Responsibilities of a maritime freight forwarder who has issued an invalid bill of lading as a so-called public right.

A maritime freight forwarder who, at the request of an exporter, issued an invalid pre-shipment bill as a so-called public right is liable to compensate for all damages incurred by the buyer of a bill of exchange issued as security by the exporter.

Article 760 of the Civil Act, Article 813 of the Commercial Act

Busan Bank, Inc.

3 others, such as Taeyang Round Co., Ltd.

The defendant Taeyang Korea Venture Co., Ltd and the defendant Jin Jincheon jointly and severally pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 39,875,000 with the annual interest rate of KRW 5% from May 18, 1984 to March 4, 1986, and the annual interest rate of KRW 25% from the next day to the full payment rate.

The plaintiff is dismissed as follows. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant Shin Young-young and the police officer, and the remaining claim against the defendant Taeyang Korea Venture Co., Ltd. and the defendant Tae Jin-cheon

Of the costs of lawsuit, the part arising between the Plaintiff, Defendant Shin Young-chul, and the police officer shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the part arising between the Plaintiff, Defendant Taeyang-dong, and Jincheon shall be borne by the said Defendants.

Paragraph (1) may be provisionally executed.

The defendants, from May 18, 1984 to the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, shall pay to the plaintiff 39,875,000 won with the annual interest rate of 5 percent and 25 percent per annum from the next day to the full payment date.

On May 18, 1984, the Plaintiff, who is a foreign exchange bank, was carrying on manufacture and export business of polyethyl ethyl ethyl ethyl dyephth, and was issued by the said Defendant from the Daumbro Baum dye Co., Ltd. at the means of means for payment of the export price of polyethyl dyethum dye dye dye dye gye dye dye gye dye gye dye 65,00 which was issued by the ocean shipping company at the port of destination and the ocean shipping company at the port of loading on the same day. The Plaintiff’s bill of exchange and the above 40,000,000,0000,0000,000,0000 won per 79,0000,0000,0000 won per 1,000,0000,000.

According to the above facts, even though Defendant Taeyang Korea Shipping Co., Ltd issued the bill of lading of this case, which is an export cargo, which is equivalent to USD 65,00,00, which is an export cargo, as the so-called public right, and even if it did not load the bill of lading of this case, it shall be jointly and severally liable for damages suffered by the Plaintiff due to the tort committed by selling the export bill of this case to the Plaintiff with its security.

The plaintiff asserted that, as the president of the Busan branch of the defendant Taeyang-dong Corporation, the defendant Park Jong-soo was an employee of the above Busan branch office and was responsible for compensation for the above defendants by asserting that he actually engaged in the business of issuing the bill of lading of this case. However, the witness Kim Jong-ho's testimony that corresponds to the fact that the defendant Shin Young-ho and Park Jong-ho dealt with the business of issuing the bill of this case, the plaintiff's claim against the above defendants is groundless without examining it.

The reason why the re-purchase of the bill of lading was refused is that the bill of lading attached thereto was not the bill of lading issued by the shipping agent, but the bill of lading issued by the shipping agent, which is the shipping agent, as required by the credit. Therefore, if the bill of lading was attached to the bill of lading issued by the shipping agent demanded by the credit, it would not be refused to re-purchase the bill of lading even if the bill of lading was issued without the receipt and shipment of the cargo. However, the plaintiff purchased the bill of lading from Jincheoncheon, with the knowledge that it was attached to the bill of lading issued by the shipping agent, which is the shipping agent, while purchasing the bill of lading in this case, the damage of the plaintiff bank was not related to the issuance of the bill of this case by the above defendants. However, the plaintiff bank did not know that the bill of this case attached thereto was issued by the shipping agent at the time of purchasing the bill of this case, and it cannot be viewed that the plaintiff bank did not have any other responsibility for the purchase of the bill of this case's bill of this case's evidence and evidence.

Therefore, the defendant Taeyang-won Co., Ltd and the defendant Jinjin-Jin shall seek damages for delay from the date following the delivery of the copy of the bill of exchange to the date of the pronouncement of the judgment of this case after deducting KRW 10,000,000 from the remaining amount of KRW 39,875,000 which the plaintiff paid to the plaintiff, and from May 18, 1984 to March 4, 1986, the date of the judgment of this case (the plaintiff is entitled to pay damages for delay at the rate of KRW 25,00 per annum under the Civil Act from the date following the delivery of the copy of the bill of exchange to the date of the judgment of this case, but it is reasonable to resist the existence or scope of the liability, so the above interest rate under the Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Legal Proceedings shall not apply) to the plaintiff's damages for delay from the remaining amount of KRW 250,00 per annum under the above Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Legal Proceedings. The plaintiff's claims and the remaining damages for delay shall be dismissed.

Judges (Presiding Judge)