스위치 선하증권의 유효요건

Requirements for an Effective Switch B/L: Focusing on The KSC Docket No.2018Da249018

스위치 선하증권은 원 선하증권을 대체하는 서류로서, 원 선하증권의 내용과 다르게 발행된 선하증권을 말한다. 2020년 대법원이 선고한 2018다249018판결에서는, 운송주선인이 원 선하증권의 발행인인 운송인으로부터 권한을 위임받지 아니하고, 중계무역상의 요청에 따라 발행한 스위치 선하증권의 효력이 문제되었다. 대법원은 한국법에 따라 운송인이 아닌 당사자가 운송인의 위임 없이 발행한 스위치 선하증권은 선하증권의 발행요건을 제대로 구비하지 못하였기 때문에 적법한 선하증권으로 인정되지 않는다고 판결하였다. 본 논문은 영국법에 기초하여 대상판결을 분석하고, 스위치 선하증권의 발생시 운송인의 유의사항을 제시한다.

Purpose : A Switch B/L refers to a bill that is issued as a substitute for an original B/L but which is not identical in all respects to the bill that it is replacing. In Docket No.2018Da204018, there was a dispute as to the validity of switch B/L which was issued by the freight forwarder at the request of the intermediary without authority from the original B/L’issuer as the carrier. The supreme court of Korea ruled that this B/L can not be regarded as valid B/L under the Korean Law. This article analyses Docket No.2018Da204018 according to the English law, and proposes some recommendations for the carrier, when he issues the switch B/L. Research design, data, methodology : This article adopts the legal methodology which utilizes textbooks, journal articles, electronic resources, UK COGSA(1992), and several cases from the English court. Results : This article finds that, under the English law, three requirements for an effective switch B/L are a proper requester, a proper issuer, and a legitimacy reason for issuing the switch B/L. Thus, this article concludes that the switch B/L in Docket No.2018da204018 shall not be recognized as a valid B/L, because it clearly lacked the second requirement naming a proper issuer. Conclusions : The carrier potentially has greater liability over issuing the switch B/L than the requester. Therefore, when issuing the switch B/L, it is crucial for the carrier to verify the requester, obtain a legitimacy reason for issuing the switch B/L, and to insist upon surrendering the original B/L..