earticle

영어

The purpose of this study is to compare Korean commercial law with Rotterdam Rules regarding bond's validity of bills of lading. The bond's validity of B/L is accepted by international trade circle a hundred years in advance and this validity contribute to speed up and activate international commercial transaction. From a general point of view, the contents of relating provisions in both rules are not widely different, but details of each rules are somewhat different. For example, evidentiary effect of contract particulars of B/L between carrier and consignor and between carrier and third party acting in good faith is same as prima- facie evidence and conclusive evidence in both rules practically. And the effect of unknown clause in B/L is same too. But in respect of ‘freight prepaid' and ‘non-negotiable transport document, Rotterdam Rules provide stronger position to third party acting in good faith than Korean commercial law. So I appreciate that Rotterdam Rules has more concrete and detail provisions than Korean commercial law, and Rotterdam Rules provides more comprehensive and open rules applicable in most cases about bond's validity of B/L. Therefore if we consider the revise commercial law, it is necessary to introduce the relating provisions in Rotterdam Rules.

한국어

본 연구는 한국 상법과 로테르담 규칙에서 나타난 선화증권의 채권적 효력에 관한 내용을 비교 분석하고자 하였다. 여기서 양 규정의 입법 태도는 송화인과 운송인 사이에서 추정적 증거력, 그리고 선화증권 소지인과 운송인 사이에서는 결정적 증거력을 수용함으로써 기본적 입장은 크게 달라 보이지 않았으나, 구체적이고 세부적 상황에서 로테르담 규칙이 훨씬 개방적이고 포괄적인 증거력을 인정함에 따라 향후 상법의 개정을 검토할 시점에는 이와 관련하여 보다 긍정적인 검토가 필요할 것으로 판단된다.