Whether negligence can be offset by the owner's failure to notify the mid-term company that the machinery is high-priced in cases where the machinery was damaged due to occupational negligence of the mid-term company which performed loading and unloading work at the request of the transportation company, although the owner of the machinery knew the contents of the cargo while being entrusted with the transportation and unloading of the machinery for the transportation company (negative)

When the owner of the machinery entrusts the transportation and the loading and unloading of the machinery to the transportation company, and the contents of the goods were known, at the request of the transportation company, and in case the machinery was damaged due to the negligence on the driving and unloading of the machinery on the part of the mid-term transportation company, the owner shall not be obliged to inform the mid-term transportation company that the machinery is high-priced, and therefore there is no reason to offset the negligence caused by this.

Article 396 of the Civil Act, Article 136 of the Commercial Act

Korea Fire Insurance Co., Ltd., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Kanyang Shipping Co., Ltd. and 1 other 3 others, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 89Na34683 delivered on August 28, 1990

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the defendants.

We examine the grounds of appeal by Defendant Hanyang Co., Ltd.

(1) After examining the results of the judgment of the court below in light of the records, it cannot be found that there was a violation of the rules of evidence or an incomplete deliberation, such as a theory of lawsuit, and there was no error of violation of the rules of evidence or a violation of the rules of evidence, such as a theory of lawsuit, in which the court below found the fact that the above assistant 30 kilograms, which is about 30 kilograms of weight, fall on the machinery of this case where the above machinery was damaged to the extent that it could not be repaired, as it did not fall on the machinery of this case where the above equipment was damaged to the extent that it was not repaired, while the non-party Hong, who is an employee of the defendant company, driving the caters owned by the defendant company, and driving the cler of the instant container of this case while he was in the lower operation of the container of this case, and there was no error of violation of the rules of evidence

(2) As determined by the court below, the non-party Hanyang Co., Ltd., the owner of the instant machinery, entrusted the transportation and loading and unloading of the organizational machine, including the instant machinery, to the defendant Hanyang Co., Ltd., and notified the same defendant Co., Ltd. of the contents of the cargo, and the defendant Hanyang Heavy Co., Ltd, upon receiving a request from the defendant Hanyang Shipping Co., Ltd. to perform the loading and unloading of the instant machinery, the above non-party Co., Ltd. did not have an obligation to inform the defendant Hanyang Heavy Co., Ltd. of the fact that the instant machinery was high-priced, and therefore, it cannot be said that there was an error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to comparative negligence set-off

We examine the grounds of appeal by the defendant nationalization transportation corporation.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below recognized that the defendant corporation entered into a contract of carriage and unloading between the non-party joint-use corporation and the defendant company with the term of the organization to manufacture the direct-use shop of this case from Busan to the measure source of the non-party company, and held that the defendant shall compensate the damage suffered by the above non-party company because the machinery of this case was destroyed due to the accident of this case occurring during the loading and unloading work. Thus, the court below did not err in the misapprehension of the judgment of the court below as to the allegation that the above action of this case was not responsible for the defendant company. The arguments are without merit.

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 Park Yong-dong (Presiding Justice)