論海商法第78條第1項規定得否於海上貨運單適用

Could Para. 1 of Art. 78 of Maritime Act be Enforced Under Sea Waybill

於現今國際貿易進行運作時，在貨物到達目的地前，當事人有就貨物為交易且轉讓權利之必要。因此遂發展出以載貨證券作為運送人收受貨物之收據，而為運送契約之證明，並表彰貨物所有權之歸屬之用，藉以利於各利害關係人進行貿易。然現時造船工業、航海技術、通訊科技進步，船舶航行速度快捷，常生貨物已運抵於目的港，受貨人尚未取得載貨證券，以至於無法向海上運送人請求領取貨物之情形。為解決前述問題，海上貨運單遂應運而生。此種單證與載貨證券不同，其不具有可轉讓性，受貨人於請求受領貨物時並無須出示並繳回該單證於運送人，運送人即可將貨物交付。海上貨運單並非如同載貨證券表彰其上所載貨物所有權之物權性質，其僅為運送人收受貨物之收據，暨運送契約之證明，兩者性質及定位有所差異。按海商法第78條第1項規定：「裝貨港或卸貨港為中華民國港口者之載貨證券所生之爭議，得由我國裝貨港或卸貨港或其他依法有管轄權之法院管轄。」本項規定除載貨證券外，是否可適用於簽發海上貨運單之情形？甚或於未簽發海上運送單據時，該海上運送契約之法律關係是否亦得依據海商法第78條第1項規定，藉以決定管轄權法院？近臺灣高雄地方法院102年度海商字第10號民事判決論及運送人簽發海上貨運單所生爭議，認為得直接依據前揭規定，據以決定具管轄權之法院，惟其妥適與否，似有討論之空間。本文即針對上述相關議題加以論述。

In the current practice of international trade, the Bills of Lading which is issued by carrier to prove the receipt of goods, evidence of the contract of affreightment and document of title to the goods. Due to the improvement of marine technology, the vessel might arrive at the discharging port before the consignee could receive the Bills of Lading and be unable to entitled to delivery. Alternatively, sea waybill is a non-negotiable document where delivery is to be made to the named consignee without the necessity of production of the original sea waybill. The sea waybill is treated as the receipt of goods as well as evidence of the contract of affreightment, but is not capable of transferring either title or constructive possession to the goods. According to para. 1 of Art. 78 of the Maritime Act: “Where either the port of loading or the port of discharge is in R.O.C., any dispute arising under a Bills of Lading may be instituted an action in the court of the said R.O.C. port of loading or port of discharge or any other competent court according to the law or regulations.” Except for the Bills of Lading, will this clause also apply to the disputes arising from Sea Waybill? Furthermore, even if there is no document of the contract of affreightment issued, could the relationship of contract of affreightment of goods by sea be based on this article as connecting factor to determine the competent court? Recently, Taiwan Kaohsiung District Court Civil Judgement Hai Shang Zi No.10 (2013) says that the dispute arising out of Sea Waybill could apply to the para.1 of Article 78 of Maritime Act as connecting factor to determine the competent court. Is it satisfied or not? It has further discussion on this issue in this article.