2014Da231477 Damages

Hanjin Co., Ltd.

Korea Railroad Corporation

Co., Ltd.

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2014Na14527 Decided October 21, 2014

February 26, 2015

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, the court below did not err in the misapprehension of the reason, as alleged in the grounds of appeal. The court below did not err in the misapprehension of the legal principles as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. As to the ground of appeal No. 2, the lower court acknowledged the facts as indicated in its reasoning based on evidence, and determined that the Defendant and the Intervenor did not have a duty of care in relation to the receipt, delivery, storage, and transportation of the instant cargo in light of the following: (a) the part of the bean, which is the instant cargo, was lost through a hole in a rectangular shape, a diameter of about 10 cm from the outer shock of the container floor; and (b) there was a high possibility that the container might have been in the course of the upstream of the container.

In light of the records, the above determination by the court below is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, it did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the carrier's duty of care by violating the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules

3. As to the third ground for appeal

The lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion that the instant accident ought to be exempted under Article 57 subparag. 5 and No. 6 of the Railroad Transport Clause for the following reasons. (1) Although Article 57 subparag. 5 of the Railroad Transport Clause provides that the Defendant is not liable for damages arising from incomplete packaging of the Plaintiff, it is insufficient to recognize that the instant accident was caused due to the Plaintiff’s incomplete packing. (2) Article 57 subparag. 6 of the Railroad Transport Clause provides that the Defendant is not liable for damages to the contents of the article that has already been sealed at the time of receipt of the instant cargo, but the said provision provides that the Defendant is not liable for damages due to the destruction, damage, etc. of the contents, on the ground that the Defendant cannot check the quantity, storage condition, etc. of the content, and thus, the Defendant cannot be held liable for damages due to the destruction, damage, etc. of the content, which is the premise that the instant article cannot be deemed to have been partially destroyed, as in the instant case.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal principles on the application of immunity clause

4. As to the ground of appeal No. 4, Article 138(1) of the Commercial Act provides that several carriers shall be jointly and severally liable for damages arising from the loss of, damage to, or delay in, the cargo in order to protect the owner of the cargo if several carriers successively transport the same cargo. As in the instant case, the Plaintiff, who entered into a transport contract independent of the Defendant with the Defendant, is merely the owner of the cargo in relation to the Defendant, and is not in the status of the carrier, and thus, the

In the same purport, the court below is just in rejecting the defendant's assertion that the scope of the defendant's liability for damages should be limited in accordance with Article 138 of the Commercial Act, and there is no error by misapprehending the legal principles on the successive carrier's liability.

5. As to the 5th ground of appeal, this part of the ground of appeal on the quantity of the lost bean does not constitute a legitimate ground of appeal, because it is merely a ground of appeal disputing the selection of evidence and fact-finding belonging to the lower court’s exclusive jurisdiction.

6. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Min Il-young

Justices Park Young-young

Jeju High Court Decision 201Na1548

Justices Kim Jong-il