The liability for the storage of goods brought into the designated bonded area is against the owner of the goods and cannot be deemed to be the head of the customs office, so even if the goods kept in custody were damaged due to a cause attributable to the head of the customs office, the establishment of a general tort for that reason is a separate problem, and the head of the customs office shall not be deemed to have fulfilled the responsibility for the storage

The liability for the storage of goods brought into the designated bonded area is against the owner of the goods and cannot be deemed to be the head of the customs office, so even if the goods kept in custody were damaged due to a cause attributable to the head of the customs office, the establishment of a general tort for that reason is a separate problem, and the head of the customs office shall not be deemed to have fulfilled the responsibility for the storage

Article 77 of the Customs Act

Plaintiff

Head of the Military Manpower Administration

Gwangju High Court Decision 71Gu10 delivered on December 29, 1971

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal by the plaintiff's attorney are examined.

Article 77 of the Customs Act provides that the owner of goods brought into a designated bonded area shall be liable for the keeping of the goods. Thus, even if the owner is liable for the keeping of the goods, and even if the goods kept in the bonded area were damaged due to a cause attributable to the defendant, it cannot be said that the general tort is established separately for that reason, and that the defendant does not fulfill his liability for keeping the above goods. Even if two keys of the bonded warehouse are two, one of them must be possessed by the defendant, and the defendant shall be engaged in surveillance duties at the site, or the head of the customs office shall obtain approval for the repair work pursuant to Article 69 of the Customs Act, it is nothing more than an administrative performance of the customs duties, and the judgment below is justified for the reason that there is no error of law as to the removal of the goods at the time of the import declaration, because there is no error of law as to the plaintiff's 2's Grounds for Corruption or destruction of the goods by reason of disaster or other unavoidable reason.

No. 2. The latter part of Article 70 (2) of the Customs Act refers to the case where the goods are destroyed or removed with the approval of the head of the customs office. It means that the goods are destroyed or removed in writing after the goods have been destroyed or lost, and there is no error in the reasoning of the original judgment distinguishing the goods from the destruction or scrapping after they have been destroyed or deteriorated, and there is no error in the plaintiff's application for reduction of customs duties. The plaintiff's submission of the application for reduction of customs duties to the defendant on May 1, 1969 on the ground that the above case had been decomposed, and it cannot be concluded that the above application for reduction of customs duties is already destroyed or lost, and the defendant's submission of the application for reduction of customs duties to the plaintiff on November 14, 1970, which is the above application for reduction of customs duties, and it is clear that the court below did not approve the application for reduction of customs duties without the defendant's examination. Thus, the court below did not err in the misapprehension of the opinion that there was no error in the defendant's appeal as to the plaintiff's appeal.

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

Judge Han-dong (Presiding Judge) of the Supreme Court