1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasons for the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance are the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance except for the following “the second order”, and thus, they are quoted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Each " consignor" in heading 11, 3 and 16 of the judgment of the first instance court in the upper part shall be deemed to be "trustee", each "man" in heading 11, 14 of the second part shall be deemed to be "Consignee", and the third part "shipr securities" in heading 11 shall be deemed to be "bill of lading".

In addition, each "storage Fee" in the last 2nd action is considered as "the period exceeding 10 days of the initial free storage period and 28 days of the extension is exceeded 28 days," and each "storage Fee" in the third 1, 3, 6, and 7 is considered as "container Delay Fee".

The third-party 19 to the fourth-party 6 of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be as follows.

"Therefore, even if the plaintiff or the exporter did not directly conclude the cargo transport entrustment contract with the MC, it is recognized that the MC would have concluded the cargo transport entrustment contract between the exporter who is the consignor and the MC which is the carrier.

If so, the plaintiff is obligated to pay the fare, charge, charge, charge in subrogation, etc. in accordance with the intent of the contract of carriage or bill of lading when receiving the cargo of this case as a consignee (Article 807 (1) of the Commercial Act), and MC, a carrier, may claim the plaintiff to pay the fare and the above container delay charge incidental thereto.

Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the delay fees paid by the Plaintiff to the Defendant (a domestic agency as the subsidiary of MC) are paid without any legal ground.

Even if the Plaintiff alleged, the cargo transport consignment agreement was concluded between the exporter and Mexico, and no contract was concluded between the Plaintiff and the exporter.