화물의 갑판적 운송은 화주에게 있어 위험을 증가시키는 요인이다. 화물의 갑판적으로 인해 화물이 파도, 해수, 바람, 빗물, 직사광선 및 온도의 변화에 의해 갑판적 운송 시 멸실, 훼손 및 변질될 가능성이 화물을 선창적으로 적부하여 운송할 경우보다 높기 때문이다. 그러나 운송인의 입장에서는 선박의 효율적 활용 및 수익의 증대를 위해 화물의 갑판적 운송을 선호한다. 아울러 컨테이너 전용선의 등장 및 컨테이너를 활용한 화물의 운송이 증가하면서 이러한 화물의 갑판적 운송이 대세를 이루고 있다. 그러나 화물의 갑판적 운송을 허용하는 법률의 규정을 두고 있는 국가들은 없는 실정이다. 따라서 화주의 동의없이 화물을 갑판적 운송함에도 불구하고 이를 명시하지 아니한 무하자 선하증권(clean bill of lading)이 발행되고 화물에 손해가 발생하는 경우, 당사자 사이의 분쟁은 해상운송계약의 위반 또는 사기의 법률적 문제가 된다. 이러한 법률적 분쟁을 피하기 위해 운송인은 선하증권 이면약관에 갑판적 자유재량권 조항을 두어 운송인의 판단에 따라 자유로이 화물을 갑판적 운송할 수 있다거나, 또는 갑판적 운송에 따른 손해의 면책을 하고자 한다. 따라서 선하증권 이면약관상에 기재된 갑판적 자유재량권 조항을 화주가 동의한 특약으로 보아야 할 것인지, 아니면 선하증권에 기재된 일반적 규정으로 보아야 할 것인지 주요한 쟁점이 된다. 대상판결과 관련하여 운송인의 선하증권 이면약관상에는 갑판적 자유재량권이 규정되어 있었으나 원고인 화주측은 선하증권상의 이면약관을 통해 화물의 선적, 적부, 고박 및 고정에 대한 책임은 운송인인 선박소유자에게 있으며, 선하증권상의 면책조항은 불감항 또는 과실책임의 면책에 대해 명확하게 규정되어 있지 않다는 이유로 운송인의 손해배상을 요구하였다. 이에 법원은 1993년 The Danah 사건, 1999년 The Imvros 사건 및 1980년 Photo Production 사건들의 판결에 따라 선하증권 이면약관상의 갑판적 자유재량권 조항을 당사자 사이의 특약으로 해석하여 운송인의 책임을 면책하였다. 이러한 영국법원의 견해는 선하증권의 문헌증권성, 함부르크 규칙 및 로테르담 규칙의 갑판적 규정 그리고 컨테이너 전용선의 등장을 감안할 때 타당한 결론이라고 생각한다.
Deck transport of cargo is a factor that increases risk for shippers. This is because the probability of loss, damage, and deterioration of cargo during deck transportation due to waves, seawater, wind, rain, direct sunlight and temperature changes is higher than when cargo is loaded in a dock. However, from the perspective of the carrier, for the efficient use of the ship and the increase of profits, it is preferred to transport cargo on deck. In addition, with the advent of container-only ships and the increase of cargo transportation using containers, deck-based transportation of these cargoes is becoming a trend. However, there are no countries in the world that have laws that allow for deck transport of cargo. Therefore, in the event that a clean bill of lading that does not specify this is issued despite the cargo being transported on deck without the consent of the shipper, and damage to the cargo occurs, the dispute between the parties may result in violation of the shipping contract or fraud. becomes a legal issue. In order to avoid such legal disputes, the carrier may freely transport the cargo on deck at the carrier’s discretion by placing a discretionary clause on the reverse side of the bill of lading, or indemnification of damage caused by the deck transport. Therefore, the main issue is whether the discretionary clause on the reverse side of the bill of lading should be viewed as a special contract agreed by the shipper or as a general rule written on the bill of lading. In relation to the subject judgment, the discretion of the deck was stipulated in the terms and conditions behind the carrier’s bill of lading. The carrier’s claim for damages was requested on the grounds that the exemption clause on the bill of lading did not clearly stipulate the disclaimer of negligence or negligence. Accordingly, in accordance with the judgments of The Danah Case in 1993, The Imvros Case in 1999 and Photo Production Cases in 1980, the court interprets the discretionary clause on the backside of the bill of lading as a special agreement between the parties and exempts the carrier from liability. This view of the British court is considered to be a reasonable conclusion in view of the documentary nature of bills of lading, the deck provisions of the Hamburg Rules and the Rotterdam Rules, and the emergence of container-only vessels.
Deck transport of cargo is a factor that increases risk for shippers. This is because the probability of loss, damage, and deterioration of cargo during deck transportation due to waves, seawater, wind, rain, direct sunlight and temperature changes is higher than when cargo is loaded in a dock. However, from the perspective of the carrier, for the efficient use of the ship and the increase of profits, it is preferred to transport cargo on deck. In addition, with the advent of container-only ships and the increase of cargo transportation using containers, deck-based transportation of these cargoes is becoming a trend. However, there are no countries in the world that have laws that allow for deck transport of cargo. Therefore, in the event that a clean bill of lading that does not specify this is issued despite the cargo being transported on deck without the consent of the shipper, and damage to the cargo occurs, the dispute between the parties may result in violation of the shipping contract or fraud. becomes a legal issue. In order to avoid such legal disputes, the carrier may freely transport the cargo on deck at the carrier’s discretion by placing a discretionary clause on the reverse side of the bill of lading, or indemnification of damage caused by the deck transport. Therefore, the main issue is whether the discretionary clause on the reverse side of the bill of lading should be viewed as a special contract agreed by the shipper or as a general rule written on the bill of lading. In relation to the subject judgment, the discretion of the deck was stipulated in the terms and conditions behind the carrier’s bill of lading. The carrier’s claim for damages was requested on the grounds that the exemption clause on the bill of lading did not clearly stipulate the disclaimer of negligence or negligence. Accordingly, in accordance with the judgments of The Danah Case in 1993, The Imvros Case in 1999 and Photo Production Cases in 1980, the court interprets the discretionary clause on the backside of the bill of lading as a special agreement between the parties and exempts the carrier from liability. This view of the British court is considered to be a reasonable conclusion in view of the documentary nature of bills of lading, the deck provisions of the Hamburg Rules and the Rotterdam Rules, and the emergence of container-only vessels.
