time of delivery of cargo, and it also has the unique characteristic of extending the limitation period by an agreement between the parties. Thus, various legal issues exist as to the application of the limitation period, the starting point of such period, the extension of the period, and a waiver of the benefit of lapse of the limitation period. Until recently, the Supreme Court has accumulated its decisions on the issues related to limitation period in maritime transportation. Looking at the overall position of the Supreme Court precedents on limitation period, it appears that the Supreme Court has attempted to flexibly interpret the limitation period in light of the characteristics of marine transport even under the premise of distinguishing the limitation period from the prescription period. In particular, the Supreme Court precedent holding that the starting point of the limitation period shall be reckoned from the point at which the right in question arises, notwithstanding the express provisions of the Commercial Act, is considered to be a precedent seeking concrete reasonableness by taking full account of the existence of claims and obligations that arise after the delivery of cargo in the shipping practice. Further, as to the limitation period under Article 814 (1) of the Commercial Act, the precedent which interpreted that the benefit of lapse of the limitation period may be waived by analogical application of Article 184 (1) of the Civil Act seems to have taken into account that the limitation period in a contract of carriage of goods by sea, unlike other limitation periods, is a provision for the interest of the parties rather than legal stability, such as recognizing an extension of the limitation period by agreement of the parties. In other words, the Supreme Court seems to have an aspect that is close to the statute of limitations in cases or issues where the adjustment of interests between the parties is more important than the legal stability. As can be seen, Supreme Court precedents tend to approach individually and concretely when interpreting and applying the limitation period where there is a lack of legislative regulation, taking into account various circumstances such as the purpose of setting the limitation period and the nature of rights. In particular, the Supreme Court seems to resolve the legal relationship concerning carriage of goods by sea from the perspective of placing emphasis on the intention of the parties rather than focusing on legal stability, which seems to be a desirable approach. However, it seems that it will take some time for the legal theory to be established as to whether the legal principle on the limitation period in a voyage charter contract, which is one of the pillars of a voyage charter contract, applies as it is, or whether the legal principle on the limitation period developed can apply to other limitation periods. Moreover, in addition to Articles 184 (1) and 495 of the Civil Act recognized by the Supreme Court precedents, to what extent can the provisions on prescription period or legal principles under the Civil Act be applied by analogy to the limitation period under a marine transportation contract requires further research.