1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On October 2014, the Plaintiff decided to import 13,792.61kg and 4,000.393kg (hereinafter “instant cargo”). On October 22, 2014, the Plaintiff packaged the instant cargo as 1,800 square meters and then requested the Defendant to transport the container owned by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant container”) and then requested the Defendant to transport the instant container (number: HJCU613218, hereinafter “instant container”). On October 23, 2014, the instant container arrived at the port blasting terminal of Chile with TrecU613218, hereinafter “instant container”).

B. On October 25, 2014, the Defendant: (a) shipped the instant container into the MAIPO (0436W; hereinafter “instant vessel”); (b) issued, on October 28, 2014, a bill of lading containing the seal number HC783640, 100640, and 0089038 of the instant container (hereinafter “instant bill of lading”) to the consignee and the notifying party.

C. On November 11, 2014, the Plaintiff remitted USD 105,068.27 to the consignor for the price of goods, and received the instant bill of lading from the consignor on November 17, 2014.

The Defendant transported the instant container to Busan Port on November 27, 2014. However, on December 9, 2014, the Agricultural and Forestry Quarantine Headquarters notified the Defendant of the failure and destruction of imported livestock products on the ground that the sealing number of the instant container was modified to CCNI9153541, and the instant cargo was entirely discarded on January 15, 2015.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, each entry in Gap evidence 1 to 4 (including branch numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. The Defendant, the carrier of the instant cargo, as the Plaintiff’s assertion, is the Hague in the country of destination applicable under Articles 2 and 15 of the terms and conditions of the instant bill of lading.