원문정보
A Study on the Marine Insurance Coverage for Marine Loss and Damage Caused by Piratical Activity
초록
영어
This study aims to identify how maine insurance could cover piracy risks occasioned by worldwide pirate activities. Unfortunately now ITC-hulls or ICC(A) doesn’t cover piracy risks. To cover the risks shipowner or cargo interests should insureWar risks. In current shipping climate, the pirates are usuallywilling to release ship and cargo on payment of a reasonable ransom. When a ransomis paid by one party for the release of a vesselwithcargo seized by pirates, the expense is a subject of general average contribution by other parties. Some expense is naturally occurred during the negotiation period. The ransomare usually falling into general average in the adjustment of marine insurance. but with regard to negotiation period expense, in practice average adjusters had previously deemed such expense as not being amatter requiring a general average contribution even if it was agreed that the final negotiated-down ransom itself was allowable in general average. Recently England Supreme Court addressed that negotiation period expense was allowable in general average. But I think that following the Supreme Court decision, it is strongly arguable that negotiation period expense is allowable to general average in each different law regime.
한국어
연구의목적은해적위험과해상보험보상과의관계및공동해손성립에관한관계를포괄적으로 분석하는것이다.이를통해서해적위험을해상보험으로어떻게담보할수있는지에관한대응이 가능할것이다. 해적위험에의한손해는표준적인일반해상보험약관으로는보호받을수없다. 이에따라해적위험에의한선박이나화물의파손또는멸실이발생할때그러한손해를보험사로 부터전손이나분손으로보상받기위해서는전쟁약관으로부보하여야하는상황이다.해적위험을 해상보험으로담보할때문제가되는것은해적위험을어떻게해석하느냐는것이다.특히공해상 에서발생한해상강탈활동을해적위험으로인정하는국제규칙과특정국영해에서발생한해상강 탈활동도해적위험으로정의해야한다는피보험자간인식의차이가있다.현재해적위험은해적이 선박을나포하여억류한후선주와몸값협상을통해합의된몸값지불후억류된선박을풀어주는 형태로진행되고있다.이과정에서몸값과협상기간비용이발생하게된다.이때지불된몸값과 협상기간비용은경우에따라손해방지비용및공동해손비용으로인정받을수있다.또한해적위 험하에있는보험목적물을구조한경우에는구조비로정산받을수있다.최근첨예하게논쟁이 이루어진협상기간비용과관련하여최근영국대법원은협상기간비용을공동해손으로인정하는 판결을하였으나어느국가에서판결하느냐에따라논란은계속될수있을것이다.그이유는협상 기간비용과관련하여실무적으로대다수공동해손정산인은영국대법원과다른의견을가지고있 어서영국대법원의YAR규칙F에대한해석을무시할수도있을것이다.또한협상기간비용을 공동해손으로인정하는관행이정착되더라도그러한협상기간비용의인정범위와관련한논쟁이 지속될수있을것으로보인다. 해적위험이선박에대한단독피해인경우에는해적에게지불된 몸값은손해방지비용으로간주된다.또한구조비의경우에는정산과정에대한논란에도불구하고 공동해손으로 정산된다.
목차
I. 서론
II. 해적위험과 해상보험
Ⅲ. 사례분석
Ⅳ. 해적위험 손해의 해상보험 담보 범위의 문제점
V. 결론
참고문헌
ABSTRACT
