1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff’s assertion is based on the premise that the Plaintiff is in the U.S. Amersia (hereinafter “Mesia”).

) A contract was entered into on the import of scrap iron, and for which, to which end, Mexxate Co., Ltd., Ltd., the freight forwarder, hereinafter referred to as “Nex”) entered into a contract.

) A freight forwarding contract was entered into with the Defendant. Isi TroTex shall have a container having the high metal having arrived at the port of Pyeongtaek-si in the Republic of Korea, which is the final destination designated by the Plaintiff, located in Pyeongtaek-si, the final destination designated by the Plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as “Nai Resources”).

A) The Defendant entered into a land transport contract with the trucking driver. While transporting a container using the trucking driver, the driver, in collusion with B, etc. on February 23, 2010 through February 26, 2010, stolen the amount equivalent to KRW 37,659,210 from February 26, 2010. (2) The trucking agent is the trucking agent and the consignor, and the Plaintiff is the consignee, but the Plaintiff is not a party to the contract of carriage, but acquired the same right as the consignor pursuant to Article 140(1) of the Commercial Act.

Since the freight driver E, F, G, H, and J, which are the Defendant’s performance assistant, steals the scrap metal, thereby causing damage to the Plaintiff as a result of partial loss of the freight, the Defendant bears the responsibility for nonperformance of obligations under Article 135 of the Commercial Act.

Even if the Plaintiff could not directly exercise the right to claim damages that the consignor has, it acquired from Lee Ni-Tex the claim for damages under the contract of carriage against the Defendant, and notified the Plaintiff on April 14, 2014 by delivery of the preparatory document.

3. The Plaintiff’s tort liability is the owner of stolen cargo, and the Defendant’s employee’s loss to the Plaintiff, who is the owner of the cargo, due to the theft of scrap metal by the Defendant’s employee E, F, G, H, and J, and thereby partly destroyed the cargo. As such, the Defendant is under Article 756 of the Civil Act.