logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2012.08.17 2011가합18426
운송료
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a company whose purpose is to arrange and arrange multi-marine transportation, and the Defendant is a company that imports grain feed and supplies them to Korea.

B. Around the end of 2009, the Defendant imported grain feed, such as marine, e.g., e., e., marine, gyp, located in the United States (CAPITAL FED).

C. Three of the grain feed, for which he/she exported to the Defendant, arrives on May 16, 2010 (bill of lading No. B, C, D) and two of which arrive on May 24, 2010, and E;

F. The Defendant alleged to the effect that the above five cargo was the cargo for which the Defendant intended to import. However, in light of the entries of the bill of lading concerning the above five cargo, the contents of the cargo, the entries of the list of unclaimed containers prepared by G, the import and transportation of the cargo, etc., the Defendant is sufficiently recognized as the cargo for which the Defendant intended to import.

() On May 4, 2010 or May 13, 2010, the shipping date on the said five cargo bill of lading was inconsistent with April 30, 2010, which is the shipment date of the credit issued by the Defendant (LTE SHIPMNT). On May 19, 2010, the Defendant notified 3 cargo arriving at the bank, which is the issuing bank of the credit, of the fact that the three cargo arrive at May 16, 2010, is inconsistent with the terms and conditions of the credit, and expressed us to refuse to negotiate the shipping documents on the said three cargo. On the other two cargo, the Defendant did not receive any notification from us (hereinafter the above five cargo referred to as “instant cargo”), and the bill of lading in Chapter 5 related to the freight of this case is “the bill of lading of this case.”

(D) The defendant did not receive all the cargo of this case (the fact that there is no dispute over grounds for recognition, Gap 1, 2, 8, 16, 26 through 30, 37, Eul 1 through 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff directly or directly from the Defendant G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “G”).

(G) through (G.).

arrow