[손해배상(기)][공1997.8.15.(40),2258]
Whether a maritime carrier is liable for damages against a holder of a bill of lading in cases where the carrier delivers the cargo to a third party with the delivery instruction or approval of the holder of the bill of lading (negative)
In principle, a marine carrier shall deliver the cargo in exchange for the bill of lading to a holder of the bill of lading. However, if a marine carrier delivers the cargo to a third party in accordance with the direction or consent of the holder of the bill of lading, even if the third party did not present the bill of lading, the marine carrier cannot be held liable for damages due to the non-performance of the obligation to deliver the cargo or tort against the holder of the bill of lading who has given such instruction or consent.
Articles 129 and 820 of the Commercial Act
Supreme Court Decision 74Da376 delivered on December 10, 1974 (Gong1975, 8235), Supreme Court Decision 91Da14123 delivered on December 10, 1991 (Gong1992, 475), Supreme Court Decision 91Da4249 delivered on February 14, 1992 (Gong192, 107), Supreme Court Decision 91Da30026 delivered on February 25, 1992 (Gong192, 1136)
Seoul Bank (Before its change: Seoul Trust Bank) (Attorney Yellow-chul, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)
Sam Shipping Co., Ltd. (Attorney Han-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)
Seoul High Court Decision 95Na12707 delivered on August 2, 1995
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. The reasoning of the judgment below is as follows.
A. The lower court acknowledged the following facts.
1. The plaintiff 1 and 2. The plaintiff 1 and 9. The defendant 1 and 10. The defendant 1 and 10. The defendant 1 and 10. The defendant 1 and 10. The defendant 9. The defendant 1 and 10. The defendant 9. The defendant 1 and 10. The defendant 9. The defendant 9. The defendant 1 and the defendant 1 were 0. The defendant 1 and the defendant 1 were 0. The defendant 9. The defendant 1 and the defendant 1 were 0. The defendant 1 and the defendant 1 were 10. The defendant 9. The plaintiff 1 and the defendant 1 were 10. The defendant 1 and the defendant 2 were 0. The defendant 1 and the defendant 1 were 0. The plaintiff 1 and the defendant 2 were 10. The defendant 1 and the defendant 1 were 9. The defendant 1 and the defendant 2 were 10. The defendant 1 and the defendant 1 were 1 and the defendant 5.
B. After recognizing the above facts, the court below determined that the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking compensation for damages is groundless, since the plaintiff, who is the holder of a bill of lading regarding cement 5,000M, instructed or consented to deliver the cement to the defendant pursuant to the above agreement to the importing company of this case. Thus, the above cement was delivered to the importing company of this case, not the holder of the bill of lading.
2. In light of the records, the fact-finding by the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence against the rules of evidence as alleged in the grounds of appeal.
3. In principle, a marine carrier shall deliver the cargo in exchange for the bill of lading to a holder of the bill of lading. However, if a marine carrier delivers the cargo to a third party with the delivery instruction or consent of the holder of the bill of lading, even if the third party did not provide the bill of lading, the marine carrier shall not be held liable for damages due to a non-performance of the obligation to deliver the cargo or a tort against the holder of the bill of lading who has given such delivery instruction or consent. Therefore, the judgment below to this effect is just, and there is no error of law as argued in the Grounds for Appeal
4. 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 Lee Im-soo (Presiding Justice)