Whether liability under a contract of carriage is exempted in case of neglecting to give notice under Article 3(6) of Part 1 of the United States Sea Transport Act, 1936.

Article 13(6) of Part 13 of the U.S. Shipping Act of 1936 is merely presumed to have delivered the cargo as stated in the bill of lading, unless the consignee gives notice of the loss, damage, etc. of the cargo within three days from the date of delivery when the consignee receives the cargo, or when the loss, damage, etc. of the cargo appears out, the carrier is presumed to have given the delivery of the cargo as stated in the bill of lading, and the consignee neglects the above notice, and thus the consignee is not obliged to exempt the carrier from the liability under the contract of carriage to be erased.

Section 3(6) of Part I of the United States Shipping Act (1936), Section 788 of the Commercial Act

Korea Fire Insurance Co., Ltd., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Attorney Kim Jin-jin, Justice Park So-young, Counsel for the defendant-appellant who has held the Republic of Korea

Seoul High Court Decision 86Na1055 Decided July 1, 1987

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

With respect to heading 1,2,4,5:

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the insurance accident of this case was caused by a change of beef which was contained in the freezing device of the container No. 506728 of the judgment which was used for the transportation by the defendant as the carrier of beef, because the insurance accident of this case was not operated properly due to any defect in the freezing device of the container No. 506728 of the judgment. In light of the records, the court below's findings of fact and judgment are just and just, and there is no little lack in the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, but it is obvious that the court below is based on the premise that the plaintiff is subrogated to the consignee with the burden of proof as to the occurrence of damages caused by the non-performance of obligation under the contract of carriage and the burden of proof as to the amount of damages.

In addition, the argument that the court below excluded the application of the above law and applied the Korean law in accordance with the terms and conditions of the bill of lading even though the governing law on the transportation liability under the contract of carriage should be the U.S. marine goods carriage law in 1936. However, in light of the above law, although the court below did not clearly state the governing law, it did not seem that the above U.S. marine goods carriage law was excluded, and even in light of the above law, the judgment of the court below is just and does not affect the conclusion

The assertion is groundless.

With respect to the third point:

The provisions of Part 13(6) of Part 13 of the U.S. Maritime Goods Transport Act of 1936 are merely presumed to have transferred the goods as stated in the bill of lading unless the consignee gives notice of the loss, damage, etc. of the goods within three days from the date of delivery of the goods, or if the consignee fails to give notice of the loss, damage, etc. of the goods within three days from the date of delivery of the goods, and therefore, the carrier is presumed to have given the delivery of the goods as stated in the bill of lading, and the consignee neglected the above notice, and thus the consignee is not obliged

The assertion is groundless.

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

Justices Kim Sang-won (Presiding Justice)