(영문) 서울고등법원 2017.03.24 2015나2061642

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울고등법원 2017.03.24 2015나2061642

구상금등

Text

1.The judgment of the first instance court, including any claims extended and added in the trial, shall be modified as follows:

The defendant.

Reasons

1. The facts below the basis of facts are either in dispute between the parties or acknowledged by taking into account the whole purport of the pleadings as a whole in each entry of Gap evidence of Nos. 1 to 4, 15, 16, 17, 19, 33, 34 (including serial numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply).

[1] The Plaintiff is a legal entity that runs a maritime cargo transport business and a maritime cargo transport brokerage business, and the Defendant is an individual who runs a steel sales business in the trade name of “B”.

On January 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a transportation contract between the Defendant and the Defendant to transport the Defendant’s steel bars 46,775k (hereinafter “instant cargo”) from the Plaintiff’s port of Indonesia.

On January 16, 2014, the Plaintiff issued a bill of lading (securities number D; hereinafter “instant bill of lading”) stating the consignor as “B”, the consignee, and the place of notice as “C Indonesia (C),” and delivered it to the Defendant.

The back clause of the bill of lading of this case contains the following contents:

Article 11 (containers Packinged by shippers

B. If the cargo taken over by the sea or by a land carrier is loaded in a package on behalf of the owner or owner, the owner shall guarantee that:

i) The loading of the cargo inside the container and the sealing of the container are safe and appropriate. ii) The container and the internal cargo are suitable for the operation and transportation of the cargo in accordance with the provisions of this bill of lading. If the shipper violates the warranty, the shipper, not the carrier, shall be liable for it and shall compensate for the loss or damage to the shipper or the substitute (including but not limited to the ship and the cargo) caused by it and shall be discharged from the sea carrier.

[2] The instant cargo was exported by the Defendant to an enterprise called “C” in Indonesia immediately after being imported from China.

The freight of this case is designated by the defendant through the Chinese agency in the Chinese injury.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.10.08 2015가합4318

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.01.10 2016가단5091430

-대법원 1996. 3. 12. 선고 94다55057 판결

-서울중앙지방법원 2021.02.18 2019가단5186865

-대법원 2003. 10. 24. 선고 2001다72296 판결