|
|
Korea Supreme Court Decision 2015Da49811
Decided May 12, 2016
Affirmation of Non-Existence of Debt
【Main Issues and Holdings】
[1] Method of ascertaining the meaning and content of a foreign law applicable to a legal relationship with foreign elements
[2] Whether a supplier of necessaries to a vessel for navigation owes a duty to exercise reasonable diligence to ascertain whether the vessel is chartered and whether the charterer is with authority to bind the vessel under Article 114(3) of the Liberia Maritime Law (affirmative), and when it defaults on such a duty, whether the supplier may claim for maritime lien (negative)
【Summary of Decision】
[1] In ascertaining the content and construing the meaning of a foreign law applicable to a legal relationship with foreign elements, in principle, the construction and application shall be pursuant to the actual construction and application of the said foreign law in its country of nationality. Only when it is impossible to ascertain the content for lack of pertinent materials on foreign case law or interpretive standards as submitted in the legal proceedings can its meaning and content be ascertained under the general principles of statutory construction.
[2] Under the Liberia Maritime Law, the maritime case law of the United States is an important source of law for the statutory construction of Article 114(3) of the Liberia Maritime Law. However, with the repeal of what was originally codified at 46 U.S.C. § 973, effective from 1910 through 1971 (hereinafter the “former Federal Maritime Law of the United States”), the U.S. Supreme Court’s post-1971 case law no longer obligates the supplier to exercise reasonable diligence to make ascertainments. As such, applying post-1971 case law to the statutory construction of Article 114(3) of the current Liberia Maritime Law, which prescribes the same obligation as Sec. 973 of the former Federal Maritime Law of the United States and remains effective without repeal or amendment, would be inconsistent with the textual content and legislative intent of the said provision. Therefore, it is reasonable to construe the said provision as construed by the U.S. Supreme Court at the time when Sec. 973 was still in force. Namely, under Article 114(3) of the Liberia Maritime Law, a supplier of necessaries to a vessel for navigation owes a duty to exercise reasonable diligence to ascertain whether the vessel is chartered and whether the charterer is with authority to bind the vessel. Without fulfilling the obligation, the supplier may not claim for maritime lien. |
|
|
