손해배상(기)
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is a trucking business operator who owns B Track vehicle, and the Defendant Es Energy Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Es Energy”) is a company that operates the development, etc. of solar power generation systems, and the Defendant Yjin General Logistics Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Yjin General Logistics”) is an international logistics brokerage business operator that carries on trucking transport business, etc., and the Defendant Korea Special Transport Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Mata Special Transport”), is a trucking business operator who carries on trucking transport business, etc., and the freight forwarder of the Defendant Masan Special Transport Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Masan”) is a company that carries on trucking transport business, etc., and C drives the above Track vehicle.
B. Defendant U.S. Energy requested the carriage of the instant cargo, which consists of glass, TPPPERD LOB PATTB PATS ARC, B/L. The APS HS 1407010 goods (hereinafter “instant cargo”). Defendant U.S HS 1407010 goods (hereinafter “instant cargo”) again requested the carriage of the instant cargo to the Defendant Minejin Comprehensive Logistics, Defendant Hanjin General Logistics again requested the Defendant Hanjin Special Transport, Defendant Han Han Special Transport Co., Ltd. to the Plaintiff by order.
C. At the time of requesting the transportation of the instant cargo to Defendant Mine Integrated Logistics, the Defendant U.S. issued a cargo transport certificate and a invoice indicating that the instant cargo is a glass product, and the Defendant Mine Comprehensive Logistics also requested the transportation of the instant cargo to the Defendant Han-jin Special Transport, and issued an import declaration certificate and a cargo delivery order stating that the instant cargo is a glass product.
However, Defendant Han-ta Special Transport did not notify the Plaintiff that the instant cargo was favorable products when requesting transportation of the instant cargo, respectively, to Defendant Taesan S.A., and Defendant Han-I.D. did not notify that the instant cargo was favorable products.
E. C. On August 2014, 2014, while transporting the instant cargo by driving the Track vehicle.