[1] The validity of a bill of lading issued without receiving or loading the cargo (negative)

[2] In a case where a bank purchases a bill of lading issued without receiving or shipping the pertinent bill of lading along with an export bill, whether it can claim damages equivalent to the amount of purchase price of the export bill of lading against the carrier who issued the bill of lading (affirmative), and whether the causal relationship is severed due to the payer’s acceptance of the export bill of exchange (negative)

[1] A bill of lading is a security representing the right to claim the delivery of the cargo. This is an incentive document prepared according to a contract of carriage. Since the Commercial Act takes the premise of the establishment of a bill of lading in which a carrier actually receives or loads the cargo from a consignor, the bill of lading issued even though the carrier did not receive or load the cargo is null and void because it does not meet the cause and requirements.

[2] A bank that purchased a bill of lading, which is issued without receiving or shipping the cargo and has no value as a security, with the export bill of exchange, from the holder of the remaining bill of exchange, which was suspected of being valid as a security, may claim damages equivalent to the purchase price of the export bill of exchange against the carrier who participated in the above deception by issuing the bill of lading without receiving the cargo. Even if the payer of the export bill of exchange purchased it after the fact, the causal link between the above tort and the occurrence of the damage cannot be deemed to be severed, and as long as the above export bill of exchange is not paid, the damage claim is not extinguished as the damage of the bank due to the above tort, unless it is actually paid.

[1] Articles 813, 814, and 814-2 of the Commercial Act / [2] Articles 813, 814, and 814-2 of the Commercial Act; Article 750 of the Civil Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 80Da1325 delivered on September 14, 1982 (Gong1982, 927) Supreme Court Decision 2003Da5535 delivered on March 24, 2005 (Gong2005Sang, 633)

The Korea Export Insurance Corporation (Attorney Han-soo et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant)

1. The term “the term “the term” means “the term” means “the term or “the term” means “the term or “the term” means “the term.

Seoul High Court Decision 2005Na9987 decided July 6, 2006

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The bill of lading is a securities representing the right to claim the delivery of the cargo. This is an incentive document prepared pursuant to the contract of carriage and the Commercial Act provides that the carrier shall actually receive or load the cargo from the consignor. Thus, it is reasonable to deem that the bill of lading issued without receiving or loading the cargo is null and void because it has a defect in the object because it fails to meet the cause and requirements (see Supreme Court Decisions 80Da1325, Sept. 14, 1982; 2003Da5535, Mar. 24, 2005). As such, the bank purchased from the holder of the bill of lading without value as security is deemed null and void and void, and the bank purchased from the holder of the bill of lading with the bill of exchange can claim compensation for damage equivalent to the purchase price of the bill of exchange, and even if the payer who purchased the bill of exchange with the bill of exchange purchased after the bill of exchange, it cannot be said that there is no causation between the tort and the damage arising therefrom.

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, although it is somewhat insufficient or inappropriate for the court below's explanation of its reasoning, the judgment below is just in holding that the act of Defendant 2 who issued a false bill of lading without loading cargo is not unlawful or the causal relationship between the act of the above defendant and the damage suffered by the bill of lading holder is not mitigated, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to proximate causal relationship as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

The court below's finding that the importer accepted the bill of exchange of this case at the exporter's request without knowledge of the defects of the bill of this case and later asserted that the bill of this case cannot be settled because the cargo did not arrive later is merely an additional statement, and even if such fact-finding was erroneous, it does not affect the conclusion of the judgment, and even if examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, there is no violation of the rules of evidence as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

Therefore, all appeals are 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 on the bench.

Justices Yang Sung-tae (Presiding Justice)