beta
Text
1. The plaintiff succeeding intervenor's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the intervenor succeeding to the plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The plaintiff's successor's assertion
A. The Plaintiff (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) imported machinery, such as a tea wheeling vehicle, etc. (hereinafter “instant cargo”) from GmbH of Germany’s headfmann GmbH (hereinafter “the Plaintiff”), and requested ice L&D Partnership Co., Ltd. to transport the instant cargo from Germany’s standard haloging to the Plaintiff’s warehouse located in the city of harmony, and ice L&D Partners Co., Ltd. requested the Defendant to transport the instant cargo from the container site of the Korea T&D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C&D”) located in the city of Changwon (hereinafter “C&D”) to the Plaintiff’s warehouse.
B. Two containers with the instant cargo loaded into the port of Busan on March 16, 2013, which arrive at the port of Busan on and around March 16, 2013, and was stored in the container gate of the Busan New Port Co., Ltd. on and around the 20th day of the same month, they were transported to the Korea New Port & Port Construction Work
C. On March 21, 2013, the Defendant received the instant cargo at the cromatic container shop, divided it into two parts of the Defendant’s truck shop, and transported the instant cargo to the Plaintiff’s warehouse located in eternic City.
However, the cargo loaded on one of the truck (Hfmann Twiter h4270-2) was found to have been damaged by a flive damage (hereinafter “instant accident”), which was caused by a flive damage, which was caused by a flive damage to the Plaintiff’s warehouse at the flive container site. This was a serious damage caused by a flive damage, which was being carried out in the Plaintiff’s warehouse at the flive container site, and the Defendant, as a carrier requested for the above land transport, was liable for tort liability against the Plaintiff or liability for damages under Article 135 of the Commercial Act, since the said cargo was damaged by violating the obligation to take over the instant cargo and safely transport it.
E. Meanwhile, on March 5, 2013, the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor pursuant to the cargo insurance contract concluded with the Plaintiff on December 30, 2014.