Attorney Han-dong et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Attorney Kim Hong-Gyeong et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

1. A. The preferred securities are securities that represent the right to claim the delivery of the cargo, and the commercial law provides the premise for the establishment of a valid bill of lading that the carrier actually receives or loads the cargo from the consignor. Thus, the bill of lading issued even though the carrier did not receive or load the cargo, is null and void as it does not satisfy the cause and requirements (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 80Da1325, Sept. 14, 1982; 2006Da47585, Feb. 14, 2008).

B. The so-called Swch B/L is to be issued in lieu of the initial bill of lading issued by a carrier (hereinafter referred to as “original bill of lading”). The so-called Swch B/L mainly intends to modify the terms of an export and import contract, such as the consignee or quantity after shipment, or where it is necessary to divide one bill of lading or consolidate several recommendations against the other party, etc. In order to function as an effective bill of lading, the requirements for the issuance of the bill of lading must be satisfied. In other words, in principle, the issuing authority should issue the cargo as the party to the contract of carriage, and as such, the issuing authority should be the delegated person of the bill of lading from the carrier, such as the shipping agent or the shipping agent, etc., who has issued the original bill of lading, and if a person without authority issues the bill of lading, it cannot be deemed that the new bill of lading is a legitimate one that has been issued without authority, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the new bill of lading was issued without authority of a carrier’s possession of the original bill of lading.

2. Review of the reasoning of the first instance judgment cited by the lower court and the record reveals the following facts.

가. 코오롱 글로벌주식회사(이하'코오롱'이라고 한다)는 중국의 후앙시 써니 싱예 스트립 ( Huangsi SunnyXingyeStrip Co. Ltd., 이하 '후앙시'라고 한다)으로부터 153,775 kg 상당 의 강판 코일21개(이하 '이 사건 화물'이라고 한다)를 '운임포함 인도(Cost and Freight , CFR ) ' 조건으로 매수하여 태국의 코트코 메탈 워크스 리미티드(Cotco Metal Works Limited , 이하 '코트코'라고 한다)에 '운임, 보험료 포함 인도(Cost, Insurance and Freight , CIF ) ' 조건으로 매도하는 중계무역 방식의 계약을 체결하였다. 나. 후앙 시 는 하이슌 오버시스 코퍼레이션(HaiShun Overseas Corporation, 이하 '하 이슌 ' 이라고 한다 ) 에게 운송을 의뢰하였고, 하이슌 은 아래와 같이 이 사건 화물을 선적한 후 송하인 ( shipper)을 후앙시, 수하인(consignee)을 우리은행의 지시인, 통지 처 ( notify address ) 를 코오롱으로 하는 선하증권(이하'이 사건 제1 선하증권'이라고 한다)을 발행 하였다.

C. Coin, Ltd requested the Defendant to issue a bill of lading replacing the bill of lading of this case in order to collect the sale price from Grung Tan Tankdo, Ltd, hereinafter referred to as "Tan bank"). Accordingly, the Defendant issued the bill of lading of this case to the consignee as the direction of the other bank, and received USD 240 from Coin as the document cost, and the Defendant received USD 240 as the document cost.

D. Meanwhile, on May 28, 2015, the instant cargo was loaded at the upper port of China, and arrived at the port of Canadian on June 8, 2015, and was stored for 8 days at the cock port of Canadian, and was transported to the cock factory on June 16, 2015, and the cock was discovered from 18 cocks among 21 packages. Coco received 30,00 of the instant cargo as normal goods.

E. The plaintiff was an insurer who entered into a cargo insurance contract to secure the risk during the transportation of the cargo of this case with the Coul, which caused the plaintiff to inspect the cargo of this case to the authorized coule who raised an objection against the 18 Corcocos to the 18 ccos whose green losses were discovered. As a result of the inspection, when it was determined that the cargo was flooded due to the cost of temporary storage in the cock port, the plaintiff paid the remaining non-life insurance money to Coul except the proceeds from the sale of the remainder.

3. We examine these factual relations in light of the legal principles as seen earlier.

A. The instant bill of lading issued and delivered at the request of the Defendant 2, a transit trader, is a Swiss bill of lading issued in order to substitute for the need to modify the contents of the original bill of lading in the transaction structure of relay trade.

나. 그런데 피고 는위 중계무역에서 최종 수입업자인 코트코 와 의 관계에서 송하인 의 지위 에 있는 코오롱과 운송계약을 체결한 적이없고, 이 사건 화물의 운송인으로서 원선하 증권 인 이 사건제1 선하증권을 발행한 하이슌으로부터 원 선하증권을 대체하는 스위치 선하 증권 의발행에 관하여 권한을 위임받은 적도 없다. 따라서 운송인이 아닌 자가 발행 한 이 사건 제2 선하증권은 선하증권으로서 발행요건 을 제대로 갖추지 못하여 적법한 선하 증권 으로 볼 수 없다. 또한 앞서 본 바와 같이 코오롱 또는 피고가 이 사건 화물 을 실제로수령하지 않고 이 사건 제1 선하증권만을 교부받았다고 하여 이 사건 화물 을 인도 받았다고 볼 수 없고,운송인의 지위에 있지 아니한 피고가 이 사건 제 2 선하 증권 을 발행하였다고 하여 새롭게 이 사건 화물에 대한 운송을 인수하였다고 볼 수 있는 것도 아니다. 그렇다면 피고는 이 사건 화물에 대한 운송계약을 체결한 운송인 이 아니므 로 이사건 화물을 운송하는 과정에서 발생한 손해에 대하여 책임을 지지 아니한다.

C. Furthermore, insofar as the bill of lading No. 2 of this case issued by a person who is not a carrier is not a legitimate bill of lading and has no effect as a security, it cannot be deemed that the person who acquired it in good faith bears the responsibility as the issuer.

4. Nevertheless, the court below acknowledged the defendant's liability for damages on the ground that the defendant issued the bill of lading No. 1 as a substitute for the bill of lading No. 1 and became a carrier on his own by issuing the bill of lading No. 2, and even if not, as the issuer of the bill of lading No. 2 in this case, the defendant is liable for damages on the coco acquired in good faith as a carrier. Such judgment of the court below erred by misapprehending the concept of a carrier capable of issuing a bill of lading and legal principles on the bona fide acquisition, etc. of a bill of lading, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The defendant's ground of appeal pointing this out has merit.

5. Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, the part against the defendant among the judgment below against the defendant shall be reversed, and this part of the case shall be remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Ansan-chul

Jeju High Court Decision 201No. 50

Justices Kim Jong-hwan