B. Whether a carrier, etc. shall be held liable by intention or gross negligence in the event a legitimate holder of a bill of lading suffers a loss without finding the forgery of the bill of lading as a result of the delivery of the cargo without redeeming the bill of lading (affirmative)

(c) In the case of paragraph (b) above, the circumstances and the responsibility of the carrier, etc., in which the consignor has the form and appearance as the surety or issued in the name of the issuing bank of the credit.

(d) Purport of Articles 820 and 129 of the Commercial Act;

E. Whether the right to claim for tort damages is also transferred to a holder of a bill of lading as a result of the transfer of a bill of lading by being incorporated into a bill of lading (affirmative)

F. The final shipment date of cargo and the effective date of the credit was allowed for a long time and transactions under the condition of “Sel”. Whether the exporter delivered documents necessary for the import clearance of the cargo in advance, or whether the issuing bank can be deemed to have approved delivery of the cargo not redeemed with the bill of lading solely on the circumstances in which the issuing bank concluded a transfer security agreement for the cargo with the importer (negative)

G. Whether the provisions on the limited liability of a shipowner under the Commercial Act apply to cases where tort liability is held against a shipowner

(h) the extent consistent with the meaning of the indication of cargo on a bill of lading and that the terms and conditions of the letter of credit must be consistent in a transaction by a letter of credit.

(i) The case holding that a freight indication on a bill of lading is consistent with the terms and conditions of the letter of credit in light of the fact that although a commercial invoice is different from the letter of credit, although the description on the bill of credit is consistent with the letter of credit and other indications on the shipping documents are consistent with the terms and conditions of the letter of credit, although the uniform rules on the letter of credit and the letter of credit permitted under Article 43 (b) of the customary practices

B. If a carrier or a consignee delivers the cargo without redeeming the bill of lading with the bill of lading and thereby causes damage to a legitimate holder of a bill of lading, the carrier or the consignee shall be held liable for intentional or gross negligence unless there are special circumstances. The carrier or the consignee shall be held liable for the delivery of the cargo without redeeming the bill of lading with the bill of lading without redeeming it with the bill of lading, and the delivery of the cargo shall result in the delivery of the cargo with the bill of lading.

C. In the case of the above "B", the warranty is not liable for confirmation on the ground that the warrant had the form and appearance as the cargo taking guarantee place, or the illegality cannot be avoided, and even if the above warranty was issued in the name of the issuing bank, even if the letter of credit was issued in the name of the issuing bank, the carrier is liable to verify the authenticity of the letter of credit and to deliver the cargo to a person other than the holder of the bill of lading, unless there are special circumstances, it shall be liable for gross negligence.

D. The provisions of Articles 820 and 129 of the Commercial Act provide that the carrier shall be obliged to refuse a request for delivery of the cargo without a presentation of a bill of lading along with the right to refuse a request for delivery of the cargo.

E. In the event of the loss of the cargo due to “guarantee”, etc., the cargo is transferred to the holder of a bill of lading as well as liability for nonperformance due to tort damage claims are incorporated into a bill of lading and transferred to the holder of the bill of lading. Thus, even if a bill of lading was acquired (acquisition) or endorsed after the cargo has been lost, the holder of the bill of lading can exercise his/her right to claim damages, and

(f) The case holding that it cannot be deemed that the issuing bank approved delivery of the cargo not redeemed with the bill of lading solely on the grounds that the final shipment date of the cargo and the effective date of the letter of credit were allowed by 183 days and was a transaction under the conditions of "Sel", and the exporter delivered documents necessary for the import clearance of the cargo in advance, or that the issuing bank concluded a security agreement for the cargo with the importer.

G. The provisions on the shipowner’s limited liability under the Commercial Act are applicable only to cases where the parties are held liable for nonperformance of obligations under the contract of carriage unless the bill of lading provides for exemption or limitation of liability. It does not apply to cases where the parties are held liable for tort.

H. In a transaction by a documentary credit, the description of the shipping documents must be consistent with the description of the documentary credit, and the description of the freight on the bill of lading must comply with the terms and conditions of the documentary credit, but the fact that the freight description on the bill of lading must comply with the terms and conditions of the documentary credit does not mean that the party on the document must be completely identical. Even if there are a little difference in its own section, if the bank has paid considerable attention, the difference is insignificant, and if it can be discovered on its face that it does not cause a difference in the meaning of the text and text, and that it does not harm the terms and conditions of the documentary credit, it shall be deemed that it

(i) The case holding that the letter of credit contains a description of the quantity of the shipping documents on the bill of lading as the 100 metric tons, the total weight of which is 106.190 metric tons, and the original commercial invoice was entered as 106 metric tons, and the holder of the bill of lading corrected the quantity to 100 metric tons by agreement with the consignor and complied with the terms and conditions of the letter of credit, and the other packing statement is written as 100 metric tons, total weight of 106.190 metric tons, and the insurance policy is written as 10 metric tons, and if all other shipping documents are consistent with the letter of credit, the other shipping documents are stated as the 100 metric tons, and the uniform rules and practices permit under the letter of credit as the 43(b) of the letter of credit are merely exceeded, but this is not an expression of the weight or total weight of the cargo, and it is not an expression of the shipping documents that conforms with the terms and conditions of the letter of credit.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against each party.

With respect to the first, second, and third points

(1) Upon examining the records, we affirm the fact-finding of the court below in relation to the defendant Namnam Shipping and there is no violation of the rules of evidence.

(2) The argument of the theory about the existence and significance or function of the so-called commercial custom of guarantee is correct. However, such guarantee is not for the purpose of exempting the lawful holder of the bill of lading from liability to the carrier or the consignee, but rather for the premise that the carrier or the consignee compensates for the damage if the holder of the bill of lading suffers from the loss due to the guarantee. Thus, it cannot be said that the act of infringing the right of the holder of the bill of lading by delivering the cargo without redemption of the bill of lading is legitimate, or that the carrier's duty of care is mitigated or exempted. If the guarantee infringes on the legitimate holder of the bill of lading due to the guarantee, the party member's view that the lawful holder of the bill of lading is liable for tort by intention or gross negligence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 87Da1791, Mar. 14, 198; 9Da12314, Dec. 10, 191).

(3) If a carrier or a consignee provides a guarantee, it shall be deemed that he/she has the responsibility to verify whether the cargo has been actually established, and if he/she delivers the cargo without redeeming the bill of lading and thereby causes damage to a legitimate holder of a bill of lading due to the failure to discover the forgery of the bill of lading, it shall be deemed that the carrier or the consignee shall be liable for intentional or gross negligence unless there are special circumstances. It shall be deemed that the guarantee has the form and appearance of the cargo as the cargo taking-on guarantee, and it shall not be deemed that the carrier is not liable for such confirmation, nor shall the illegality be dismissed, even if the guarantee certificate was issued in the name of the issuing bank, and even if it is the case where the letter of credit was issued in the name of the issuing bank, the carrier shall be liable for gross negligence unless there are special circumstances if the cargo was delivered to a person other than the holder of the bill of lading without discovering the forgery (see Supreme Court Decision 94Da194, Dec. 11, 1992).

(4) The provisions of Articles 820 and 129 of the Commercial Act provide that the carrier is obligated to refuse to deliver cargo without a presentation of a bill of lading along with the right to refuse a request for delivery (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Da14123, Dec. 10, 1991); therefore, the judgment of the court below to the same purport is also justifiable.

(5) In cases where the cargo has been lost due to the degree of guarantee, etc., as well as liability for nonperformance due to tort claims are also transferred to the holder of a bill of lading as well as liability for damages arising from tort claims are incorporated into a bill of lading and transfer of the bill of lading. Thus, even if a bill of lading was acquired (acquisition) or endorsed after the cargo has been lost, the holder of the bill of lading can exercise the right to claim damages, and it is not necessary to give separate notice of assignment of claims (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 90Meu8098, Apr. 26, 1991; Supreme Court Decision 91Da14123, Dec. 10, 1991; Supreme Court Decision 91Da14994, Jan. 21, 1992);

The precedents cited by the same defendant's attorney (Supreme Court Decision 80Da2943 delivered on February 23, 1982) cannot be deemed appropriate for this case.

(6) Therefore, we cannot accept various arguments of the lawsuit that are contrary to the legal principles or the rules of evidence in the judgment of the court below, and there are no grounds for all arguments.

On the fourth ground

In this case, the final shipment date of the cargo and the effective date of the credit are allowed by the maximum of 183 days, and the exporter was a transaction under the so-called "Sel", and the exporter delivered the documents necessary for the import clearance of the cargo of this case in advance, and it cannot be deemed that the delivery of the cargo was lawfully approved with the bill of lading. In addition, the defendant Honam Bank, the issuing bank of this case, concluded a security transfer contract for the cargo with the non-party Employment Company, the importer, and it cannot be deemed that the holder of the bill of lading approved delivery of the cargo that is not in exchange for the bill of lading, and the cargo of this case cannot be deemed to have been delivered by the exporter to the importer (see Supreme Court Decisions 91Da14123, Dec. 10, 191; 91Da14994, Jan. 21, 1992). Therefore, there is no ground for review on each part of the judgment below.

On the fifth ground

The provisions on the shipowner's limited liability under the Commercial Act shall apply only to cases where the bill of lading provides the terms of exemption or the terms of limitation of liability, or to cases where the parties are liable for nonperformance of obligations under the contract of carriage, and as a matter of course, it does not apply to cases where the parties are held liable for tort (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 88Meu7641, May 8, 1990; Supreme Court Decision 88Meu3085, Aug. 28, 1990; Supreme Court Decision 91Da14994, Jan. 21, 1992). The court below is just to apply the provisions on the shipowner's limited liability under the Commercial Act in this case, and there is no error of law by misapprehending legal principles

The precedent of the theory of the lawsuit is not appropriate in this case, and it is not reasonable to discuss the theory of the lawsuit in the opposite position.

2. We examine the grounds of appeal by Defendant Gyeongnam Bank (hereinafter “Seoul Bank”)

On the first ground for appeal

According to the facts acknowledged by the court below, the plaintiff recovered the bill of lading in the form of order and holds it in the absence of any endorsement by any person, and during the litigation of this case, the non-party Grand Synas Synas Synas Synas Co. (hereinafter referred to as the "non-party company") received an informal endorsement from the consignor, and the non-party company notified the defendants that all rights held as the consignor should be transferred to the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff shall be a legitimate holder of the bill of lading in the form of continuous endorsement, and even in substantial legal relationship, the plaintiff can exercise the right to claim damages due to the loss of the bill of lading, and the plaintiff shall be entitled to exercise the right to claim damages due to the loss of the cargo, and it shall not be deemed that the above endorsement was made late, and therefore, it shall not be deemed that the liability of the defendant Kimnam Bank shall be exempted or mitigated.

There is no reason to discuss this issue.

On the second ground for appeal

(1) In the transaction by a letter of credit, the description of the shipping documents must be consistent with the description of the letter of credit, and the description of the freight on the bill of credit must comply with the terms and conditions of the letter of credit. However, Article 41(C) of the Uniform Regulations and the customary practices on the letter of credit applicable to the letter of credit of this case provides that "the description of the goods on the letter of credit of this case may be indicated in the letter of credit in general terms not inconsistent with the description of the letter of credit." However, in the case of a commercial invoice, the description of the goods on the letter of credit of this case may be indicated in all other documents in general terms which are not inconsistent with the description of the letter of credit may be stated in all other documents, and it seems that the demand of the letter of credit of this document is somewhat mitigated, and Article 43(b) of the Uniform Regulations provide that the quantity of the goods stipulated in the letter of credit of this case shall not exceed or be deficient. It is true that the court below recognized

In addition, the fact that the freight indication on the bill of lading must comply with the terms and conditions of the letter of credit does not mean that the wording of the document must be completely identical, and even if there are some differences in the wording, if the bank exercises considerable care, it is minor and does not cause any difference in the meaning of the text and language, and if it is possible to find out the fact that it does not harm the terms and conditions of the letter of credit, it shall be deemed that it conforms to the terms and conditions of the letter of credit (see Supreme Court Decision 84Meu696, May 28, 1985).

(2) According to the facts acknowledged by the court below, the letter of credit of this case contains 100 mectometric tons. The bill of lading contains a total weight of 106.190 mectometric tons. The original commercial invoice contains a quantity of 106 mectometric tons under the agreement with the above consignor, and the plaintiff corrected 100 mectometric tons under the agreement with the above consignor with a total of 100 mectometric tons, total weight of 106.190 mectometric tons under the insurance policy, and the other descriptions on the shipping documents are all identical to the letter of credit, so it is reasonable to view that there is no difference between the description of the bill of this case's shipping documents and the description of the letter of credit of this case's material description that is identical to the description of the letter of credit of this case's material description that is identical to the description of the letter of credit of this case's material description in light of the agreement with the above consignor.

3. We examine the Plaintiff’s grounds of incidental appeal.

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, the fact-finding of the court below is acceptable, and if the facts are identical, the judgment of the court below as to the cause and degree of offsetting negligence is also deemed legitimate, and there is no violation of law such as theory of lawsuit. There is no reason

Therefore, all appeals and incidental appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against each losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Jae-chul (Presiding Justice)