Unlike the latter part of Article 814(2) of the Commercial Act, the exclusion period stipulated under Article 814(1) of the Commercial Act is one year from the date of delivery or delivery of the cargo and the period extended by the agreement of the parties concerned (the proviso to Article 814(1)). Unlike the latter part of the same paragraph, the former part of Article 814(2) of the Commercial Act provides that “the period under paragraph (1) is “the period under paragraph (1)” and does not distinguish the main sentence and proviso of Article 814(1) of the Commercial Act and does not restrict the scope of application. Therefore, if the aforementioned portion of “the period under paragraph (1)” is faithfully interpreted in the ordinary sense of the language, it can be interpreted that all of the periods

In addition, Article 811 of the former Commercial Act (amended by Act No. 8581 of Aug. 3, 2007; hereinafter the same) provides that, like Article 814(1) of the Commercial Act, with respect to a carrier’s claims and obligations against a consignor or consignee, the short-term exclusion period of one year may be set and extended by agreement between the parties. However, with respect to Article 811 of the former Commercial Act, it was pointed out that the same exclusion period as that of the carrier’s claims and obligations between the carrier and a third party pursuant to Article 811 of the former Commercial Act is likely to cause damages to the carrier if the same exclusion period as that of the carrier’s claims and obligations between the carrier and the consignee or between the consignee and the consignee are applied to the carrier and Article 814(1) of the former Commercial Act within the same period as that of the carrier’s claims against the consignor or consignee pursuant to Article 811(1) of the former Commercial Act, if the carrier transferred the carrier’s claims to the carrier pursuant to Article 814(1) of the former Commercial Act within the period.

In addition, if the period under the former part of Article 814(2) of the Commercial Act does not include the period extended by agreement between the parties pursuant to the proviso of Article 814(1) of the Commercial Act, it does not conform to the purport of the proviso of Article 814(1) of the Commercial Act, allowing the extension of the period under the agreement between the parties.

Therefore, in cases where a carrier re-commissions a third party with the transport he/she received, if a consignor or a consignee concludes a compensation agreement with a carrier or makes a judicial claim against a carrier within one year from the date of delivery or delivery of the cargo under Article 814(1) of the Commercial Act or within the extended period of time under the agreement of the parties, the carrier’s claim or obligation against a third party shall not be extinguished until three months elapse from the date of such agreement or claim.

1. Ground of appeal No. 1

The lower court determined that the Defendant was in the position of a contracting carrier accepting the freight transport of this case in relation to the Hyundai Libers, based on the content of the “multimodal transport contract” written by the Defendant and Hyundai Libers Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Mogles”).

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal doctrine and the record, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the criteria for determining whether a forwarding agent accepts carriage, as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. The second ground for appeal

A. (1) Article 814(1) of the Commercial Act provides that “The claims and obligations of a carrier against a consignor or consignee shall be terminated, whatever the causes for the claims may be, if no judicial claim is made within one year from the date when the carrier delivers or delivers the goods to the consignee, or within one year from the date when the carrier delivers or delivers the goods to the consignee,” thereby stipulating the short-term limitation period of claims and obligations against the consignor or consignee of the carrier, while the proviso provides that “However, this period may be extended by an agreement between the parties.”

Article 814(2) of the Commercial Act provides, “In cases where a carrier re-entrusted a third party with the carriage he/she has accepted, if a consignor or consignee has agreed on compensation with a carrier or has made a judicial claim against a carrier within the period prescribed in paragraph (1), the claim and obligation of a carrier against a third party against the third party shall not be extinguished, notwithstanding paragraph (1), before three months have passed from the date of such agreement or claim. This provision provides, “The same shall also apply to cases where there is an agreement between a carrier and a third party to the same effect as the proviso to paragraph (1).” This provision provides, “The same shall also apply

(2) The term “period under Paragraph (1)” under the former part of Article 814(2) of the Commercial Act shall be deemed to include not only one year from the date of delivery or delivery of cargo under the main sentence of Article 814(1) of the Commercial Act, but also one year from the date of delivery or delivery of cargo, as well as the period extended by an agreement between the parties pursuant to the proviso of Article

Unlike the latter part of Article 814(2) of the Commercial Act, the period of exclusion prescribed in Article 814(1) of the Commercial Act is one year from the date of delivery or delivery of the cargo (the main sentence) and the period extended by the agreement of the parties concerned (the proviso to paragraph (1)). Unlike the latter part of Article 814(2) of the Commercial Act, the former part of Article 814(1) does not distinguish the main sentence and proviso of Article 814(1) of the Commercial Act and does not restrict the scope of application. Therefore, if the aforementioned part of “period of paragraph (1)” is faithfully interpreted in the ordinary sense of the language, it can be interpreted that both the period prescribed in the main sentence and proviso to Article 814(1)

In addition, Article 811 of the former Commercial Act (amended by Act No. 8581 of Aug. 3, 2007; hereinafter the same) provides that, like Article 814(1) of the Commercial Act, with respect to a carrier’s claims and obligations against a consignor or consignee, the short-term exclusion period of one year may be set and extended by agreement between the parties. However, with respect to Article 811 of the former Commercial Act, it was pointed out that the same exclusion period as that of the carrier’s claims and obligations between the carrier and a third party pursuant to Article 811 of the former Commercial Act is likely to cause damages to the carrier if the same exclusion period as that of the carrier’s claims and obligations between the carrier and a third party is applied to the carrier and the consignor or consignee, it is also included in Article 811(1) of the former Commercial Act as of August 3, 2007, where the carrier transferred the carrier’s claims against the consignor or consignee to the carrier pursuant to Article 814(1) of the former Commercial Act within the period of the same Act.

In addition, if the term “period under Paragraph (1)” in the former part of Article 814(2) of the Commercial Act does not include the period extended by agreement of the parties pursuant to the proviso of Article 814(1) of the Commercial Act, it does not comply with the purport of the proviso of Article 814(1) of the Commercial Act, allowing the extension of the period by agreement of the

(3) In cases where a carrier has re-entrusted a third party with the transport he received, if the consignor or the consignee has agreed on the compensation with the carrier or has made a judicial claim against the carrier within one year from the date of delivery of the cargo or within the extended period under the agreement of the parties, then the carrier’s claim or obligation against the third party against the third party shall not be extinguished until three months have passed from the date of such agreement or claim.

B. The lower court acknowledged the fact that the instant cargo arrived at the port of discharge on May 21, 2013, and the carrier Hyundai Rovis extended the period of claim for damages on several occasions on February 20, 2016 under an agreement with the consignor, and determined that the instant lawsuit was brought within the exclusion period under Article 814(2) of the Commercial Act, on the ground that there was an agreement on September 11, 2015, which was within that period, and the instant lawsuit seeking damages against the Defendant was brought within three months thereafter.

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the foregoing legal doctrine and the record, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the exclusion period under Article 814(2) of the Commercial Act, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

3. Ground of appeal No. 3

Examining the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the scope of liability for damages or comparative negligence, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, thereby failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations.

4. Conclusion

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

Justices Park Jung-hwa (Presiding Justice)