beta
Text
1. Of the part concerning the principal lawsuit in the judgment of the court of first instance, the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) who falls under the following amount ordering payment.
Reasons
1. Under the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, the corresponding part of the grounds of the judgment of the first instance (from March 4 to 14 of the judgment of the first instance) shall be quoted in this part of the basic facts.
However, part of the following shall be cut:
The 4th 8th Myeon of the first instance judgment "for the above 54 container fares" shall be read as "for the above 54 container fares ($ 3,400 per 20 FT container, USD 183,60 per 1, total US dollars)".
The 5th 6th 6th 1st 6th 6th 1st 6th 6th 6th 6th 5th 5th 9th 5th 5th 3th 5th 3th 5th "in custody, C took over all the above waste distribution rates from the Plaintiff on October 28, 2015 (this is not clear whether the above waste distribution rates and 38th 38 containers loaded with them are involved)."
2. The Plaintiff is a limited liability company established in Mongolia pursuant to the Mongolian country law and has its head office in Mongolia. The Defendant is a stock company established in accordance with the law of the Republic of Korea. The instant case is a dispute arising in connection with the contract of carriage of the waste ship exported to the Republic of Korea via Russia in Mongolia. As such, the instant case has foreign elements and the governing law should be determined in accordance with the Private International Act.
However, according to the purport of Gap evidence No. 4 and the whole arguments, the plaintiff and the defendant agreed to the law of the Republic of Korea as the governing law of the contract of this case at the time of conclusion of the contract of this case (Article 10-1 of the contract of this case), and further, as the governing law applicable to all of the issues of this case at the sixth day of pleading of this court was agreed to be the governing law of this case (Articles 25 (1) and 33 of the International Judicial Law).
A. On October 13, 2016, there is a dispute between the parties as to the fact that the contract of this case was lawfully concluded by the time when the copy of the complaint of this case was served on the Defendant on October 13, 2016.