On March 30, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for cargo liability insurance with the Seoul Trucking Transport Brokers Association as the insured. The Plaintiff entered into a contract for cargo liability insurance with the insurance period as “30 million won per accident compensation limit,” “1 million won,” “1 million won,” “1 million won,” “risk of trucking transport brokerage,” and “general terms and conditions of cargo liability insurance”.

On December 26, 2013, the bank logistics was requested from ls Electric Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “ls Electric Co., Ltd.”) to transport 27.382 tons of the electricity (hereinafter “the instant cargo”) from Busan to the Gu.

The purpose logistics was to introduce a vehicle with 25 tons of truck for B business (the defendant is a branch entry company, and the C actual owner is her husband D.) through the Korea Truck Call Center as the vehicle for transportation is insufficient among the vehicles directly operated or the vehicle for the branch entry is insufficient.

A, around December 30, 2013, who was engaged in the business of transportation by leasing a vehicle from the owner of the land to C, was delivered with the instant cargo from the LS Cable and disposed of it to the other party, and thereby was subject to criminal punishment for embezzlement.

Since then, the bank logistics paid 219,748,390 won for the value of the instant cargo to the ls Electric Cable, and the Plaintiff paid 195,825,000 won to the bank logistics around April 1, 2014, calculated by applying the proportion due to excessive weight in accordance with the freight liability insurance for the instant cargo.

【In light of the fact that there is no dispute, the entries in Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 6, and the fact that the court acknowledged the liability for damages against the LS Wire of the substitute logistics, the court below concluded a contract of carriage of goods with the defendant for the purpose of the consignor, as the freight forwarder for the instant cargo.