매도인의 피보험이익으로서의 희망이익과 소유자이익 - 대법원 2018.3.15.선고 2017다240496판결 - = Air cargo transportation case in which the seller has insurable interest of expected profit and title profit - focused on the Korean Supreme Court case 2018.3.15. Docket No. 2017da24096 -

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

The author makes comments on legal issues of the Korean Supreme Court case 2018.3.15. Docket No. 2017da24096.
The concept of insurable interest is very important in the property(or non-life) insurance. Without insurable interest, the insured is not allowed to receive the insurance proceeds. The insurance contract with the insured without insurable interest becomes null and void. Under the cargo insurance whether the consignor(exporter) has insurable interest or not has been at issue. Under CIF, FOB, CIP terms, the risk is transferred from the consignor to the consignee from the moment of loading the cargo on board. Therefore, it may be said that the consignor does no longer has insurable interest during the transportation of the cargo. However, it is not neglected that the consignor still possesses the title of the cargo in case that the Bill of Lading is not issued. According to the laws, the importer(consignee) acquires the right to demand delivery of the cargo when the cargo arrives at the discharging port. Until that moment, the consignor(exporter) still retain the title of the cargo. Accordingly, the consignor still have insurable interest.
In several contracts involved in the transportation, it can be found easily that the consignee has obligation to notify to the carrier the fact that the cargo was damaged or lost. In the captioned case, who was the person to notify was at issue under Art. 10 of the Air Waybill. The KSC decided that the consignee is the person to carry out the duty of notifying the damages. But the KSC decided that Art. 10 was against Art. 5 which says that all kinds of damages should be paid by the carrier and therefore, the consignor has the right to raise claims against the carrier. However, the author argues that Art. 10 does not fall into the scope of the application of Art. 5 and that the consignor can be regarded as the agent of the consignee in respect of notifying the damages.

참고문헌 (Reference)

• 1 한창희, "해상적하보험상의 피보험이익" 법학연구소 28 (28): 61-81, 2011
• 2 장효은, "해상운송을 포함하는 국제물품매매에서 위험의 이전에 대한 고찰" 고려대학교 2017
• 3 최석범, "해상손해 보상을 위한 피보험이익의 귀속에 관한한국의 최근 판례 소고" 한국물류학회 28 (28): 41-51, 2018
• 4 심재두, "해상보험법" 길안사 1995
• 5 이기태, "해상보험" 법문사 1982
• 6 김인현, "해상법" 법문사 2018
• 7 나윤수, "피보험이익" 한국해법학회 19 (19): 1997
• 8 손주찬, "주석 상법[보험]" 한국사법행정학회 2003
• 9 이재복, "적하보험 약관론" 보험연수원 1995
• 10 서동희, "실무해상법 해상보험법" 법문사 2007
• 11 이재복, "선박보험 약관론" 보험연수원 1999
• 12 정찬형, "상법강의(하)" 박영사 2015
• 13 정찬형, "상법강의(상)" 박영사 2015
• 14 양승규, "보험법" 삼지원 1999
• 15 박세민, "보험법" 박영사 2019
• 16 이기수, "보험·해상법" 박영사 2015
• 17 오원석, "국제물품매매계약에서 소유권이전시기에 관한 논쟁의 실익" 한국무역상무학회 7 : 1994
• 18 석광현, "輸入貨物의 所有權 移轉에 관한 硏究" 법무부 (51) : 35-67, 2003
• 19 箱井崇史, "現代海商法" 成文堂 2019
• 20 木村榮一, "海上保險の理論と實務" 弘文堂 2011
• 21 中出哲, "海上保險" 有斐閣 2019
• 22 北村雅史, "商法總則商行爲法" 法律文化社 2018
• 23 落合誠一, "保險法コンメンタール" 財團法人損害保險事業綜合硏究所 2009
• 24 In Hyeon KIM, "Transport Law in South Korea" Wolters Kluwer 2017
• 25 Howard Bennett, "The Law of Marine Insurance" Oxford University Press 2006
• 26 John Dunt, "Marine Cargo Insurance" Informa 2009
• 27 김윤종, "CIP 거래조건으로 수출입계약이 체결된 경우 물품의 소유권이전 시기와 매 도인의 피보험이익 존부(2018.3.15.선고 2017다24096판결)" 2018