[손해배상(기),창고비][공1993.12.1.(957),3041]
The case holding that, where the increase in storage in a warehouse is decomposed or destroyed, the negligence of the owner of May who fails to comply with the demand of the warehouse operator for delivery shall be 50% in spite of the demand of the warehouse operator.
The case holding that since the warehouse business operators who had been kept in today's warehouse had been in custody of today's Noh and corruption and demanded that the owners take them out of Korea without fixing the period of deposit several times, owners were aware of the fact that the cold storage period of the warehouse of the warehouse operators was three times or more, and the number of times is likely to expect that the warehouse business operators should properly grasp their quality, and even if the increase is properly stored in the cold storage, it is difficult to reduce the increase in the number of times due to the increase in the number of years and the increase in the number of times after May of the next year, the above increase in the number of years was shipped out and the increase in the number of times is difficult to be seen as having caused the increase in the number of times due to the lack of demand for delivery and sale of the warehouse business operators as soon as there is no demand for delivery and sale of the same, and the above increase in the number of times due to the increase in the number of damages caused by the above 5% of the owners to the extent that they did not comply with the demand for delivery of the warehouse operators.
Article 763 of the Civil Act
Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) 1 and two plaintiffs, Ha Man-young, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellee)
Defendant Counterclaim Plaintiff 1 and one other Defendants, Defendant 1 et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee)
Busan High Court Decision 92Na16126, 16133 decided May 6, 1993
All appeals are dismissed.
The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant).
1. Judgment on the ground of appeal No. 1 by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant, the Plaintiff’s abbreviation)
The court below reasoned that the defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff, the defendant Counterclaim plaintiff, the plaintiff) who had been in custody of the extended math of this case as warehouse of this case for the plaintiffs, was aware that the extended math of this case had been shipped out the extended math of this case without fixing the deposit period from January 10, 191 to several times. The plaintiffs also knew three times of the cold storage period of the defendants' low temperature storage and three times of trouble, and it is difficult to expect that the defendants who were in warehouse business operators should properly grasp their quality conditions. Even if the extended math of math of this case was properly stored in the low temperature warehouse, it is easy to see that the increase in Math of Math of this case's shipment price caused by the increase in 5th of the year and the increase in Math of Math of this case's shipment price due to the increase in eth of eth of the above math of eth of this case's sales, and that the above increase in eth of eth of the defendants's sales price was not neglected.
According to the relevant evidence and records, the above fact-finding by the court below is just, and it is not recognized that the defendants could not release the goods because the increase has been deteriorated due to the malfunction of freezing more than two times on January 10, 1991, which was demanded by the defendants to release the goods to the plaintiffs, or that there was a situation where it is inevitable to refuse the delivery of goods because the problems such as compensation for damages and the burden of storage fees have not been resolved due to the today's corruption between the plaintiffs and the defendants. In addition, if the facts are as determined by the court below, it cannot be viewed that there was an error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles on Article 160 of the Commercial Act or the legal principles on offsetting negligence, such as the theory of lawsuit, and therefore there is no reason to discuss.
2. Determination on the ground of appeal No. 2
The court below held that the defendants, a warehouse business operator, are liable for damages suffered by the plaintiffs due to the destruction or loss of the value of the No. 1 as of April 20, 1991 because the No. 1 of this case owned by the plaintiffs due to the corruption or loss of the No. 1991. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the damages suffered by the plaintiffs due to the corruption or loss of the No. 1999. In light of relevant evidence and the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, the court below's aforementioned determination is just and acceptable, and there are no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the standard market price of damages or the legal principles as of October 20, 1991, since the market price of the No. 1990, which was first decomposed or first decomposed as of September 20, 1990, or that the defendants entirely removed the No. 1990, which was the market price of the No. 1990, Dec. 20, 199.
3. Determination on the ground of appeal No. 3
The judgment of the court below as to the point that the plaintiff's assertion points out (the plaintiff did not set the period of storage in the custody of the Maw in this case to the defendants; the plaintiff 1's ownership in all over 60,560 kilograms; the plaintiff 1's sale of 2,00 kilograms two times from the total Mawn which was kept in the above warehouse around April 14, 191; and the increase in the Mawn in this case was all decomposed or destroyed around April 191) is just in light of the evidence relation as stated by the court below, and it is justified in the judgment of the court below without proper review in violation of the principle of pleading or disposition right, and there is no reason to see that there was an error of law that erred in the misapprehension of the facts against the rules of evidence, such as erroneous interpretation of the parties' expression of intent as to the custody of the Mawn in this case, and there is no reason to see the conclusion of the judgment below.
4. Therefore, all appeals are 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 Yoon-young (Presiding Justice)