항공에서의 실제운송과 순차운송의 책임법리 –상법 제900조와 제901조를 중심으로–

The The globalization of the air transportation industry and the expansion of collaboration among multiple carriers have brought changes to the legal structure of traditional air transportation contracts. In particular, the proliferation of interline agreements and code-sharing arrangements has blurred the distinction between the contracting carrier and the actual carrier, complicating the issue of liability attribution for damages incurred during transportation. Accordingly, clearly regulating the legal relationships between carriers and the scope of claimants' rights to claim damages has emerged as a critical task for air transport legislation. Reflecting this reality, Korean Commercial Act establishes provisions concerning the ‘actual carrier’ in Article 900 and provisions concerning ‘successive carriage’ in Article 901. Article 900 strengthens consumer protection by codifying the joint and several liability of multiple carriers, focusing on the relationship between the contracting carrier and the actual carrier. Meanwhile, Article 901 establishes a liability structure limited to agreed successive carriage, reflecting the Montreal Convention. However, the Commercial Act focuses more on the procedural exercise of rights and the party against whom claims can be made, rather than the substantive attribution of liability for damages. This provides a basis for claimant to strategically choose which of multiple carriers to claim against, giving it significant legislative significance. Furthermore, Article 900(4) clearly distinguishes the rights and obligations between the contracting carrier and the actual carrier, stipulating that special agreements or waivers of rights entered into by the contracting carrier do not automatically extend to the actual carrier. This is evaluated as a legislative balancing mechanism aiming to harmonize the autonomy of the contract of carriage with the legal stability of the actual carrier. This regulatory structure rationalizes the economic risk sharing of air carriers while ensuring predictability, thereby maintaining trust among multiple carriers. Due to the nature of air transport, carriers bear strict liability, enabling claimant—passengers or cargo owners—to relatively easily claim damages against the contracting carrier. This contrasts with maritime transport law, suggesting that air transport legislation represents a more advanced form from the perspective of consumer protection. Meanwhile, interline agreements closely correspond to sequential carriage under Article 901 of the Commercial Act, as each airline independently performs its own segment while passengers or cargo are transported continuously. Code-Sharings are directly related to the provisions on actual carriers under Article 900, as they presuppose a structure where the actual carrier and the contracting carrier are separate. However, in actual air transport, these two structures often operate in a mixed manner. Therefore, Articles 900 and 901 should be interpreted complementarily. This approach rationalizes the liability allocation system among multiple carriers and achieves a balanced fulfillment of the legislative purpose of protecting the rights of passengers and shippers. Finally, the practice in cargo transportation where a freight forwarder issues a house air waybill and entrusts the actual transportation to an actual carrier well demonstrates the practical significance of the Article 900 framework. The Supreme Court fo Korea precedent clearly established the legal principle of the actual carrier system by recognizing the freight forwarder as the contracting carrier. This confirms that Article 900 of the Commercial Act serves as a normative provision that reasonably adjusts the liability structure among carriers in a multimodal transport environment. Ultimately, Articles 900 and 901 of the Commercial Act seek to strike a balance between protecting consumers and sharing risks among carriers through a liability framework premised on the multi-party structure of air transport contracts. As the partnership structure in air transportation becomes increasingly complex, the interpretation and application of these two provisions will gain greater practical and theoretical significance. Continuous legislative and academic discussions are required to ensure the legal stability and predictability of air transportation contracts.