1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a company whose main business purpose is the construction business, such as engineering and plant, and the Defendant entered into a contract of carriage with the Plaintiff, and is a company that actually entrusts the transportation to A.P. S/S. (hereinafter “instant transport company”).

나. 원고는 2010. 12. 15. 베트남 “An Hoa High Quality Coated Paper Project(이하 ‘이 사건 프로젝트’라고 한다)”를 수주하여 위 프로젝트 사업에 필요한 Wet-End Equipment(제지기계설비) 약 947CBM(Cubic Meter)(이하 '이 사건 기계‘라고 한다)를 총 계약 운임 미화 273,900달러, 계약기간 2010. 12. 1.부터 2011. 1. 30.까지의 선적물량으로 정하여 네덜란드 로테르담 항구에서 베트남 하이퐁 항구까지 운송하는 업무를 피고에게 위임하는 계약을 체결하였다

(hereinafter referred to as “the instant carriage contract”). C.

In other words, the defendant again entrusted the transportation of the cargo to the transportation company of this case through the Nado Listgistics B.V. Basic Neland in the Netherlands.

On August 12, 2011, the Defendant delivered a bill of lading to the Plaintiff.

마. 이 사건 운송회사는 2011. 8. 12. 총 42개의 컨테이너 화물 중 1개의 컨테이너를 누락하고 선적하여 2011. 9. 14.경 베트남 하이퐁 항에 위 화물을 운송하였다.

F. The Defendant’s omission of container led to the difference between the freight containing the instant machinery and the bill of lading, and the Plaintiff failed to make a customs clearance for a considerable period of time, and accordingly, the Plaintiff was required to pay USD 70,587 with additional costs, such as port usage fees.

The above additional costs were once paid by non-copis Co., Ltd. which entered into a contract for inland transportation with the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff paid the above money to the above non-copis on April 29, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination:

A. The defendant's assertion is the defendant.