logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2013.12.27 2012가단152684
통관대행수수료
Text

1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) paid KRW 4,882,851 to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and its related amount from September 3, 2012 to December 27, 2013.

Reasons

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On April 201, the Plaintiff operating a maritime transport business has been engaged in a transaction in which the Defendant, at the request of the Defendant, engaged in a used cars export business, transported containers exported from Korea to Africa and received transportation charges from the Defendant.

B. The Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to handle transportation services by the following methods (hereinafter “instant agreement”) and have been performing their duties in the same way:

In other words, when a container that the Plaintiff received a request from the Defendant arrives in African A, the Baj Fright (hereinafter “NE”) which is a business entity dealing with the Plaintiff’s transportation-related affairs in Africa AB, in contact with the buyer indicated in the bill of lading, receives the automobile payment and the marine transportation fee and transfers the said money to the Plaintiff, while transferring the said money to the Defendant, the Plaintiff received the transportation fee from the Defendant, and received the delivery from the Defendant to the buyer of the vehicle loaded in the container. Upon receiving the consent of the Defendant, the notification of confirmation of transfer was given to the non-party company, and the non-party company, upon receiving the confirmation of transfer, delivered the vehicle loaded in the container to the buyer indicated in the bill of lading.

C. However, without the plaintiff's notice of confirmation of transfer, the non-party company transferred the following four bills of lading among the containers that the defendant requested for transportation to the plaintiff, and the defendant did not receive the automobile price and the marine transportation fee from the purchaser. Accordingly, the defendant did not pay to the plaintiff the sum of the marine transportation fee for the four containers below.

A bill of lading No. B (hereinafter referred to as “first bill of lading”) issued on June 15, 201.

arrow