(a) Liability of an air freight transportation broker who has issued an air freight transport certificate, stating the intent that he/she was loaded on an aircraft for the purpose of carriage by accepting the cargo without being taken over it;

(b)the scope of transport securities which the bank can collect when purchasing a bill of exchange before a foreign country in the form of acceptance (D/A), payment (D/P) or settlement method;

A. A bank which purchases a bill of exchange in accordance with acceptance limit (D/A) or payment limit (D/P) is expected to accept or pay the bill of exchange insofar as an air freight transport certificate stating a timely certification that can be seen as a securities necessary for settling the bill of exchange is submitted, and can compensate for its damage with a cargo that can be deemed as being actually existed by air freight transport at the time of refusal to accept or pay. Thus, as long as the bank purchased the bill of exchange in accordance with the air transport clause issued by an air freight transportation broker, it is liable for damages equivalent to the purchase price for the said bill of exchange to the bank.

B. When a bank negotiates a bill of exchange in a foreign country by means of a non-credit such as acceptance limit (D/A), payment limit (D/P), etc., it can be widely recognized, unlike the L/C transaction, as long as the documents evidencing that the goods were actually transported for the payment of the bill of exchange in the future, unlike the L/C transaction, as long as the scope of the securities that can be requisitioned can be acknowledged can be expanded. Thus, even if a bill of lading is demanded by an importer as a transport document under the export contract agreement between the exporters and importers, it cannot be deemed as a transport document that can be generally recognized as different from the documents attached to the L/C transaction. In addition, if the goods are transported by air, unless there is a separate securities such as the bill of exchange, it has a strong probative value as to the receipt and payment of the goods in the air transport, and in the case of the mixed transport of air cargo, the shipping document that the client, who is the consignor, generally, purchases the bill of exchange in lieu of the above L/B bill, it cannot be deemed as a bank's fault.

Articles 131 and 814-2 of the Commercial Act

Jeju Bank, Inc.

Lot Tourism Corporation

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 51,225,233 and the above amount of KRW 15,449,896 with an annual interest rate of KRW 35,75,37 from February 3, 1991 to June 3, 1991, and with an annual interest rate of KRW 25 percent from the next day to the date of full payment.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

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

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of 73,178,905 won and the amount of 22,071,280 won from February 3, 1991 to 51,107,625 won, the amount of 5% per annum from February 7, 191 to the service date of the copy of each complaint of this case, and the amount of 25% per annum from the next day to the full payment date.

1. Facts recognized;

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8-1, 9, 10, 10-1 through 5, 2-2, 5, 5-2, 10, 5-1 through 5, 2-2, 5, 5-5, 5, 7, 6-2, 7, 7, 8-2, and 5, 5-5, 5-2, 5, 5-3, 7, 5-2, 7, 8-2, and 5-3, 7, 5-2, 7, 8-2, and 5-3, and 5-2 of the evidence Nos. 8, and 19-2.

(a) Conclusion of export contracts;

(1) On December 3, 1990, the non-party Sari Sari Sari (hereinafter referred to as "sarijin") entered into a sales contract (a contract number: 901203-1; hereinafter referred to as "the first sales contract") with the non-party 1 Sari Sari (PACIFIC INDTRY) located in the U.S. State, with the following terms:

Every Do Governor: Jin Jin

Every number of persons: a traffic list;

Subject matter of sale: 100% Dorts 1,400

United States dollars : US$ 30,800 per unit ($ 22 per unit, FOB KREA)

Date of shipment: not later than February 2, 1991 (no divided shipment)

Purpose : Red Mego

Settlement Terms: Acceptance Conditions (D/A)

No. : 60 days after acceptance

Buyer’s settlement bank: Trstrucom Bank (TRUST COPNYK)-Agrepted other materials

Documents: invoice, packing statement, bill of lading (B/L), certificate of origin

(2) On November 20, 1990, Jina entered into a sales contract (a contract number: 901120-1; hereinafter referred to as 'the second sales contract') with Nonparty 1, CONAD (COND) located in Alinama, the following terms and conditions were as follows:

Every Do Governor: Jin Jin

For each number of persons: bean Coder;

Subject matters to be traded: 100% Dozers 2,500

United States dollars : US$ 71,250 ($ 28.50 per unit, US$ 28.50 per unit, FOB KSA)

Date of shipment: by February 15, 1991 (no divided shipment)

Purpose : Red Mego

Settlement Terms: D/P Terms and Conditions of Payment (P)

The settlement bank and the old account of a purchaser: the bank of Sys Sys Sys Babama 625225

Documents: invoice, packing statement, bill of lading (B/L), certificate of origin

B. Conclusion of a transport contract

(1) The Defendant entered into an agency contract with an air company which is a shipping agent after obtaining a license for air transport service provider from the Minister of Construction and Transportation, and entered into an agency contract with the self-denunciation of the non-party corporation after August 198.

(2) The Defendant was entrusted with the carriage of export goods under the above 1 and 2 sales contract from Jinjin through Pinjin Co., Ltd., upon receipt of the notice from a self-denunciation of the above corporation, issued the air waybill (hereinafter referred to as “HAWB”) with each of the following contents directly or as his agent, and issued the air waybill (hereinafter referred to as “HAWB”) with each of the above corporations upon request by the number of the above corporations. Upon receipt of the above export goods, the Defendant issued an air waybill (hereinafter referred to as “HAWB”), stating that he loaded the above goods in Singapore (CPA) for the said transportation.

(A) An air waybill No. 1 issued on January 31, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as “No. 1 HWB”).

Air waybill number: LAI-912474

YI-911203-1

Song J. : Sari J. Sari

Consignee and Notification Line: CARIER SOL Round FOCRDERS (H.K. LTD)

Transport Objects : 100% Rots 1,400 man-made fibres

Settlement Terms: D/A

Until now: US$ 30.00

1 Carriers: CX411

The departure area: Kimpo Airport

Hong Kong Airport

Issuing Agent: Head of the corporation

Documents: Transmitting sheet, packing sheet

MAWB NO: None.

(B) An air waybill No. 2 issued on February 5, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as "No. 2HWB").

Air waybill number: LAI-912544

YI-91204

Song J. : Sari J. Sari

Su-man: COCORD LTD (COND)

Tong-lines: CARIER FOTRWERS (H.K.) LTD (H.K.)

Transport Objects : 100% Dozers 2,500 Dozers

Contract Number: 911120-1

Until now: US$ 30.00

1 Carriers: CX411

The departure area: Kimpo Airport

Hong Kong Airport

Documents: Transmitting sheet, packing sheet

MAWB NO: None.

(c) Purchase and collection process of bills of exchange;

(1) On January 7, 191, 191, the Jinjin concluded an export transaction agreement with the Plaintiff for a transaction, such as the purchase of bills of exchange or shipping documents by the method of the credit or the letter of credit, and set up a collateral in the name of the Plaintiff for the following real estate:

① Nonparty Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Non-party 1’s ownership 102 square meters of 102 square meters and 51.206 square meters of 102 square meters of 1,000 square meters of bonds (the maximum amount of bonds KRW 1,00,000)

② Nonparty 1: (The maximum amount of bond 150,000,000 won) of 106.39 square meters (the maximum amount of bond 150,000,000 won) of 502 square meters per 502 square meters, Dong-dong, New-dong, Seoul, Yangcheon-gu, Seoul

(2) On February 2, 1991, U.S. dollars 30,80, U.S. dollars 60 days after acceptance (D/A 60DYS), D/A 60 days after acceptance, D/A 20 days after collection bank, payer-curinecom, sale and purchase contract number 901203-1 (the contract date 90.3.), and one bill of exchange was issued before a foreign country. On the same day, the above bill of exchange was presented to the Plaintiff along with one copy and two copies, commercial invoice, packing statement, and certificate of origin, and the Plaintiff bank purchased the above bill of exchange and the attached documents without any security under the above 1HWB agreement and paid 30,80 U.S. dollars to the Plaintiff.

(3) On February 6, 1991, U.S. dollars 71,250, U.S. dollars 71,250, payment terms were issued at sight (D/P), collection bank S. S.C. O.C., payer code company, sales contract number 90120-1, and one bill of exchange was issued at a foreign country. On the same day, the above bill of exchange was presented to the Plaintiff along with one copy and two copies, commercial invoice, packing statement, certificate of origin certificate, and the Plaintiff bank requested purchase. Under the above export transaction agreement, the Plaintiff bank purchased the above bill of exchange and its attached documents with no collateral to believe that the aforementioned bill of exchange and its attached documents were proved under the above 2HWB, and paid U.S. dollars 71,250 on the same day to J.

(4) However, the transport goods under the above Nos. 1 and 2HWB were not actually accepted or bound by the self-denunciation of the Defendant or the Defendant’s agent, and therefore, the Plaintiff refused to accept and settle each of the above bills of exchange on the ground that the Plaintiff requested the collection of each of the bills of exchange through the collection bank on each of the above bills of exchange, but the export goods were not transported.

(5) If the purchase price of each of the above bills of exchange paid by the Plaintiff to the Uljin is converted to the purchase rate for the customer telegraph at the time of purchase, the purchase price for the bill of exchange dated February 2, 1991 shall be KRW 22,071,280, and KRW 51,107,625, plus KRW 73,178,905.

(d) transaction practices;

(1) The export business rules of the Plaintiff bank provide that the purchase request, credit (in the case of D/A, D/P conditions, export contract), export declaration for payment, all of the bills and shipping documents required by the credit, and all other necessary documents shall be requisitioned (Article 22), and the export draft by the letter of credit shall be purchased after collection (Article 24(1)2); however, the export draft by the letter of credit may be purchased before collection (Article 24(2)) as provided by the work-related rules; if there is an application for purchase of defective export draft, it shall be purchased after collection or after receipt of a written confirmation (Article 25). Under the work-related rules of the Plaintiff bank, the limit to which the business owner of the Plaintiff bank can purchase the bill prior to collection of the export draft under D/A, D/P conditions shall be 1,00,000 US dollars at the time of purchase, 200,000 US$ at the time of credit purchase, 200,00D/P.

(2) In general, in the case of a mixed air freight transport, the freight forwarder, which is a mixed entity, issues so-called HOUS AI WYBL with a cargo transport commission from the shipper (trustee) and entrusts the carriage of the mixed cargo so-called MAS WYBL to the air freight forwarder, and is issued so-called MASTR WYBL (hereinafter referred to as MAWB) with a shipping broker as a consignor. In the case of a mixed transport, the actual consignor (export) or consignee (importer) will receive HAWB as a transport bond.

(3) An air waybill, unlike a bill of lading, does not mean a document evidencing the receipt of the cargo and does not mean a document evidencing the loading of the cargo. In general, because a bank purchases an air waybill only with an identification (ONBD) on the air waybill, a client shall, when the cargo is loaded, require the freight forwarder to provide an identification on the HAWB for the sale of the bill of exchange and the freight forwarder shall provide an identification on the air waybill if the loading of the cargo is confirmed.

2. Determination:

A. Judgment on the Plaintiff’s assertion

According to the above facts, the air freight transportation broker issued the air waybill 1 and 2 in a false manner stating that the defendant, who is an air freight transportation broker, did not accept and take over the cargo but loaded the cargo on the air carrier of Singapore, to the so-called consignor. Accordingly, as long as the plaintiff, who believed the air waybill which has been proved as a real transportation document, purchased the bill of exchange in front of the above foreign country, and paid the price, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for damages equivalent to the above amount of payment.

B. Whether the defendant is exempted from liability

The defendant purchased a bill of exchange in the first place with D/A (D/A), or with payment limit (D/P). ① Since the settlement of the purchase price of a bill of exchange with a letter of credit depends solely on import credit, the plaintiff bank must, in principle, purchase an export bill of exchange with a letter of credit free under the Export Business Regulations and the Rules on the Exclusiveization of Duties. If the bill of exchange is to be purchased before the collection, it is regulated that the purchase would not exceed US$ 1,000 at the time of providing security, and US$ 200 at the time of credit purchase. However, the plaintiff bank's employees requested purchase of each bill of exchange with the above bill of exchange and then paid US$ 30,80 at the time of collection request, and 71,250 at the time of the purchase of each bill of exchange with the above bill of exchange with the above bill of exchange with the above bill of exchange with a bill of exchange with a bill of exchange with a bill of exchange with a bill of exchange with a bill of exchange with no settlement condition between the plaintiff and the above bill of exchange.

First of all, considering that the purchase of the bill of exchange in this case was made without collateral for the purchase of the bill of exchange in this case by the employees of the Plaintiff’s breach of trust as alleged by the Defendant, and that the purchase of the bill of exchange in this case must be demanded with the letter of credit (in the case of D/A, export contract), the export declaration for payment, and all other necessary documents required by the letter of credit, as stated in the above export sale and sale contract (in the case of export contract) and that the bill of exchange in this case must be issued with shipping documents, and if there is a defective request for the purchase of the bill of exchange in this case, it is difficult to acknowledge that the bank should purchase the bill of exchange with the original bill of exchange as stated in the letter of credit, as stated in the above terms and conditions for the purchase of the bill of exchange in this case. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the purchase of the bill of exchange in this case would be 00 U.S. dollars under the terms and conditions for the purchase of the bill of exchange in this case as stated in the letter of exchange agreement.

In addition, even if the purchase of the bill of exchange of this case by the plaintiff was partially in violation of the rules of the plaintiff bank, as seen earlier, the plaintiff who purchased the bill of exchange by acceptance or payment is expected to accept or pay the bill as long as the air waybill, which includes a timely certificate that can be seen as a securities necessary for the settlement of the purchase of the bill of exchange, has been submitted, and the damage can be compensated with the cargo that can be viewed as being actually recognized by the air waybill at the time of refusal of acceptance or payment. Thus, as long as the plaintiff purchased the bill of exchange of this case, as stated in the air waybill of this case, it cannot be deemed that the purchase contributed to the whole negligence of the plaintiff or the plaintiff's own damage was caused by the purchase of the bill of exchange of the plaintiff's bill of exchange. Accordingly, the defendant's claim that the defendant is not liable for damage caused by the purchase of the bill of exchange of this case by the plaintiff.

(c) Set-off of negligence;

However, as seen earlier, since the bill of exchange purchased by the Plaintiff is a method of settling D/A or D/P, it is anticipated that the payment will not be made in comparison with the method of the letter of credit. As such, even if purchasing a bill of exchange, the Plaintiff neglected to perform his/her duty of care to properly examine the importer's assets, debts, credit level, etc., even if purchasing the bill of exchange, and the Plaintiff demanded the bill of exchange as shipping documents under the export contract entered with the exporter, but the importer, who is the settlement party, demanded the bill of exchange, but requested the bill of exchange to the HAWB issued by the air freight consignor in lieu of the bill of lading, and the Plaintiff's error was caused by the actual air freight consignor's error in light of the circumstances where the entry of the MAW number column of the issuance of the bill of exchange in the HAB on the instant HW, and thus, it is reasonable to set the amount of damages to be paid by the Defendant, but its ratio shall be limited to 70% of the remainder of the Defendant's liability for the Plaintiff.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 51,225,233 won (73,178,905 won x 0.7,905 won x less than won x 0.7, and less than won ; hereinafter the same shall apply) calculated by converting the purchase price of each of the above bills of exchange from the purchase price of the bill of exchange as of February 2, 1991 to the plaintiff 15,49,896 won which is the purchase price of the bill of exchange as of February 3, 191, from February 3, 1991, 35,75,37 won which is the purchase price of the bill of exchange as of February 6, 191, from February 7, 1991 to the plaintiff 5,000 won which is the above purchase price of the bill of exchange as of February 3, 194, the plaintiff's claim for damages for delay shall be dismissed within the limit of 25,000 won per annum.

The number of judges' second and second judges' succession (Presiding Judge)