운송료
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.
The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).
1. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 5, the lower court, based on its stated reasoning, determined that ① the party requesting the freight forwarding for the instant feed is an agricultural company G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “G”) and the Defendant cannot be deemed a client for the freight forwarding, rejected the Plaintiff’s claim for substitute payment based on the premise that the Defendant requested the freight forwarding for the instant feed, and ② the Defendant is not a party to the contract of carriage for the instant feed, and thus rejected the Plaintiff’s claim for substitute payment based on the premise that the Defendant is a party to the contract of carriage for the instant feed.
Examining the record, the above recognition and determination by the court below are justifiable, and there is no error of exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or of misapprehending the legal principles on forwarding agents or forwarding agents, shipping contracts, confirmation of parties to shipping contracts, and subrogation of persons performing obligations.
The precedent cited in the grounds of appeal is different from the case of this case, and it is not appropriate to invoke this case.
2. As to the third ground of appeal, the lower court rejected the Plaintiff’s claim for return of unjust enrichment on the premise that the Defendant is a consignee under Article 802 of the Commercial Act, based on its determination that the Defendant is not a consignee who bears the obligation to receive freight under Article 802 of
Upon examining the records, the above judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles on the interpretation of Article 802 of the Commercial Act.
3. As to the ground of appeal No. 6, the lower court determined that the Defendant’s tort was not constituted on the grounds as stated in its reasoning.
Upon examining records, the above judgment of the court below is just and there is a ground for appeal.