日本法上 船荷證券에 의한 國際裁判管轄合意의 要件 - 日本最高裁判所의 치사다네호 事件判決을 中心으로 -

Effectiveness of the International Jurisdiction Agreements by the B/L in the Japanese law - Focused on the Chisadane ship case of the Japanese Supreme Court -

Regarding validity, method and effect for the others of agreement as the formal matter in an international jurisdiction agreement, the common opinion and judicial precedent of Japan attempt the proper solution against defect of the law regarding those. Based on the nature of an agreement, it is to apply the civil law or commercial law to those matter. But it will not be able to maintain a logical consistency, because the approach with general private law prerequisited equality of contractors is not suitable in the relationship of international maritime law grounded on the bill of lading. It can be the same situation even in our cases which follow the common opinion and judicial precedent of Japan on the formal matter of agreement. As the substantial matter on the agreement of international jurisdiction, the necessity of close connection are not unified still between the theory and judicial precedent of Japan. In our country with effect of positive opinion the reasonable connection or substantial connection recently became the lawful condition of international exclusive jurisdiction agreement in the bill of lading through the Angelo case in 1997 and the International Private Act Amendment in 2001. Therefore when it does not regards itself of jurisdiction agreement as substantial connection, the agreement jurisdiction could not be recognized. Simultaneously, against the general theory on international jurisdiction or the international jurisdiction agreement, it needs to construct the legal system bounded the nature of a jurisdiction agreement in the bill of lading.