1. The plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed.

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

Basic Facts

The plaintiff is a company that engages in air shipping cargo, brokerage and trade business, and the defendant is a company that engages in complex transport arrangement business and trade business.

The defendant is weak from the Co., Ltd. Co., Ltd. Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Co., Ltd.”) with CIF terms Co., Ltd.

In trade, until cargo is delivered to a destination, the freight and insurance premium are charged by the seller to China’s Braziln limited liability company (Bridigestone Divstn Divstlert Co. Ltd.) was requested from Busan to Hong Kong, and from Hong Kong to Hong Kong, from Hong Kong to Hong Kong, the Hong Kong made a request for each freight transportation from the Hong Kong to the Hong Kong (hereinafter referred to as the “Luxembourg Hong Kong”).

Around July 30, 2013, the cargo loaded at Busan port, via Hong Kong, entered China’s Busan port on August 21, 2013, but the customs clearance was delayed due to the fact that the weight of the cargo actually differs from that of the cargo in light of the details of the shipment prepared by the site precision. On September 7, 2013, Lone Star Hong Kong, upon completion of customs clearance on September 11, 2013, delivered the goods of this case to the Brazil-based limited liability company, the consignee.

On July 23, 2014, Hong Kong transferred to the Plaintiff the container cost incurred from the instant transport to the Defendant and the container storage cost claim against the Defendant, and notified the Defendant of this on August 18, 2014.

【No dispute over the grounds for recognition”, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 7, and the whole purport of the pleadings is to be stated in the customs documents prepared in the main point of the plaintiff’s argument that the weight of goods was wrong, and thereby, there was a delay in customs clearance at the Chinese Busan District, and accordingly, the amount of container cost and container storage cost equivalent to KRW 48,753,436, and the defendant is liable for compensation to the Hong Kong. Since the plaintiff received the above claim from the Hong Kong, the defendant is liable to pay the plaintiff the above amount of takeover.