In November 2010, Department of Justice announced to the legislative notice of the bill to revise the Commercial Code for the multimodal transport regulations. the Bill contained nine provisions such as the significance of multimodal transport contract, a multimodal transport policy, liabilities of multimodal transport operators, obligation of the consignee, the carrier’s receivables and debt combined duration of the extinction, reduction and exemption for multimodal transport operators’ liability, including the prohibition.
It had the goal of advancing the land and sea and air transport law by building a complete form of the foundation of the development of logistics and multimodal transport legislation. However, for multimodal transport needs to enact legislation so hasty about that question. In Korea, the establishment of an international agreement must play leading roles that were motivated to be the center of international shipping was very impatient. Since the bill was the result of the initiative is very poorly can not escape criticism.
Firstly, Multimodal Transport Regulations have been questioned on whether the location is appropriate. The Commercial Act in the Commercial Code 「Part 5 carriage」 to create, in the 「Chapter 1 Maritime Transportation」 and 「Chapter 2 Air Transport」 and 「Chapter 3 Intermodal Transportation」, it is desirable to configure.
Nextly, the following details of the proposed the bill may be criticized as follows.
“The significance of a multimodal transport contract” in the definition the concept is wrong. However, the concept of multimodal transport operators and Freight Forwarder’s missing is a fully equipped difficult to see in the form of regulations. Multimodal transport policy can happen to the securities, but in all sectors should be treated as securities is a problem. Combined with regard to liability of the carrier, in the 2010 bill to the Commercial Code article 150(3) to 153(6) regulations from the very confusing information. Accidents in the same section of a multimodal transport contract, depending on the extent of the carrier’s responsibility to reward, and are not subject to liability even if it may cause confusion. In addition, the mandatory provisions such as Article 150(4) and 150(9) are restricted on commerce rather than to the reasonable level of agreement on the responsibility of preventing the action can be questioned. If the terms of the Himalayas Clause, multimodal transport operator to avoid responsibility for what is not a concern are granted amnesty. Multimodal transport contract to any other applicable statute of limitations period and that ever cause confusion.
The International Convention for the combined transport has not been finalized yet. United States, England and Japan, yet the rules for multimodal transport law does not place. Under these circumstances, the 2010 bill must be enacted prematurely haneungae can not agree upon. Settlement of international agreements and legislation of other maritime powers, depending on the situation is considered desirable to promote.