[1] Whether only the fact that a bill of lading is written as a consignor can be determined as a party to a contract of carriage by a bill of lading (negative)

[2] Whether a carrier is liable for the tort committed by an agent or performance assistant of a carrier who performs independent business activities without the direction and supervision of a carrier (negative)

[1] In describing the consignor's column of a bill of lading, only the parties to the contract of carriage must be stated as the consignor, but it can include the shipper with a broad meaning as the consignor. Thus, the mere fact that the bill of lading is stated as the consignor cannot be readily concluded as the party to the contract of carriage according to the bill of lading.

[2] Even if a carrier assists or acts as an agent for the performance of a contract of carriage on behalf of the carrier, if it is engaged in business activities independently without direct command and supervision from the carrier, such person cannot be regarded as an employee of the carrier. Thus, the carrier shall not be held liable for damages as an employer against such person’s tort.

[1] Articles 813 and 814 of the Commercial Act / [2] Article 756 of the Civil Act, Article 788 of the Commercial Act

[2] Supreme Court Decision 96Da20093 delivered on September 9, 1997 (Gong1997Ha, 3037)

El District Fire and Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Cheonghae, Attorneys Yu Dong-dong et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

C&S Co., Ltd. (Attorneys Lee Jae-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul District Court Decision 98Na51069 delivered on August 19, 1999

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. On the first and second grounds for appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below, based on the evidence adopted in its judgment, concluded a contract with the non-party 1 corporation (hereinafter referred to as the " non-party 1 corporation") to export 3,456 television pipelines to US$ 521,856 at each of the non-party 1 corporation located in Thailand (hereinafter referred to as "the cargo of this case") to the non-party 1 corporation, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the defendant's agent of the non-party 1, the non-party 1, and the defendant's agent of the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, and the defendant's agent of the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the defendant's non-party 1, the non-party 1, and the defendant's agent of the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the defendant's cargo of this case to the plaintiff 1, the defendant 1.

In light of the records, the above judgment of the court below is acceptable, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the parties to the contract of carriage or performance assistant, and in describing the consignor's column of the bill of lading, it is not always required to state only the parties to the contract of carriage as the consignor, but it is possible to state a wide meaning as the consignor, and therefore, it cannot be readily concluded that the party to the contract of carriage as the party to the contract of carriage as the party to the contract of carriage as the party to the contract of carriage as the party to the contract of carriage as the party to the contract of carriage as the party to the contract of carriage. The grounds for appeal on this point cannot be accepted.

2. On the third ground for appeal

Even if a carrier assists in or act as an agent for the performance of a contract of carriage on behalf of the carrier, if it is only engaged in business activities independently without direct command and supervision from the carrier, such person cannot be regarded as an employee of the carrier, so the carrier shall not be liable for damages against the tort committed by such person as an employer.

According to the records, the container gate of this case, in which the cargo of this case was stored in the Grand Frand by the Defendant, is operated by the Thai Port Authority of Thailand. It can be seen that the Thai Port Authority is entrusted with the custody of the cargo by the carrier, etc., but it is performed independently without direct direction and supervision of the truster with regard to the custody.

Thus, even if the Thai Port Authority entrusted the custody of the cargo of this case from the defendant and became in the position to assist the defendant in the preservation and delivery of the cargo of this case, the Thai Port Authority shall not be deemed an employee of the defendant as long as it independently performs the custody duties without the defendant's direction and supervision. Therefore, it shall not be deemed that the defendant shall not be held liable for damages to the cargo of this case arising during the period when the cargo was stored on the container gate operated by the Thai Port Authority.

In the same purport, the court below is justified in holding that there was no room for the defendant to intervene in the cargo of this case during the period from June 5, 1996 (the date on which the cargo of this case was stored in the container gate operated by the Thai Port Authority as the cargo of this case was loaded in the ccock port) to July 4, 1996 (the date on which the De de detetra la Trasty attempted to remove the cargo of this case) that the damage of the cargo of this case was presumed to have occurred, and there was no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the part of the carrier's liability and the performance assistant or employer's liability. The ground of appeal on this point is not acceptable.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff-Appellant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all Justices who reviewed the appeal.

Justices Lee Yong-woo (Presiding Justice)