[1] The criteria for determining whether a freight forwarder was requested only to a freight forwarder, where it is unclear whether the freight forwarder was requested to a freight forwarder

[2] Whether a statement that recognizes a legal relationship or legal effect, which is the premise of a subject matter of a lawsuit, is the subject of confession under Article 288 of the Civil Procedure Act (negative)

[1] Articles 114 and 115 of the Commercial Act / [2] Article 288 of the Civil Procedure Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2007Da4943 decided Apr. 27, 2007 (Gong2007Sang, 783) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 79Da62 decided Jun. 9, 1981 (Gong1981, 13985), Supreme Court Decision 80Da851 decided Apr. 27, 1982 (Gong1982, 5555), Supreme Court Decision 91Da31494 decided Feb. 14, 1992 (Gong192, 1026)

Dongbu Fire Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Jeongdong International Law, Attorneys Seo Dong-hee et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Changsung International Transport Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Sejong Chang, Attorneys Kim Hyun-tae et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2005Na2365 delivered on October 12, 2005

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

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1, 3, and 4

A. Even if a freight forwarder received a request for transportation-related affairs from a client, if it is unclear whether the freight forwarder was requested, or if only the freight forwarder was requested, the intention of the party should be examined to determine whether the freight forwarder acquired the status of a carrier. However, if the intention of the party is unclear, the determination should be made in accordance with logical and empirical rules, comprehensively taking into account various circumstances, such as the situation at the time of conclusion of the contract, the name of the issuer of the freight waybill, the payment method of the freight, and the affairs actually performed by the company that was requested, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Da4943, Apr. 27, 2007, etc.).

B. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined as follows: (a) the conclusion of the air transport contract with Asia or the air transport company, which is the actual carrier, in this case, was made with Ehys air waybill issued by Ehys air; (b) the Defendant paid the price for the instant cargo prior to the transport of the instant cargo, which was delivered by ESMT, after calculating all of the expenses; (c) the Defendant claimed 10% value-added tax on the domestic land freight with Esysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysy, while the instant cargo was supplied to Esysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysys.

Under the Value-Added Tax Act, the zero tax rate shall apply to the services and overseas navigation services of ships or aircraft provided overseas by Korean residents or domestic corporations. Accordingly, the defendant shall be applied to the air transport section of this case as a carrier and the health transportation broker. Therefore, it is inappropriate for the defendant to apply the zero-rate tax rate to the air transport section of this case. However, in light of the aforementioned legal principles and records, the judgment of the court below that the air transport section of this case is the forwarding agent is the defendant, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the misconception of facts against the rules of evidence or the misapprehension of legal principles as to the carrier and the forwarding agent, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

A. The confessions stipulated in Article 288 of the Civil Procedure Act are limited to statements about facts, and statements that recognize legal relations or legal effects which are the premise of the subject matter of a lawsuit are so-called so-called right confessions that parties may freely withdraw without binding the court (see Supreme Court Decisions 80Da851, Apr. 27, 1982; 91Da31494, Feb. 14, 1992, etc.).

B. In light of Article 5 (1) (b) of the Import Agency and Customs Agency Contract prepared retrospectively after the instant accident, the Defendant is liable for damages arising from the theft, loss, damage, inundation, inundation, and other causes of imported goods which occurred during the course of transportation until delivered to the user after the shipment of the bonded warehouse. The Defendant’s legal representative stated in the first instance court that the above provision does not limit the Defendant’s liability section or period to the period after the shipment of the bonded warehouse is a statement on the interpretation of the contract, which is not a confession as stipulated in Article 288 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error of law as to confession as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Hong-hoon (Presiding Justice)