The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

According to the records, as to the plaintiff's assertion that the defendant actually received the cargo stated in the judgment in the issuance of the bill of lading of this case, the defendant asserted that the bill of this case was issued without the cancellation of the confession and without the actual receipt of the cargo. Although the plaintiff asserted the validity of the revocation of confession, the court below did not make any explicit judgment as to the above confession. However, according to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court below, the court below acknowledged the fact that the defendant issued the bill of this case without the receipt of the cargo and rejected the evidence inconsistent with this. The judgment of the court of first instance did not include the purport that the confession made by the defendant is against the truth and due to mistake, and the fact-finding itself of the court below is justified in light of the records, and there is no error of law in finding the facts contrary to the confession without the judgment as to the validity of the revocation of confession of the judgment, such as the theory of lawsuit.

The second ground of appeal is examined.

In light of the purport of Article 813(1) and (2) of the Commercial Act, which states the type, weight, volume, etc. of the cargo in a bill of lading, Article 814 of the Commercial Act, Article 820, Article 132, and Article 133 of the Commercial Act as to the effect of the delivery of the cargo, the right to request delivery of the cargo is a securities including the right to claim delivery of the cargo. It is reasonable to view that the Commercial Act is the premise for the establishment of the bill of lading in which the carrier actually receives or loads the cargo from the consignor, i.e. the cargo that the carrier actually received from the consignor, and as such, if a bill of lading was issued without receiving or loading the cargo, it is defective to what is the object of the bill of lading, and thus, it cannot be viewed that there is no error in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the delivery of the cargo as stated in the bill of lading as stated in the above Article 813(1) and (2) of the Commercial Act.

The grounds of appeal No. 3 are examined.

In negotiating the bill of exchange of this case, the Plaintiff bank suffered losses of this case by attaching and negotiating the received bill of lading issued by an unsatisfy freight forwarder, which is not a non-satisfy bill of lading in compliance with the terms and conditions of the letter of credit. Therefore, the Plaintiff bank's error as above constitutes a ground for offsetting negligence, and in light of the records, it seems that the lower court's negligence ratio is too large. Thus, this part of the argument is without merit, as there is no ground for offsetting negligence or no ground for offsetting negligence, such as the theory of the lower judgment.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. The costs of the appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Shin Jong-young (Presiding Justice)