1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a trucking company, and the Defendant is a person who engages in freight forwarding business under the trade name of “B”.

B. From October 29, 2013 to December 11, 2013, the Plaintiff transported witrus, etc. to the Seoul Western, etc.

【Facts without dispute over the grounds for recognition, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-1 through 37

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion is the cause of the claim of this case, and the plaintiff transported the cargo as requested by D, which is the trade name of "C", and in the process, the defendant issued a letter of dispatch, etc. stating the trade name of "E" or "B" operated by the defendant. Thus, the defendant asserts that he is liable as a cargo transporter pursuant to Article 131 of the Commercial Act.

B. The judgment of the court below is that the bill of lading provides that a carrier shall, upon the request of the consignor, write the specified matters and issue its name and seal or signature (Article 128 of the Commercial Act), and commend the carrier’s right to request the delivery of the goods to the carrier, and Article 131 of the Commercial Act (where a bill of lading has been issued, it shall be presumed that the contract of carriage has been concluded between the carrier and the consignor as stated in the bill of lading and that the delivery has been received, and that the bill of lading holder shall exercise the right to the carrier and bear the obligation to pay the freight, etc

However, the Plaintiff’s evidence Nos. 2-1 through 37 is merely the purport that the consignee (or underwriter) or the consignee (or underwriter) was delivered with the trade name of the Defendant’s “B” or “E” and thus, it cannot be deemed as the way bill issued by the carrier to the consignor. Thus, the above way bill constitutes a way bill on the premise that the above way bill constitutes a way bill.