1. Of the instant lawsuits, the part of the claim amounting to KRW 20,198,086 shall be dismissed as the additional freight Nos. 1, 2, 9, and 12 of the attached Table among the instant lawsuits.

2.

1. Basic facts

A. On July 1, 2016, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a contract for maritime transport of container cargoes exported by the Defendant (the instant contract) and drafted “marine cargo transport contract”.

B. According to the instant contract, the Defendant’s cargo was transported by Hanjin Shipping Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “ Hanjin Shipping”) as the shipping company. On the commencement of legal management of Hanjin Shipping with respect to Hanjin Shipping, while the cargo was transported to the port of port of port of port of port of port of port, the Defendant’s cargo did not proceed any more

C. Accordingly, the Plaintiff, in consultation with the Defendant, transshipped the freight by using another ship company and transported the freight to the destination. The details of each freight transport are as shown in the attached Table.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 4 (including provisional number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The instant contract is a freight forwarding contract, and even if the Plaintiff accepted a part of the freight carriage case, the contract of carriage should be deemed terminated in the sea-going port, etc., which is an intermediate port, due to the bankruptcy of Hanjin Shipping. Therefore, the Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff additional fare of KRW 50,098,592 on the attached sheet, and damages for delay.

B. The Defendant’s assertion is a contract of carriage of marine cargo, and Hanjin Shipping is merely a performance assistant as the Plaintiff’s sewage carrier, who is a contractual carrier.

Therefore, the additional freight and expenses incurred due to the circumstances of the sewage carrier are naturally to be borne by the Plaintiff, who is a contractual carrier, and the additional freight 20,198,086 won in relation to the carriage of freight Nos. 1, 2, 9, and 12 of the attached Table is unlawful by the lapse of the exclusion period.

3. Determination

A. Whether the instant contract constitutes a transport contract.