Character/securities validity of a bill of lading

A bill of lading holder who receives cargo with knowledge that the freight has not been paid, has the obligation to pay the freight even if the freight has been stated as the payment of the freight in the bill of lading.

Articles 820 and 800(1) of the Commercial Act

Attorney Lee Jong-hoon et al., Counsel for the defendant

Attorney Kim Jin-jin et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant and one other, Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 75Na2977 delivered on November 19, 1776

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of the appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

The defendants' attorney's first ground of appeal is examined.

In light of the records and records, the court below reviewed the judgment of the court below, and found the case marine transportation freight, which was brought into the Republic of Korea by the non-party company, a Japanese corporation, for facility investment of the defendant company established in the Republic of Korea, as a de facto subsidiary, and the defendant company formed a franchise agreement with the above non-party company, which was the de facto parent company, and the non-party Korea Exchange Bank, the bank bank established a letter of credit in the future of the above non-party company and issued and delivered each of the above non-party company to the non-party company. At the same time, the court below accepted and paid the bill of lading (the defendant company, the consignee, the consignee, the Korea Exchange Bank, the consignee, the Korea Exchange Bank, and the defendant company, the defendant company, the bank bank, the defendant company, was the actual beneficiary of the above import contract, and the defendant company, the defendant company, the defendant company, the defendant company, and the defendant company, the defendant company, the defendant company, the plaintiff of this case, stated that the defendant company was the defendant company 16.

On the other hand, the court below accepted the fact that the defendant company was a holder of a bill of lading (the bill of lading in attached Table 3 (4) (7) of attached Table 3 of the original judgment) after being issued by the above bank and delivered the cargo from the plaintiff company as the holder of the bill of lading (the bill of lading in attached Table 1 (1) (2) (5) (6) (8) (10) (11), and recognized the fact that it was a holder of the bill of lading (the bill of lading in attached Table 12) after being delivered the cargo by the so-called public offering (the bill of lading has not been delivered yet) and also the cargo delivered after being delivered by the above public offering as a holder of the bill of lading was the holder of the bill of lading as well as the cargo delivered after being delivered by the above public offering as a consignee, and even if it was not yet delivered, it cannot be viewed that the defendant company as the actual user of the relevant cargo was a consignee under the shipping contract between the plaintiff and the non-party bank.

The second ground of appeal is examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, since on the 11th bill of lading except for the above (12) bill of lading, the non-party 1, the consignor, stipulated a special agreement on the payment of the freight on the 11th bill of lading, each of the stated bills of lading shall be presumed to have been settled by the consignor, and as long as the special agreement on the payment of freight is stated on the 8th bill of lading, the bona fide holder of the bill of lading shall be exempted from the obligation to pay freight according to the securities stated therein unless it is stated in the 10th bill of lading. However, in this case, although the defendant company actually stated the freight on the above bill of lading until the delivery of the freight was made by the shipper, it is merely stated on the 10th bill of lading bill of lading as the notification line, it cannot be seen that the above bank on the 10th bill of lading bill of lading bill of lading was a bona fide consignee who was the parent company, and the defendant company did not know that it was an unlawful bill of lading holder's duty to pay freight.

The grounds of appeal No. 3 are examined.

Based on the evidence adopted by the court below and the facts of its recognition, the defendant company, as the actual consignee who imports the freight in this case from the non-party company, the parent company, as facility materials, through the business liaison, etc. with the above non-party company, was sufficient to view that the defendant company was aware of the fact that the above non-party company, the consignor of the freight in this case, did not pay the freight in violation of the rules of evidence, it is sufficient to recognize it as it is. However, even at the time of the acquisition of each bill of lading, it is insufficient to view that the defendant company was aware of the fact that the freight in this case was not paid in violation of the rules of evidence. However, considering the evidence adopted by the court below, it is sufficient to view that the defendant company was aware of the fact that the freight in this case was not paid in the non-party company at the time of the acquisition of the above bill of lading, and therefore, it does not affect the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. The appeal is assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Hah- Port (Presiding Justice)