(2) Based on the preliminary claim added at the trial, the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of 3,800,000 won with 5% per annum from March 25, 1981 to May 12, 1982 at the rate of 25% per annum from May 13, 1982 to the full payment system.

(3) The plaintiff's remaining conjunctive claims are dismissed.

(4) All the costs of lawsuit shall be divided into three parts of the first and second trials, and one of them shall be borne by the plaintiff and the other by the defendant.

(5) Paragraph (2) may be provisionally executed.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 5,439,113 won with an annual interest rate of 5% from March 25, 1891 to the delivery date of the complaint of this case, and 25% per annum from the day after the delivery date of the complaint to the full payment date.

The costs of lawsuit shall be assessed against the defendant in both the first and second instances, and provisional execution shall be declared.

2. (1) The main cause of the instant claim is that the Defendant Company: (a) concluded a contract of carriage of the instant goods with the Plaintiff Company, directly or by proxy of the Plaintiff Company; (b) damaged it while transporting the said goods, and thus, the Defendant Company asserted that, unless it proves that the said Nonparty, employees, or other persons employed for the transport of the instant goods have not been negligent in giving due attention to the receipt, delivery, custody, and transportation of the instant goods, the Plaintiff Company is liable for compensation for damages caused by the damage of the instant goods; and (c) as otherwise alleged in the foregoing, it is insufficient to recognize that the evidence cited in the above above was insufficient to acknowledge that the Defendant Company concluded a contract of carriage of the instant goods directly or with the Plaintiff Company, or with the Nonparty 2, who was represented by the Plaintiff Company, on behalf of the Plaintiff Company, on behalf of the Plaintiff Company, the Nonparty 2, who signed the transportation brokerage contract with the Plaintiff Company on March 20, 1981, concluded the transportation brokerage contract with the Defendant Company’s witness agreement with the said Defendant 3.

The plaintiff company asserts that the rights and obligations under the contract of carriage of the goods concluded between the above non-party and the defendant company, a forwarding agent, naturally belongs to the plaintiff company, which is the consignor, or that the above non-party and the defendant company, to enter into the contract of carriage as a matter of course, have a special agreement on the contract for the third party, which affected the legal effect of the contract to the plaintiff company. However, in general, since the forwarding agent under the Commercial Act enters into the contract of carriage with the carrier under its own name, since the rights and obligations under the contract of carriage with the carrier do not naturally affect the consignor, the rights and obligations under the contract of carriage do not naturally affect the consignee, and in this case, the contract of carriage between the non-party 2 and the defendant company does not have any evidence to prove that there was a special agreement on the contract for the third party to the effect of the

(2) In addition to the ancillary cause of the plaintiff company's claim, the defendant company should have the duty of care to safely transport the above goods covered by the plaintiff company in preparation for the above-mentioned goods, so if the above goods are transported, then the defendant company should have the duty of care not to damage rainwater, such as the driver's name or the transportation businessman of the above goods, but should have the defendant company bear the duty of care not to harm rainwater. Thus, according to the above evidences, the defendant company's liability to compensate the plaintiff company for damages caused by the inundation of the above goods as the users such as the above' name or the driver's negligence, and it is hard to recognize that the above goods were transported with the non-party 2's duty of care not to cover the above goods and thus, it is hard to recognize that the defendant company's above goods were transported with the non-party 2's non-party 1, who is the freight forwarder's duty of care not to cover the above goods with the defendant's name or the defendant's non-party 2's non-party 2's warranty.

3. Furthermore, as to the scope of compensation for damages of this case, if each of the statements of Nos. 2-11 (Account Statement), Nos. 6-14, 17 (Account Statement), and Nos. 15 and 16 (Account Statement) which are acknowledged to be genuine by the testimony of the above witness Non-party 1, and the witness testimony of the above witness all the purport of the oral argument, the plaintiff company was returned to Busan on March 26, 1981 and was returned from the above general chemical industry company to March 27 through March 29, 1981 to replace completely and partially defective goods by using both men and women at night from the above general chemical industry company to replace completely and partially defective goods. For this purpose, the above general chemical industry company:

(a) 447,260 won per dog and 491,986 won per 1,177 won each due to the 380 substitutions of the 95 cent Tolusl Products, and 491,986 won each of them, including value-added tax 44,726 won;

(b) 1,80,010 won per dog and 1,177 won per dog due to the 1,530 substitutions of 105 centes Tolves and 1,980,891 won, including value-added tax amount of KRW 180,081.

(C) 916,420 won (the content is the same as the entry in the Schedule) that is required for the repair of the remaining defective goods.

(d) personnel expenses;

Men's (25 men) 597,400 women (15 men) 213,800 Doz. 811,200 Doz.

(E) There is no counter-proof that the Plaintiff Company bears the obligation to pay the above amount to the above criminal chemical and industry company as 4,309,097 Won per 108,60 won for the simple statement against the figures (in addition to the above damages, 55,616 won for non-materials, 953,500 won for personnel expenses, and 1,130,016 won for non-materials 120,90 won for non-materials 2-11 account statement, 4,500 won for each of the above evidence No. 2-11 (Account No. 4,500), and the testimony of the above non-party No. 1 for each of the above non-party No. 4,500 won for non-party No. 1.

4. Ultimately, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the damages amounting to KRW 3,800,00 as damages due to the damage of the goods in question, and the damages amounting to five percent per annum from March 25, 1981 to May 12, 1982, which is the day following the date of this decision, to the day of this decision, respectively, the damages amounting to twenty five percent per annum from May 13, 1982, and the damages amounting to twenty five percent per annum from May 13, 1982, to the day of full payment (the plaintiff sought payment of damages amount from the day following the delivery of the complaint in this case). Thus, according to the above determination of the court below, the plaintiff's conjunctive claim of this case against the plaintiff in this case is justified within the scope of the above determination, and the plaintiff's conjunctive claim of this case shall be dismissed for the remainder of the damages claim within the scope of the judgment of the court below as stated in the above 9th judgment, and the plaintiff's conjunctive claim of this case is dismissed as to the remaining damages claim of this case.

Judges Yoon Young-chul (Presiding Judge)