구상금
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. Of the costs of appeal, the part pertaining to the participation in the appeal shall be the intervenor joining the Plaintiff.
1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation of this case is as follows, except for adding the judgment as set forth in the following paragraph (2) to the assertion that the plaintiff newly adopted or emphasized in the trial of the court of first instance, and therefore, it is identical to the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is citing this as it is by
2. Additional matters to be determined;
A. 1) The Plaintiff is obliged to bear the freight charges incurred by the Defendants, the importer, at the port of arrival, on the grounds that the Plaintiff is obliged to pay the freight charges incurred before the first supplied goods were returned after having arrived at the port of Busan, under the terms and conditions of the import transportation contract CFR (the terms and conditions of the CFR). However, the importer is obliged to bear the freight charges incurred by the importer, excluding the risks incurred after the goods were delivered to the vessel and the maritime freight charges. Accordingly, the Defendants, the importer, should bear the freight charges incurred at
The author argues that the costs involved should be judged separately from who is the party to the contract of return.
According to the overall purport of Gap evidence Nos. 13 and 4-1, 2, and 5-1, 7-1, 2, and 2-2 of the evidence Nos. 13 and 4-1, 2, and 7-2 of the evidence Nos. 13 and the entire pleadings, the first supplied goods are divided into 5 containers of March 11, 2018 and 13 containers of March 25, 2018 and arrive at each Busan port. The defendants confirmed that one of the containers which arrive at March 11, 2018 was not normal products as a result of the verification that they were not normal products, they requested the return of five containers that arrive at D and 13 containers scheduled to arrive later, and the Defendants, according to a return agreement with D, passed on March 13, 2018.
3. Around 26, the Plaintiff expressed his intention to return (SHIP BACK) the primary supplied goods to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff
3. On March 22, 2018, the Plaintiff requested the Defendants to verify the export declaration customs clearance and the CY shipment schedule of containers that were used for traffic, and notified the Defendants of the shipment schedule for the cargo to be returned on March 22, 2018. According to the shipment schedule notified to the Defendants, the said cargo was returned.