logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
arrow
서울민사지법 1990. 12. 18. 선고 89가합65253 제14부판결 : 확정
[손해배상(기)][하집1990(3),158]
Main Issues

(a) The case holding that it cannot be deemed that the plaintiff's own damage caused by the above payment guarantee was raised on the ground that the plaintiff, a financial institution, had already passed the effective date of the documentary credit at the time of guaranteeing the importer's payment of the obligation to refund the purchase price of the documentary credit, and the air waybill was not issued by the shipping company required

(b) The probative value of an air waybill;

Summary of Judgment

A. In the event that a bill of exchange is refused to be paid in front of a foreign country of the issuance of the domestic exporter Gap, the payment of the bill of exchange was made in the form of the letter of credit attached to the said bill of exchange at the time Gap guaranteed the obligation to refund the purchase price to the negotiating bank for the bill of exchange, and as the air waybill was not issued by the shipping company required by the above letter of credit, even if the settlement of the bill of exchange is likely to be refused by the issuing bank of the letter of credit, the importer who is the applicant for the letter of credit can later allow it, and such damage cannot be deemed as having been caused by the air waybill attached to the above bill of exchange.

B. The meaning of "nob" normally stated on an air waybill is merely merely that the air waybill is not a securities different from the bill of lading, and it is not impossible to transfer or purchase the air waybill, and in case of air transport, the air transport, the short-term carriage of which is terminated differently from the marine transport requiring a long period of time, such as the bill of lading, in addition to the air waybill which is evidence, does not exist, and the air waybill has strong probative value as to the receipt of air freight, and if the plaintiff believed that the goods on the air waybill as stated on the air waybill, which are official authority, were loaded on the aircraft and the above Gap guaranteed the obligation to refund the purchase price for the bill, the issuer is liable for the damages suffered by the plaintiff.

[Reference Provisions]

(a)Article 25 of the Uniforms of Credit and Practice, Article 46 of the Uniforms of Credit and Practice, Article 131 of the Commercial Code and Article 814 of the Commercial Code;

Plaintiff

Korea Exchange Bank

Defendant

Defendant

Text

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 20,270,909 won with an annual interest rate of 5% from November 7, 1988 to December 18, 1990 and with an annual interest rate of 25% from December 19, 1990 to the full payment rate.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. Ten percent of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant, and the remainder shall be borne by the plaintiff.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

Purport of claim

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of 28,958,442 won and the amount of 5% per annum from November 7, 1988 to the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 25% per annum from the next day to the full payment date.

The costs of lawsuit shall be assessed against the defendant and a declaration of provisional execution.

Reasons

1. 각 성립에 다툼이 없는 갑 제1호증의 1,2(지급보증서 전면이면), 갑 제2호증의 1(수출화환어음 매입관련 협조의뢰), 2(수출화환어음부도대전상환요청), 갑 제3호증의 1,2(각 항공운송증권), 갑 제4호증(청구서), 갑 제5호증(신용장), 갑 제6호증(수출환어음매입신청서), 갑 제7호증의 1,2(환어음 앞면 뒤면), 갑 제8호증(각서), 을 제1호증(수출신고서), 공성부분 및 수령사실에 다툼이 없는 갑 제4호증(선적물품 인도재요청), 증인 김인재의 증언에 의하여 진정성립이 인정되는 갑 제2호증의 3(선적물품 인도요청)의 기재들과 증인 김인재, 박창호의 증언들(다만 증인 박창호의 증언 중 뒤에서 믿지 않는부분 제외)에 변론의 전취지를 종합하면, 소외 주식회사 효동상사가 미국에 있는 소외 캠퍼스스포츠웨어회사(Compus Sportswear Company)에게 남자 및 소년용 쟈켓을 수출하기로 하고 그 수출대금에 관하여 미국에 있는 소사이어티 내셔널은행(Society National Bank)이 1987.10.15. 금액 미화 367,929.2달러 개설은행의 75974/씨(C) 9호의 화환신용장을 개설하여 준 사실, 피고는 항공화물주선업 및 그 부대사업을 목적으로 하는 회사로서 1988.8.31. 위 수출물품을 인수받지 아니하였음에도 불구하고 이들을 인수받아 운송을 위하여 일본항공(JAL) 비행기에 적재(ON BOARD)하였다는 취지의 허위증명서인 발행인 각 피고, 화물 소년용 세척무명천 모자달린 양털 덧댄 쟈켓 1,248매와 1,252매, 세관신고가격 각 미화 19,968 달러의 항공화물운송장(Airway Bill) 2매를 작성하여 위 주식회사 효동상사에게 교부한 사실, 위 주식회사 효동상사는 1988.9.2. 지급인 위 소사이어티 내셔널은행 액면금 미화 40,000달러의 외국앞 화환어음을 발행하여 같은 날 소외 주식회사 서울신탁은행에게 위 소사이어티 내셔널은행 발행의 신용장과 피고 발행의 위 항공화물운송장 2매와 상업송장 등에 위환어음을 첨부 제사하여 매입을 의뢰하였고, 이에 위 서울신탁은행은 위 신용장상의 지시사항이 선적기일 1988.4.30., 유효기일 같은 해 5.10., 항공운송의 경우 스피드마크 트랜스포테이션 인코어퍼레이션(Speedmark Transportation Incorporation)혹은 그 대리인이 발행한 항공화물운송장의 첨부를 요구하고 있어 이미 선적 및 유효기일이 도과하였고 황공화물 운송장 발행자가 상이하여 위 신용장개설은행에 의하여 위 환어음이 지급이 거절될 우려가 있으므로 부도시 환매조건부(Indemnity)로 위 수출용 환어음을 금 28,664,974원에 매입하면서 위 효동상사에게 위 신용장부 화환어음의 환매시 매입대금 반환채무를 담보하기 위한 지급보증를 요구한 사실, 원고는 1988.9.12. 위 효동상사의 요청에 따라 위 신용장 개설은행인 소사이어티 내셔널은행이 위 서울신탁은행에게 위 신용장부 환어음에 대한 대금지급을 거절하는 경우에도 피고 발행의 각 항공화물운송장에 기재된 수출물품에 의하여 그 손해를 전보할 수 있다는 판단 아래 위 효동상사가 위 서울신탁은행에 대하여 부담하는 위 신용장부 화환어음의 매입대금반환채무에 관하여 지급보증한 사실, 그 후 위 서울신탁은행은 1988.9.21. 위 매입한 신용장부 화환어음과 그 부속서류들을 위 소사이어티 내셔널은행에 송부하고 위 어음금의 결제를 요구하였으나 위 소사이어티 내셔널은행이 위 신용장상의 지시사항인 선적 및 유효기일과 항공화물운송장 발행자 지정이 준수되어 있지 아니하다는 이유로 지급거절하였고 위 효동상사 또한 이미 부도가 나서 위 신용장부 화환어음 매입대금이 반환채무를 이행하지 못하므로 결국 지급보증인인 원고에게 위 지급보증채무의 이행을 요구하였으며, 이에 원고는 1988.11.7. 위 서울신탁은행에게 위 신용장부 화환어음의 매입대금과 이자로 금 28,958,442원을 지급한 사실을 인정할 수 있고 이에 어긋나는 증인 박창호의 일부증언은 믿지 아니하며 달리 반증이 없는바, 위 인정사실에 의하면 피고가 화물을 인수받지도 아니한 채 허위의 위 항공화물운송장들을 위 효동상사에게 발행 교부하여 위 항공화물운송장들을 진정한 것으로 믿은 원고로 하여금 위 효동상사의 위 신용장부 화환어음 매입은행인 서울신탁은행에 대한 매입대금반환채무에 관하여 지급보증하게 함으로써 원고에게 위 지급액 상당의 손해를 입게 하였다 할것이므로 피고는 원고에게 위 손해를 배상할 책임이 있다 할 것이다.

2. Regarding this, the defendant, at the time of guarantee of payment with respect to the above obligation to return the purchase price of the above bill of exchange to the above Seoul Trust Bank of Korea, he predicted that the shipment and effective date under the above letter of credit had already been set as the ground for the issuance of the above bill of exchange, and the issuer of the air waybill had the risk of refusing to pay because the above bill of exchange was different, so the above damage was caused by the plaintiff's total negligence and the defendant did not bear any responsibility against the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff was merely the shipment and effective date under the above letter of credit at the time of guarantee of payment with respect to the above obligation to return the purchase price of the above bill of exchange to the above Seoul Trust Bank of Korea, and the air waybill was different from the issuer of the above Seoul Trust Bank. However, the plaintiff's assertion that the above bill of exchange had already been concluded with the above contract to repurchase the above bill of exchange with the above issuing bank on behalf of the plaintiff, even if there was no difference between the issuer and the above issuing bank, it cannot be viewed that the plaintiff's new bill of the above order to pay the bill can be rejected.

In other words, the defendant asserts that the above air waybill issued by him does not have the function of securing the air waybill even if it is the so-called air waybill, because it is not the securities, merely the air waybill does not have the function of securing the transfer or purchase as stated in the above air waybill, and as such, the defendant is merely responsible for the above air waybill that is the shipper, the consignee, and there is no responsibility against the plaintiff due to the issuance of the above air waybill. Thus, according to the evidence No. 3-1 and No. 2 of the above, according to the above evidence No. 3-1 and No. 2 of the defendant's above, it is recognized that each of the above air waybill stated "Not Ngoti" is stated in the above air waybill, but it seems that it is ordinarily stated in the air waybill, unlike the above air waybill, it does not mean that it is impossible to transfer or purchase the air waybill, and it does not mean that the above air waybill is not valid in the case of the above air waybill which takes place for a short time unlike the above air waybill which takes place.

In addition, the defendant asserts to the effect that the above-mentioned company, a consignor, submitted documents, such as export pages of the customs authority, commercial invoice, and packing specifications, so the above air waybill is issued in trust and in accordance with ordinary practices, and that there is no obligation to confirm whether the goods are loaded in the air transport broker, and that there is no obligation to do so. Thus, the defendant's assertion that the defendant is not responsible for the above-mentioned air waybill. Thus, on August 31, 1988, when issuing the above air waybill, the defendant stated that he was loaded on the air waybill (ONBAD) for transportation by taking over the above goods without being taken over in the air waybill, as seen earlier. Thus, even if it is customary, it is difficult to view that the air freight forwarder can arbitrarily enter such purport in the air waybill without confirming whether the goods are loaded in a specific aircraft, even if it is customary practice, the defendant's assertion also is groundless.

However, according to the above evidence, the time limit for shipment and validity stipulated in the letter of credit, which serve as the basis for guaranteeing the above Seoul Trust Bank's obligation to return the purchase price for bills of exchange against the above Seoul Trust Bank, should not be guaranteed in principle if the issuer of the air waybill is different, and even if the air waybill has a duty of care to properly examine the exporter's assets, debts, and the degree of credit, it can be acknowledged that the above Filidong Commercial Act has defaulted, and then the above filidong Commercial Act has not been repaid. This error of the plaintiff also caused the damages in this case. Thus, it should be considered in determining the amount of damages the defendant shall be considered in determining the amount of damages to be compensated by the defendant, but its ratio shall be determined at 30 percent in total in light of the above negligence.

3. Accordingly, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the amount of twenty thousand twenty thousand won (28,958,442 won x 0.7) and damages for delay at the rate of twenty-five percent per annum under the Civil Act that the defendant claims from November 7, 1988, the above payment date, to December 18, 1990, and twenty-five percent per annum under the Special Act on the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from December 19, 190, the next day, to the full payment date. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the above recognition scope, and the remaining claims are dismissed, with respect to the burden of litigation costs, by applying Articles 89 and 92 of the Civil Procedure Act, and Article 199 of the Provisional Execution Act as to provisional execution.

Judges Cho Man-hee (Presiding Judge)

arrow