Whether a holder of a bill of lading has a right, such as a right to claim delivery of the cargo, where a bill of lading has been issued based on a transportation contract after a consignee demanded delivery of the cargo which arrives at the destination for a marine transportation without a bill of lading (negative)

In a maritime transport where a bill of lading has not been issued, the consignee has priority over the consignor's right to the cargo before the cargo arrives at the destination. However, when the cargo arrives at the destination, the consignee holds the same right as the consignor's right, and when the consignee claims delivery of the cargo after the cargo arrives at the destination, the consignee's right takes precedence over the consignor's right. Thus, even if the bill of lading was issued later, the consignee's right to claim delivery of the cargo already arrived at the destination cannot be said to have newly acquired the carrier's right to claim delivery of the cargo.

Articles 139, 140(1) and (2), and 812 of the Commercial Act

D. Bable Roloitius (Law Firm Sejong, Attorneys Kim Chang-joon et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Hanjin Shipping Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Squa, Attorneys Jeong-hwan et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2001Na11934 delivered on September 21, 2001

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

1. The judgment of the court below

The court below, based on its evidence, rejected the Plaintiff’s claim for delivery of the instant cargo on May 28, 198 with the Plaintiff’s non-party’s right to claim for delivery of the instant cargo to the Defendant on the non-party 8’s bill of lading (the non-party 1’s right to claim delivery of the instant cargo on the non-party 8’s bill of lading) or on the non-party 9’s request for delivery on the non-party 9’s bill of lading issued by the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 7, and the non-party 9’s right to claim delivery of the cargo on the non-party 9’s bill of lading, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the delivery of the cargo on the non-party 9’s bill of lading and the non-party 2, the delivery of the cargo on the non-party 9’s bill of lading bill of lading, as the non-party 9’s non-party 1.

2. The judgment of this Court

In a marine transport where a bill of lading has not been issued, a consignee does not have any right to the cargo prior to arrival of the cargo at the destination (Articles 812 and 139 of the Commercial Act). When the cargo arrives at the destination, the consignee holds the same right as the consignor (Articles 812 and 140(1) of the Commercial Act). When the consignee claims delivery of the cargo after the cargo arrives at the destination, the consignee's right to the consignee takes precedence over the consignor (Articles 812 and 140(2) of the Commercial Act). If the consignee claims delivery of the cargo which the consignee has already arrived at the destination, the consignee's right to the cargo shall take precedence over the consignor (Articles 812 and 140(2) of the Commercial Act). Although a bill of lading was issued later, the bill of lading holder cannot be said to have new right to claim delivery of the cargo against the carrier.

According to the evidence adopted by the court below and the records of this case, the cargo of this case was transported from the container container of the port terminal on July 20, 1998 at the request of the consignee for the delivery of the LT, the consignee under the contract of this case, to the bonded warehouse operated by the ET Subdivision or the FT Doe Doe Doe Doe Doe Doe Doe Doe. (the judgment of the court below is the request for delivery of the cargo to the defendant of the ET Doe Doe Doe-doe-doe-doe-si and the cargo was made on July 23, 1998. However, this is contrary to the evidence adopted by the court below, and the time of the request for delivery by the defendant is more than the time of the request for delivery, and the above bonded warehouse has a contractual relation with the storage of the cargo between the ET Doe e-doe and at least the time of the request for delivery by the defendant was delivered to the actual importer or the consignee, and the consignee 97.

Therefore, since the bill of lading of this case was issued after the cargo of this case arrived at the destination, a request for delivery of the cargo by a legitimate consignee under the transportation contract was issued after the delivery was made, and even if the plaintiff possessed it, the plaintiff cannot obtain ownership or right to claim delivery of the cargo of this case. Thus, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant of this case against the plaintiff is without merit, regardless of whether the bill of lading of this case is a redemption securities of a registered bill of lading of which endorsement was prohibited.

Although there are some errors in the lower court’s fact-finding and the reasoning of its reasoning are inappropriate, the conclusion of rejecting the Plaintiff’s claim is justifiable, and such part is not affected by the conclusion of the judgment. Therefore, without examining the misapprehension of legal principles as to a non-endorsed registered bill of lading as pointed out by the Plaintiff, the allegation in the grounds of appeal is rejected.

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 Kim Yong-dam (Presiding Justice)