Whether a harbor stevedoring operator, which is an agent of an individual owner, is liable to pay the user fee for the wharf;

The user of port facilities (storage and treatment facilities of cargo) subject to the collection of fees for the use of harbor facilities is each the owner of the goods concerned. Even if a harbor shipper receives profits from using fees and fees on behalf of the owner of the goods in response to the demand of each owner of the goods who is the actual disposal authority, the convenience arising from the use of the above harbor facilities also belongs to the owner of the goods who is the disposal authority, so the fees for the use of the harbor facilities shall also be borne by the owner of the goods. In addition, as long as Article 27 of the former Harbor Act (amended by Act No. 4574 of Aug. 5, 1993) provides that the user fees for the use of the harbor facilities subject to the collection of fees for the use of the harbor facilities shall be collected from the owner of the goods. Thus, the provisions of Article 16 (1) of the former Rules on the Use of Harbor Facilities (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Transport and 1017 of Dec. 4, 1993), which provide that the harbor stevedoring shall pay the fees for the owner's on behalf.

Article 27 of the former Harbor Act (amended by Act No. 4574 of Aug. 5, 1993); Articles 7(1), 15(1), and 16(1) of the former Rules on the Use of Harbor Facilities (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Transport No. 1017 of Dec. 4, 1993)

Dong High-speed Co., Ltd. (Attorney Song Young-sik, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Incheon Regional Maritime Affairs and Fisheries

Seoul High Court Decision 93Gu19445 delivered on April 12, 1995

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below stated that the plaintiff's request for permission to use the harbor facilities under the name of the owner of the harbor facilities was not made in the name of the owner of the cargo at issue, and that the plaintiff's request for permission to use the harbor facilities under the name of the owner of the harbor facilities at issue on behalf of the owner of the cargo at issue on August 5, 193, and that the defendant's request for permission to use the facilities at issue on behalf of the owner of the cargo at issue on behalf of the owner of the cargo at issue on behalf of the owner of the cargo at issue on the 7th port, and that the plaintiff's request for permission to use the facilities at issue on behalf of the owner of the cargo at issue on behalf of the owner of the cargo at issue on behalf of the owner of the cargo at issue on behalf of the owner of the cargo at issue on the 1st port facility and on behalf of the owner of the cargo at issue on behalf of the owner of the cargo at issue on the 7th port facility.

In light of the records and the provisions of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, the above fact-finding and decision of the court below is just, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles, incomplete deliberation, or misunderstanding of facts due to violation of the rules of evidence. All arguments are without merit.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all 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 Jeong Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)