I COMMERCIAL OVERVIEW OF THE SHIPPING INDUSTRY
Korea is renowned for its shipping industry and even more so for its shipbuilding industry.
As at 2016, 1,672 ocean-going commercial vessels totalling 85.9 million gross tonnage are owned or operated under bareboat charter hire purchase by Korean shipping companies. Among them, 720 vessels of 13.5 million tonnes are owned vessels.2 The total cargo volume handled in Korean ports amounts to 1.509 million revenue tons.3
In 2017, the orders won by Korean shipyards amounted to 6.4 million compensated gross tonnage (CGT); 10.6 million CGT was built and the backlog amounted to 16.2 million CGT.4
II GENERAL OVERVIEW OF THE LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK
The basic legislation regarding carriage of goods and admiralty issues is the Commercial Code. Chapter 5 of the Commercial Code provides for captain’s power and responsibility, global limitation, maritime lien, carriage of goods contracts and charterparties, collision, salvage and general average. The Shipping Business Act is a legislation to regulate shipping-related business from an administrative perspective. There are several other pieces of legislation regulating certain areas or supplemental procedural issues, such as pilotage, crew, procedure for global limitation liability and investigation of marine accident.
Korea has ratified the Convention on the International Maritime Organization, SOLAS and Protocols 78 and 88, the Load Lines Convention and Protocol 88, the Tonnage Convention, the COLREGs, the International Convention for Safe Containers, the STCW Convention, the Search and Rescue Convention, the INMARSAT Convention, the FAL Convention, MARPOL (73/78), the London Dumping Convention and Protocol 96, the CLC Convention and Protocols 76 and 92, the Oil Pollution Fund Convention, SUA and Protocol 88, the OPRC Convention, the OPRC-HNS Protocol, the Bunker Convention, the Anti-Fouling Convention and the Ballast Water Management Convention.5
These ratified conventions are given the force of law equivalent to national statutes (Article 6 of the Constitution of Korea).
III FORUM AND JURISDICTION
There is no special court dedicated to handling maritime matters; these are dealt with by the national court system. The district court or its branch has jurisdiction to hear any case at the first instance, depending upon the claim amount, and other aspects. The unsuccessful party may as a right appeal against the first instance judgment or decision to the High Court or the district court, and then finally to the Supreme Court. The hearings will take place consecutively at approximately four-week intervals, and each hearing will be conducted for a very short period, namely tens of minutes. As regards evidence, the disclosure procedure is not available under Korean law, although a party may apply to the court to order the other party to disclose ‘specific’ documents. Witness evidence and expert evidence are usually available, at the court’s discretion. There is no concept of ‘without prejudice’. In principle, the successful party would be entitled to recover legal costs from the opposing party, but the amount of recoverable costs is substantially restricted.
A Korean court’s jurisdiction will be determined pursuant to the provisions of the Civil Procedure Act (CPA) and the Private International Law Act (PILA). An exclusive jurisdiction agreement between the parties will be valid unless the court to be seised with the case lacks a reasonable link or the agreement is contrary to public policy.6 Under the PILA, certain maritime issues7 are to be determined according to the law of the vessel’s flag.
Limitation periods are considered to amount to substantive issues rather than procedural issues under Korean law, and thus will be subject to the proper law applicable to each claim. For a general civil claim, the statute of limitations is 10 years, and the limitation period for a contractual claim between merchants is five years.8 For tort claims, the limitation period is three years from the date on which the injured party became aware of damages or 10 years from the date of the occurrence of the tort (whichever is earlier).9 However, certain claims are subject to a one-year limitation period; these include debt claims between the carrier and the shipper or the consignee under a carriage of goods by sea contract (from the date of delivery of goods), and contribution claims under a general average (from the completion of calculation).10 A two-year limitation period is applicable to, for example, (1) debt claims between the owner and the charterer or the consignee under a voyage charter (starting from the delivery of goods), (2) debt claims between the owner and the charterer under a time charterparty or a bareboat charterparty (starting from the date of the vessel’s redelivery to the owner), (3) damages claims arising from a collision (starting from the date of the collision), and (4) salvage remuneration (starting from the completion of salvage).11
ii Arbitration and ADR
There is no arbitration board or procedure dedicated to maritime matters. As a general arbitration board, the Korean Commercial Arbitration Board plays a very active role. Earlier this year, the Seoul Maritime Arbitrators Association (SMAA) was established to support ad hoc arbitration proceedings.
If there is a valid arbitration agreement between the parties, the court has to dismiss a litigation.12 An appeal to the court against an arbitral award is not permitted.
There appears to be no evidence that other types of alternative dispute resolution are in popular use in Korea.
In the case of maritime casualty, the Marine Safety Tribunal (MST) will render decisions in relation to disciplinary measures against seafarers and, if the parties so wish, the proportion of liability between the parties involved. The decision of the MST is not legally binding upon the relevant parties in the civil proceedings to deal with the liability issues, but is respected in practice.
The limitation period applicable to arbitration proceedings is same as in court proceedings.
iii Enforcement of foreign judgments and arbitral awards
To enforce a foreign judgment, the prevailing party must obtain an enforcement judgment from a Korean court, which will allow the enforcement only if statutory requirements are met. Article 217 of the CPA sets out four requirements for a foreign judgment to be enforced in Korea: (1) the competence of the foreign court that rendered the judgment in the view of Korean law or international conventions ratified by Korea; (2) the adequacy of the service; (3) no violation of public policy of Korea; and (4) the reciprocity between Korea and the country in which the court that made the judgment is situated. Further, the foreign judgment for which enforcement is sought will have to be the final and conclusive judgment, against which no ordinary appeal is allowed. The procedure for an enforcement judgment is identical to that for obtaining any civil judgment, while the court is not allowed to scrutinise the merits of the foreign judgment in question.
In practice, the existence of reciprocity will be the most problematic requirement, as there are not so many precedents to refer to. The courts have recognised reciprocity between Korea and the United States, where the Uniform Foreign Country Money-Judgments Recognition Act is adopted,13 Japan14 and Ontario, Canada,15 but refused reciprocity between Korea and Australia.16 There are unreported lower court judgments recognising reciprocity in cases of English judgment and Chinese judgment.
Korea ratified the New York Convention 1969, and thus arbitral awards rendered in the contracting state of the convention would be enforceable. To enforce arbitral awards, the successful party will have to obtain an enforcement judgment from the court, which will not look into the merits of the case unless matters of public policy arise.
Limitation periods applicable to the enforcement of foreign judgments and arbitral awards are regarded as substantive issues, and thus will be decided by reference to the law applicable to such judgments or arbitral awards.
IV SHIPPING CONTRACTS
Korea has been a very prosperous shipbuilding nation in the world for decades, and most shipbuilding contracts are concluded based on the SAJ Form, with some customised variations, and usually subject to English law, with any disputes being referred to LMAA arbitration. Thus, it is not surprising that there is virtually no publicly reported case dealing with shipbuilding contracts despite the considerable shipbuilding business in Korea.
Because of the location of the objects (i.e., vessels under construction), Korean law will inevitably apply to the title to and ownership of the object, particularly before delivery under the shipbuilding contracts. While the parties are at liberty to agree on this issue, the default position under Korean law is that the builder obtains the title to and ownership of a vessel under construction unless the buyer procures and provides the whole or a substantial part of the materials.17 In practice, based upon the SAJ Form, the builder acquires the title to a vessel under construction and then, at delivery, it is transferred by the builder to the buyer.
However, it appears to be a prevailing practice that a vessel under construction is provided as security to a bank issuing a refund guarantee (RG) in relation to that vessel, and the title to the vessel under construction is transferred for security purposes to the RG-issuing bank. If the builder refuses to deliver the vessel to the buyer, the buyer may consider applying to the court for an injunction to order the builder to deliver the vessel to the buyer, which may be defeated by the fact that the title to the vessel is held not by the builder but by the RG-issuing bank.
ii Contracts of carriage
Contracts of carriage are regulated by the Commercial Code, which was last amended in 2007. Korea has not ratified any of the Hague or Hague-Visby Rules, the Hamburg Rules or the Rotterdam Rules, but introduced some provisions of the Hague-Visby Rules into the Commercial Code in 2007.
The carrier owes a duty of care in relation to seaworthiness and the goods, and will be liable for damages unless it proves that those duties of care are fully complied with.
The Commercial Code provides for rights and obligations of the parties in bareboat charterparty, time charterparty, voyage charterparty and other contracts for carriage of goods by sea. In the case of general carriage of goods by sea contracts, carriers’ liability is not permitted to be reduced from what the Commercial Codes provides for;18 this prohibition is also applicable to bills of lading even when they are issued under charterparties. The shipper is obligated to present the goods to the carrier at the time and place designated in the agreement or pursuant to practice in the loading port, and to submit the documents required to carry the goods within the loading period to the captain.
The carrier or the shipowner, or both, are obliged to issue bills of lading at the request of the shipper or the charterer after the goods are received by the carrier or the shipowner, or both. The shipowner in this context includes a demise owner, such as a bareboat charterer, time charterer or voyage charterer.
If a bill of lading is issued, the captain may deliver the goods against production of one of multiple original bills of lading in the designated destination, but in other ports the captain is not allowed to deliver the goods unless a full set of original bills of lading are presented.
Electronic bills of lading have been introduced by the Commercial Code, and they are treated as having the same effect as paper ones.19
The carrier and the captain may exercise lien in relation to cargoes. They are entitled to refuse to deliver the goods until freight or hire is paid in full and to sell the goods by auction after obtaining the court’s approval and recover the unpaid freight or hire from the auction proceeds.20 These articles are also applicable to voyage charterparties and time charterparties.
The Commercial Code contains only one provision for multimodal transport.21 A ‘network liability system’ is adopted for multimodal transport, including a leg of carriage by sea, and the carrier’s liability will be subject to the principles of liability applicable to each specific mode of transport where loss occurred. If the leg where loss occurred is unclear or extended to separate modes of transport, the carrier’s liability will be subject to the principles of liability applicable to the leg covering the longest distance, or if it is impossible to discern which leg is the longest, then the leg of the highest freight.
Coastal trading between Korean ports is exclusively allowed to domestic shipping companies.22
iii Cargo claims
There is no special regime applicable to cargo claims that is different from what is generally applicable to ordinary civil proceedings.
Title to sue usually lies with the lawful holder of bills of lading and its insurers as long as the insurers subrogated to the rights of the holder. In some cases, the shipper or the consignee named in the bills of lading may have the title to sue, depending on particular circumstances.
In general the carrier will be liable for cargo claims, but in practice it would often be difficult to discern who the carrier is in a particular case, which will often be the issue of facts. The owner or the demise charterer of a vessel may be liable jointly and severally with a charterer, being the carrier, particularly where the scope of performance of the relevant carriage contract is within the ambit of the captain’s obligations.
Employees and agents of the carrier or shipowner and the demise charterer are entitled to the defences and limitation of liability applicable to the carrier, shipowner and demise charterer. Independent contractors of carriers are not entitled to carriers’ defences and limitation of liability, unless the applicable Himalaya clause is wide enough to cover the independent contractors.23
In principle, loss and damages having proximate causal relation will be recoverable. However, in the carriage contract, recoverable damages are limited and will be assessed by reference to the price of the cargo at the destination as at the date (1) when the cargo would have been delivered in the case of total loss or delay, or (2) when the cargo was actually delivered in the case of partial loss. If the loss, damage or delay resulted from the carrier’s wilful misconduct or gross negligence, then the carrier is liable for the full loss and damages having proximate causal relation, less any freight or expenses saved because of the loss, damage or delay.24 This limitation is distinct from global limitation or package limitation, both of which are discussed in Section IV.iv.
Whether charterparty terms are validly incorporated into a bill of lading is an issue to be determined pursuant to the law applicable to the bill of lading, which will be the law of the place where the bill of lading was issued unless there is agreement thereon between the parties in the bill of lading.25 This issue has been reviewed in respect of the incorporation of arbitration clauses in charterparties as between the carrier and the bill of lading holder. The Supreme Court26 held that an arbitration clause in a charterparty would be considered to be validly incorporated into a bill of lading if:
- the bill of lading provides that the arbitration clause is incorporated into it, and the relevant charterparty is specified or holder of the bill of lading is aware of the existence of the charterparty and the contents of the arbitration clause therein; or
- the bill of lading provides that all the terms of a certain charterparty without specifically referring to an arbitration clause, the holder of the bill of lading is aware of the existence and contents of the arbitration clause, the arbitration clause is not inconsistent with other terms and its wording is wide enough to apply to a third-party bill of lading holder.
A demise clause is not valid as it is regarded as reducing the liability of the carrier.27 However, in a High Court case, in which a foreign law was the proper law applicable to a contract of carriage and the foreign law recognised the validity of demise clauses, it was held that a demise clause was valid.28
iv Limitation of liability
As regards global limitation, Korea has adopted a substantial part of the LLMC Convention (and part of the LLMC Protocol 96 for limitation amounts in respect of a passenger’s death or injury) into the Commercial Code,29 but has not ratified any of this Convention. However, as Korea is not a state party to this Convention, the constitution of funds in Korea would not bar claimants from exercising their rights in another jurisdiction30 or vice versa. A person entitled to global limitation must apply to the court for commencement of limitation proceedings within one year of receiving from a claimant a claim letter that exceeds the limitation amount.31
Package limitation under the Commercial Code32 is the same as that under the Hague-Visby Rules, namely the higher of 666.67 special drawing rights (SDRs) per package or unit and 2 SDRs per kilogram, although Korea has not ratified the Hague-Visby Rules.
i Ship arrest
Korea has not ratified any conventions in this respect.
Under Korean law, there are two distinct types of arrest. One is by way of attachment to enforce claims for final satisfaction (based upon an enforceable judgment, a mortgage or a maritime lien), and the other is by way of prejudgment attachment for the purpose of obtaining security for either domestic or foreign judgment or arbitral award to be rendered in the future. The distinction is stringent and thus it is crucial to determine at the outset which process is to be followed, as for example an arrest by way of prejudgment attachment in which the claim attracts a maritime lien could be revoked.
The arrest is available only if the target vessel is legally owned by the person who is liable for the claims; the only exception is an arrest based on a maritime lien, when the target vessel may be arrested irrespective of the owner’s identity once the claim attracts a maritime lien in relation to the target vessel. (Whether a claim attracts a maritime lien is a matter to be decided pursuant to the law of the flag of the vessel.)33 Thus, it is virtually impossible to arrest a sister vessel or an associated vessel in Korea.
The court of the jurisdiction in which the vessel is located will have jurisdiction to order the arrest. The applicant usually applies for preservation and custody orders concurrently. The arrest application will be dealt with ex parte. Once an arrest order is made, the court sheriff will serve the order on board the vessel, by which the enforcement of the arrest will be completed. In an arrest for prejudgment attachment, the applicant is required to provide counter-security to the court in an amount equivalent to 10 per cent of the claim amount either in cash or by a guarantee insurance policy at the court’s discretion. On the contrary, in an arrest for main attachment counter-security is not required, but expenses for a court sale are required to be paid to the court, as upon the court’s arrest order the court sale automatically commences. For preservation and custody, it is usual practice for the applicant to pay the fees for the first month in whole or in part when the application is made.
In the case of a prejudgment attachment arrest, the merits of the claim based upon which the arrest is sought will have to be referred to the agreed jurisdiction or arbitration. An arrest as a main attachment may be based upon an enforceable judgment already rendered on merits, or if it is based upon a maritime lien or a mortgage, the vessel interests will have to challenge the arrest order before a Korean court.
In any case, the vessel interests, usually in the name of the registered owner, may apply to the court for the release of the vessel and must then provide security of the total amount claimed in cash, unless otherwise agreed with the applicant. The security bail for release will be regarded as a substitute for the vessel or the sale proceeds. The vessel interests may object to the arrest order, challenging the grounds for the arrest application.
If the claimant’s claim turns out to have been unfounded, the claimant would be liable for negligence in tort. The claimant would then need to prove that it was not negligent in order to escape from such liability, which is usually difficult. The claimant may have to compensate the shipowner for the loss of trading by the ship during the period that the ship remained under arrest and, if the ship was released on bail, potentially, the interest accrued on the bail fund.
A bunker on board a vessel would be eligible for arrest theoretically, but in practice it would be virtually impossible.
The jurisdiction of the court reaches beyond the ambit of the port limit, and thus a vessel at anchor in territorial waters but not within the port limit can be arrested. We have not heard of the use of a helicopter in a vessel arrest as yet.
ii Court orders for sale of a vessel
An arrest by way of main attachment, based either upon an enforceable judgment or security rights such as a mortgage or a maritime lien, forms a part of the commencement of court sale proceedings. In the case of an arrest by way of prejudgment attachment, court sale proceedings may be commenced once an enforceable judgment (e.g., in the case of an arbitral award, the enforcement judgment in Korea to enforce the award) is obtained from the court.
The court will have the vessel valued and its condition investigated. Meanwhile others with claims against the shipowner or secured by a maritime lien can file their claims to the court. Within one month of the closing of other claimants’ filing periods, the court will have notifications of court sale published in newspapers. The court will discern the highest bidder and decide whether or not to approve the sale. The sale proceeds will be distributed to the claimants and the shipowner pursuant to priority determined after the distribution hearing.
Korea has ratified the following international conventions in respect of safety: the Load Lines Convention and Protocol 88, the Tonnage Convention, the COLREGs, the International Convention for Safe Containers, the STCW Convention, the Search and Rescue Convention, the INMARSAT Convention, the FAL Convention, SUA and Protocol 88. The legislation in this respect includes the Ship Safety Act and the Maritime Safety Act.
Korea is one of the White List countries of the IMO.34
ii Port state control
Korea is a member of the Tokyo MOU.35 The authority in charge is the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries. The legislation in this respect includes the Ship Safety Act, the Ship Act, the Seafarers Act, the Ship Personnel Act, the Maritime Safety Act and the Marine Environment Management Act.
As at 2016, 2,769 vessels (27.4 per cent) were inspected and of these, 74 vessels were detained (detention rate of 2.7 per cent).36
iii Registration and classification
There are two registries applicable to ships in Korea. One ship register is operated by the courts, which deals with ownership, bareboat charter, security such as a mortgage, court’s prejudgment or main attachment orders and injunction orders, inter alia. The other ship register is operated by regional oceans and fisheries offices, which deals with mainly administrative aspects.
Both registers are only available for vessels owned by Korean legal persons (including companies).
Many members of the International Association of Classification Societies operate in Korea, as Korea is renowned for its shipping and shipbuilding businesses. Among them, the Korean Register is authorised by the Korean government to conduct ship surveys and issue certificates on behalf of the government.
There appears to be no published precedent in which a classification society’s civil liability is dealt with.
iv Environmental regulation
Korea has ratified MARPOL (73/78) (Annexes I to V), the OPRC Convention (and OPRC-HNS Protocol), the CLC Convention Protocols 76 and 92, the Oil Pollution Fund Convention Protocols 92 and 2003, the Bunker Convention, the Anti-Fouling Convention and the Ballast Water Management Convention. The legislation in this area includes the Marine Environment Management Act and the Clean Air Conservation Act.
v Collisions, salvage and wrecks
Korea has not ratified any collision convention. The Commercial Code deals with collisions in Articles 876 to 881.
If a collision case is brought before a Korean court, it will decide whether the applicable law is (1) the law of the country of the territorial water where the collision took place, or (2) the law of the flag of the vessel at fault in the case of a collision on the high seas.
If Korean law applies, the victim shall bear the loss or damage and will not be entitled to claim damages if the collision was caused by a force majeure or the cause of the collision is in doubt. If the collision was caused by the fault of the crew or pilot of one vessel, the owner of that vessel is liable for damages. If the collision was caused by the fault of the crew or pilot of both vessels, the owner of each vessel is liable in proportion to the degree of the respective faults; however, the owners of the vessels are jointly and severally liable for any death or injury. Damages claims arising from a collision will expire if a lawsuit is not brought within two years of the date of the collision, unless the parties agree to extend the limitation period.
Korea has not ratified the 1989 Salvage Convention. Salvage is dealt with in Articles 882 to 895 of the Commercial Code.
If a salvage remuneration claim is brought before a Korean court, it will decide the applicable law as follows: (1) the law of the country of the territorial water where the salvage operation took place; or (2) the law of the flag of the salvor vessel if the salvage operation took place on the high seas.37
If Korean law applies, a person who salvaged a vessel or cargo without obligation is entitled to appropriate remuneration not exceeding the price of the salvaged vessel or cargo, and if the amount of remuneration is not agreed between the parties, the court will decide the amount on receipt of an application by the relevant party. If the salvage operation was such that prevented or minimised damage to the environment, the salvor is entitled to special compensation irrespective of the useful result or scope thereof. The remuneration claims for salvage will expire if a lawsuit is brought within two years of the completion of salvage, unless the parties agree to extend the period.
Korea has not ratified the Nairobi WRC 2007. The legislation dealing with wreck removal includes the Act on Vessels Entering and Departing Port, the Marine Environment Management Act and the Maritime Safety Act.
The owner or the occupant of any object that causes or may cause a hindrance to a vessel’s navigation, or the master or owner or operator of a vessel that causes obstruction in navigation, is obliged to remove the object or obstruction or bear the costs and expenses for its removal.38 The master of a vessel that causes certain pollutants to be emitted into the sea is obliged to report to the relevant authority and to take measures to prevent expansion and further emission and to remove the emitted pollutants, and to bear the costs and expenses of the operation.39
vi Passengers’ rights
Korea has not ratified the Athens Convention or any protocols. Passenger carriage is dealt with in Articles 817 to 826 of the Commercial Code.
The carrier is liable for the death or personal injury of passengers unless the carrier proves that it or its employees were not negligent. The global limitation amount for a passenger’s death or personal injury is in line with that of the LLMC Protocol 1996, which Korea has not ratified.
vii Seafarers’ rights
Korea has ratified the Maritime Labour Convention 2006, which came into force in Korea in January 2015. The major legislation in this area includes the Seafarers Act (dealing with employment terms and conditions, etc.), the Ship Personnel Act (dealing with the licensing and qualification of seafarers, etc.) and the Act on the Investigation of and Inquiry into Marine Accidents (dealing with the procedures of the Marine Safety Tribunal and the grounds for seafarers’ disciplinary actions).
The shipping and shipbuilding industries in Korea have maintained a remarkable presence in the international market. After the anticipated restructuring of the shipping and shipbuilding industries in the near future, we believe Korea will be able to have a more significant and stronger presence in the international market based on the knowledge, expertise and experience accumulated over several decades.
As indicated in previous editions of this chapter, the Korean government planned to authorise a foreign classification society in addition to the Korean Register to carry out safety surveys on vessels on behalf of the government. In late 2016, Bureau Veritas was designated as such.
There are no significant changes anticipated in the legal regime in the near future and it seems that Korea will continue to maintain the current legal framework.
1 Tae Jeong Kim is a partner at Bae, Kim & Lee LLC.
6 Supreme Court Judgment on 28 April 2011, 2009DA19093 (on an agreement providing for exclusive jurisdiction of the Korean court); Supreme Court Judgment on 26 August 2010, 2010DA28185 (on an agreement providing for exclusive jurisdiction of the foreign court).
7 Such as ownership of a vessel, maritime lien, mortgage, priority of security, the scope of a shipowner’s liability for activities of master or crew, global limitation applicable, general average, and the authority of master; Article 60 of the PILA.
8 Article 162(1) of the Civil Code, and Article 64 of the Commercial Code.
9 Article 766 of the Civil Code.
10 Articles 814 and 875 of the Commercial Code.
11 Articles 840, 846, 851, 881 and 895 of the Commercial Code.
12 Article 9(1) of the Arbitration Act.
13 Supreme Court Judgment on 28 October 2004, 2002DA74213. Recently the court acknowledged reciprocity between Korea and Kentucky, US, where the Uniform Act is not adopted but common law is applicable as to the enforcement of foreign judgments (Supreme Court Judgment 28 January 2016, 2015DA207747).
14 Supreme Court Judgment on 11 June 2015, 2013DA208388.
15 Supreme Court Judgment on 25 June 2009, 2009DA22952.
16 Supreme Court Judgment on 28 April 1987, 85DAKA1767.
17 While there is no publicly reported case on this point, there are various cases dealing with the acquiring of title in relation to construction work, which appear to be applicable to shipbuilding contract cases as well. Supreme Court judgment on 5 July 1962, 4292MINSANG876; Supreme Court Judgment on 27 December 1988, 87DAKA1138; Supreme Court Judgment on 28 January 2010, 2009DA66990.
18 Article 799 of the Commercial Code.
19 Article 862 of the Commercial Code.
20 Articles 807 and 808 of the Commercial Code.
21 Article 816 of the Commercial Code.
22 Article 6 of the Ship Act.
23 Supreme Court Judgment on 13 February 2004, 2001DA75318; Supreme Court Judgment on 27 April 2007, 2007DA4943.
24 Articles 815 and 137 of the Commercial Code.
25 Supreme Court Judgment on 10 January 2003, 2000DA70064.
26 Supreme Court Judgment on 10 January 2003, 2000DA70064.
27 Seoul High Court Judgment on 13 June 2008, 2006NA28074. Also, Seoul High Court Judgment on 3 July 2001, 2000NA10002 held that a demise clause in a bill of lading did not exempt a time charterer, on whose behalf the bill of lading had been issued, from the liability of carrier.
28 Seoul High Court on 15 May 1989, 88NA44126.
29 Articles 769 to 776.
30 cf. Article 13 of the LLMC 76.
31 Article 776 of the Commercial Code.
32 Article 797 of the Commercial Code.
33 Article 60(i) of the PILA.
37 Article 62 of the PILA.
38 Article 40 of the Act on Vessels Entering and Departing Port; Articles 25 to 29 of the Maritime Safety Act.
39 Articles 63 and 65 of the Marine Environment Management Act.