중국 제41차 해사 지도성 판례의 검토 및 한국법과의 비교

To mark the 40th anniversary of the establishment of China's Maritime Courts, the Supreme People's Court announced the 41st Guiding Cases, and these Guiding Cases include a total of seven cases in four areas: maritime transport contracts, ship collisions, salvage at sea, and private international maritime law. In carriage of goods, Case No. 230 held that when cargo is not collected at the port of discharge, the contractual shipper bears the costs and risks; Case No. 232 set out criteria for the carrier’s obligation to record the apparent condition of cargo. In ship collision, Case No. 233 recognized only physical damage to port facilities as subject to priority compensation, excluding loss of port operations, while Case No. 234 applied the limitation amount for international navigation to collisions between international and coastal vessels. In salvage, Case No. 231 confirmed that the reward of a salvor vessel is not reduced even in salvage between ships of the same owner. In cases with foreign elements, Case No. 235 adopted “legal reciprocity” for recognizing and enforcing foreign judgments, and Case No. 236 upheld party autonomy in choosing applicable law after a ship collision. From a Korean law perspective, Cases No. 230, 232, and 231 could produce similar effects, but in Case No. 233 Korea has not adopted Article 6(3) of the 1976 LLMC, so priority is not granted for port facility damage, and inclusion of port operation losses as limitation claims remains unclear. In Case No. 234, there is no difference in the limitation amount between coastal and international navigation, contrasting with Chinese law. Case No. 235 reflects a more open stance toward recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments, and as in Case No. 236, Korean law also allows agreements on applicable law after ship collisions.