[1] The time of delivery of the cargo (=the time when the cargo was shipped out of the bonded storage place of the loading company in accordance with the order of delivery of the cargo by the carrier, etc.) in a case where the loading company at the request of the loading company on the bill of lading, which is not the holder of the bill of lading

[2] In a case where the holder of a bill of lading suffers damage due to the delivery of the cargo by the proprietor of the bonded storage place without the delivery instruction or the carrier's consent, whether the liability for damages arising from a tort is held (affirmative)

[1] If a bill of lading is issued, the loading and unloading work of the marine transportation freight is not necessarily required by the bill of lading holder, but is performed only when the bill of lading is presented. Since the carrier performs its duty by delivering the freight in exchange for the bill of lading to the bill holder, it cannot be deemed that the cargo goes beyond the control of the carrier merely because the loading and unloading company requested by the notice office on the bill of lading, which is not the holder of the bill of lading, completes the loading and unloading work and enters the cargo into the general bonded warehouse of the loading and unloading company. In such a case, the delivery time of the cargo shall be deemed to be the time when the cargo is shipped from the bonded warehouse of the loading company in accordance with the

[2] The marine cargo must be delivered to the holder of the bill of lading in exchange for the cargo, and the cargo cannot be legally taken out without the bill of lading. Thus, if the cargo is delivered to the carrier at the request of the notification office that failed to submit the bill of lading, it can be predicted that the cargo will not be taken out without permission and the holder of the bill of lading could not take delivery of the cargo. However, if the cargo is delivered without the order of delivery or the consent of the carrier, it shall be held liable for damages caused to the holder of the bill of lading due to the delivery of the cargo.

[1] Articles 129 and 820 of the Commercial Act / [2] Article 750 of the Civil Act, Articles 129 and 820 of the Commercial Act

[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 91Da4249 delivered on February 14, 1992 (Gong1992, 1007) / [1] Supreme Court Order 92Mo22 delivered on September 18, 1992 (Gong1992, 3178) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 91Da8012 delivered on August 27, 1991 (Gong191, 2420)

Jeju Bank, Inc.

Korea Asset Management Corporation (Attorney Yu-soo, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Yangyang Port Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Samyang, Attorneys Yu-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 99Na37940 delivered on May 19, 2000

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

When a bill of lading has been issued, the loading and unloading of the marine transportation freight is not necessarily required by the bill of lading holder, but it is not required to be carried out only when the bill of lading was presented. Since the carrier fulfilled its obligations by delivering the freight in exchange for the bill of lading to the bill of lading holder, the carrier is not a holder of the bill of lading holder, the loading and unloading company requested by the notice office on the bill of lading, which is not the holder of the bill of lading, completed the unloading and stored the freight in the general bonded warehouse of the loading and unloading company cannot be deemed to have left the control of the carrier. In such a case, the delivery time of the freight is the time when the freight was shipped out of the bonded warehouse of the loading company in accordance with the delivery order of the carrier, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 91Da4249, Feb. 14, 1992; 92Mo22, Sept.

According to the records, the defendant company received a request for loading and unloading from the non-party corporation, Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "Co., Ltd."), which is the notification party on the bill of lading, and received a request for loading and unloading, and did not take the freight under the direction of the Co., Ltd., Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "Korea Co., Ltd.")'

However, as seen earlier, even if the freight of this case was delivered at the request of the PSS Steel Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "PSSAS") as a preparatory work for delivery of the freight of this case, it cannot be deemed that the court below erred in finding that the freight of this case was delivered at the order of the PS Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "PSASAS"). Further, since the freight of this case stored at the BSSSSSSSS, the freight of this case, which is still under the control of PSSPP, is still under the control of PSPS, a carrier, the defendant is in the status of keeping it for PSSAS. Thus, it cannot be deemed that the freight of this case was delivered at the request of the PSSS Co., Ltd., the notified party, and it cannot be said that the freight of this case was delivered immediately to PSSSSS or that it was delivered to PSSSS at the time when it was moved

Therefore, the judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of facts against the rules of evidence or in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the discharge and delivery of marine transport cargo, as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

Since marine cargo must be delivered to its holder in exchange for a bill of lading and the cargo cannot be legally taken out without a bill of lading, if it is delivered to the carrier at the request of the notification office that failed to submit a bill of lading and did not issue a delivery order from the carrier, it can be predicted that the cargo could not be taken out without permission and that the holder of the bill of lading could not receive the cargo, however, it shall be held liable to compensate for damages suffered by the holder of the bill of lading due to the delivery of the cargo without the delivery order or the consent of the carrier (see Supreme Court Decision 91Da8012 delivered on August 27, 191).

According to the facts established by the court below, the defendant company could have predicted that if the bill of lading issued was delivered to the Dasung Steel which did not submit a written order for delivery of the freight, the freight could not be delivered to the holder of the bill of lading without permission. Thus, the defendant company was liable to compensate for the damage suffered by the plaintiff bank, which is the holder of the bill of lading, because the defendant company was negligent in obtaining the consent of the shipping, which is the shipping agent of the Marocshping, or in failing to comply with the duty to request the delivery of the freight, and delivered the freight of this case to the Dasung Steel with the duty to demand the delivery of the freight.

Although the court below's explanation of its reasons is somewhat insufficient, it is justified in the judgment of the court below since it is the same purport, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles of tort or misunderstanding the legal principles of tort.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Jae-sik (Presiding Justice)