The court below held that even if the non-party Dongin Trade Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "Dongin Trade") did not submit an air waybill for consignees issued by the defendant, the court below did not instruct a bonded warehouse operator to take any particular restrictions on the shipment and delivery of the goods at the time when the imported goods of this case were entered into a bonded warehouse, and that there was a proximate causal relation between the defendant's act and the plaintiff's damage caused by the removal of the goods of this case, since the defendant, who is the consignee or the plaintiff, did not instruct the bonded warehouse operator at the time when the imported goods of this case were entered into a bonded warehouse. However, the court below held that there was a proximate causal relation between the defendant's act and the plaintiff's damage caused by the removal of the goods of this case.

In light of the records, there is no error in the judgment of the court below as above, and in general, a bonded warehouse operator has the obligation to deliver the goods to a carrier or his/her designated person according to a contract of deposit with a carrier, while a carrier is obligated to deliver the goods to a consignee or his/her designated person. Thus, the custody and delivery of the goods by a bonded warehouse operator is in the position of a carrier's performance assistant or employee in relation to a consignee. Therefore, in cases where a bonded warehouse operator infringes on a consignee's right to delivery by delivering the goods to a person other than a consignee without the consignee's instructions, a carrier shall be held liable for tort as a bonded warehouse operator. Thus, the above judgment of the court below shall not be deemed to have erred by misapprehending the legal principles on proximate causal relation as asserted in the

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

According to the facts duly established by the court below, the defendant, a domestic agent of LTD, is a carrier, without following the plaintiff's instructions, delivered to the consignee of this case a letter of consent to the delivery of the goods to the consignee of this case and to the consignee of this case, or without taking any measures to avoid the risk despite the fact that it could have sufficiently known or been able to be able to be able to cause damage to the plaintiff. Thus, the defendant's act constitutes "the carrier, its employees or agents" under Article 25 of the Warsaw Convention, as amended, with the awareness that it would cause damage or damage by the carrier, its employees or agents, or with the awareness that it would cause damage to the consignee of this case. Thus, Article 22 of the above Convention does not apply to the limitation of liability.

Therefore, the decision of the court below to the same purport is correct, and there is no violation of an interpretation or application of Article 25 of the Warsaw Convention as argued in the Grounds for Appeal.

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

Justices Park Jae-sik (Presiding Justice)