The costs of appeal lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

The lower court duly admitted the following facts: (a) the Defendant Company, as a domestic corporation, and the Plaintiff Company, as a foreign corporation, agreed to deliver an load to the Plaintiff Company, and agreed to provide its means of transportation as a vessel flight to the Plaintiff Company; (b) the Defendant Company, due to the delay in the supply of the Defendant Company, imposed the time limit for shipment on the Plaintiff Company; (c) the Defendant Company used air transport means instead of the vessel transport means originally agreed to reduce the transport period to the point of destination within the U.S. against the 1970.6.29, the Defendant Company agreed to pay the Defendant Company the increased cost of transportation to the Defendant Company; and (d) accordingly, the increased cost of transportation, which

(A) Determination on the third ground;

Article 6 (1) of the Trade Business Act provides that a person who intends to export or import goods shall obtain permission or approval from the Minister of Trade, Industry and Energy under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree. Article 8 of the same Act provides that the person who intends to modify part of permitted or approved matters shall also be subject to the permission or approval for export or import under Article 6 of the same Act, and the Minister of Trade, Industry and Energy may, if necessary, attach the country of origin, loading area, rearing area and other conditions of approved currency goods. Paragraph (2) of the same Article provides that where a person who has obtained conditional permission or approval under Article 6 of the same Act files an application for a change of the said conditions, the Minister of Trade, and Energy may change the said conditions if the said application is deemed reasonable. However, even if the transportation means of export goods have been changed to an air route with the permission from the Minister of Trade, Industry and Energy, this alone does not constitute an amendment or modification of the above provisions of the Trade Business Act, and it does not constitute an amendment or modification of the said conditions.

(B) Determination on the first and second grounds;

Article 21 (1) 2 of the Foreign Exchange Control Act prohibits a resident from paying to a non-resident except as otherwise provided for in the same Act or Presidential Decree in the Republic of Korea. Article 23 of the same Act prohibits a resident from generating, changing, repaying, or extinguishing claims between a resident and a non-resident except as otherwise provided for in the same Act or Presidential Decree pursuant to the same Act. In addition, Article 33 (1) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act prohibits a resident from becoming a party to the occurrence of claims between a resident and a non-resident regarding claims

However, as stipulated in Article 1 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, there are such restrictions in order to maintain balance of payments, stabilization of monetary values, and efficient operation of foreign currency funds by managing foreign exchange and its transactions and other foreign transactions. Article 2 of the same Act provides that restrictions under the same Act shall be operated to the extent necessary to achieve the purpose of the same Act, and the Government shall gradually relax restrictions under the same Act by promoting improvement of balance of payments and stabilization of monetary values. Thus, the above provisions under the Foreign Exchange Control Act shall be interpreted as restrictive regulations in order to promote the development of the national economy. Therefore, even if the above restrictions are in conflict with the above restrictions provisions, they shall not affect the judicial validity of the above restrictions, and it is reasonable for the court below to order the payment of claims by the residents and the non-residents under Article 231 of the same Act, which is only a violation of the Foreign Exchange Control Act and Article 31 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act without considering the above restrictions on claims by the residents and the non-residents under Article 271 of the same Act.

(2) If so, it cannot be concluded that there is an error or reason which misleads the interpretation or application of the Foreign Exchange Control Act and the Foreign Exchange Control Act which might affect the original judgment, and that there is no illegality in the incomplete hearing of theories. Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed and the costs of appeal shall be borne by the losing party and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Jong-young (Presiding Justice)