[1] Whether a tort by intention or gross negligence is established where a carrier, etc. infringes on the right of a holder of a bill of lading by delivering the cargo to a person who is not a legitimate holder of a bill of lading without exchanging it with a bill of lading (affirmative)

[2] Where a final charterer entered into a transportation contract with a consignee under a successive time charter, however, there is an agreement between the shipowner and the first charterer that “if the cargo is delivered without presenting a bill of lading, the charterer shall be exempted from the shipowner’s liability.” If the shipowner instructs the captain to deliver the cargo without redeeming the bill of lading with the bill of lading, whether tort liability against the legitimate holder of the vessel bill of lading is established (affirmative)

[3] In calculating the amount of damages against the legitimate holder of a prior bill of lading that delivered the cargo without redemption with the bill of lading, whether the issuing bank, the legitimate holder of the bill of lading, did not receive separate security or import deposit in relation to the payment on the letter of credit, and whether the delivery of shipping documents and did not identify the location of the cargo after receiving the shipping documents, can be deemed as the ground for offsetting the amount

[1] The delivery of the cargo by a maritime carrier or shipping agent to a person who is not a bill of lading holder without exchange with the bill of lading is based on the premise of damages arising therefrom. As a result, if the delivery of the cargo to a person who is not a bill of lading holder was prohibited, thereby infringing on his/her rights, it constitutes a tort by intention or gross negligence.

[2] Even if a time charter party consists in successive order and the last charterer concludes a transport contract, there is an agreement between the shipowner and the first charterer that "no cargo shall be delivered without presentation of the original bill of lading, and if the charter party violates this, the charterer shall be relieved of the shipowner's liability." If the shipowner instructs the master to deliver the cargo without exchange of the bill of lading with the bill of lading through the ship agency, so long as the cargo has been lost by the master to deliver the cargo to a person other than the holder of the bill of lading, the shipowner shall be held liable for damages due to the tort committed by the legitimate holder of the bill of lading, regardless of whether the issuer of the bill of lading is a time charterer, and who is either the owner of the bill of lading or the charterer under the transport contract, as long as the cargo has been lost by the master to deliver the cargo to a person other than the holder of the bill of lading. In addition, the delivery order of

[3] In a successive time charter, where an issuing bank, which is a lawful holder of a bill of lading, suffers damage due to delivery of cargo without redemption of the bill of lading in accordance with the direction of delivery, even if the issuing bank did not receive a separate security or did not collect the import deposit in relation to payment of the letter of credit, it cannot be deemed as a cause of the occurrence or expansion of damage. Further, the fact that the issuing bank received the shipping documents and did not identify the whereabouts of the cargo is difficult to view that it erred by neglecting its duty of care in light of social norms or the principle of

[1] Article 750 of the Civil Act, Articles 129 and 820 of the Commercial Act / [2] Article 750 of the Civil Act, Articles 129, 806, and 820 of the Commercial Act / [3] Articles 396 and 763 of the Civil Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 87Meu1791 delivered on March 14, 1989 (Gong1989, 593), Supreme Court Decision 91Da14123 delivered on December 10, 1991 (Gong1992, 475), Supreme Court Decision 91Da1494 delivered on January 21, 1992 (Gong192, 878), Supreme Court Decision 91Da4249 delivered on February 14, 1992 (Gong192, 107), Supreme Court Decision 91Da3026 delivered on February 25, 1992 (Gong192, 1136)

Korea Exchange Bank (Attorneys Jeong Byung-hee et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Eslocks Eslves (Law Firm Kim Shin & World Oil, Attorneys Trak-ho et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 96Na26885 delivered on February 6, 1998

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

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appeal filed after the lapse of the period).

1. On the first and second grounds for appeal

원심판결 이유에 의하면, 원심은, 피고는 이 사건 선박을 소유하는 해상운송업자로서 소외 스타쉬핑 에이 에스(Star Shipping A/S, 이하 '스타쉬핑'이라 한다)와 이 사건 선박에 대한 정기용선계약을 체결하고, 이에 터잡아 스타쉬핑은 소외 링크베스트 리미티드(Linkvest Limited, 이하 '링크베스트'라 한다)에, 링크베스트는 소외 칵스 리미티드 사이프러스(Calx Ltd. Cyprus, 이하 '칵스'라 한다)에 순차 정기용선계약을 체결하여 칵스가 이 사건 선박의 정기용선자로서 1994. 4. 25. 소외 동해철강 주식회사(이하 '동해철강'이라 한다)와 사이에 그 판시 철근을 수출하는 계약을 체결하고 이 사건 선박에 이를 선적한 후 이 사건 선박의 정기용선자로서 같은 해 6. 6. 이 사건 화물에 관한 선하증권을 발행하고, 한편 원고는 동해철강의 발행의뢰에 따라 같은 해 7. 15. 칵스를 수익자로 한 취소불능 신용장을 발행한 다음, 같은 달 21. 칵스의 거래은행인 인도수에즈은행으로부터 선하증권 등 이 사건 화물에 대한 선적서류를 송부받고 같은 달 28. 그 은행에 신용장 대금을 지급한 사실, 다른 한편 이 사건 화물이 포항항으로 운송중이던 같은 해 6. 22. 칵스는 링크베스트에, 링크베스트는 스타쉬핑에, 스타쉬핑은 피고에게 순차로 이 사건 화물을 선하증권과 상환함이 없이 동해철강에 인도하여 줄 것을 요청하면서 그로 인하여 상대방에게 발생하는 손해를 모두 배상하여 주겠다는 내용의 각서를 제공하고, 동해철강 역시 같은 해 7. 15. 피고에게 동일한 내용의 각서를 제공하여, 피고가 같은 달 19. 국내의 선박대리점인 소외 한국해운 주식회사를 통하여 이 사건 선박의 선장에게 "스타쉬핑으로부터 면책각서를 받았으니 선하증권과 상환함이 없이 화물을 동해철강에 인도하라."고 지시하여 이에 따라 선장이 같은 달 20.부터 22.까지 사이에 화물을 인도하여 주었고, 동해철강이 위와 같이 인도받은 화물을 타소장치장에 보관하다가 같은 달 26.경 이를 임의로 처분해 버린 사실, 피고와 스타쉬핑 사이의 용선계약에 "용선자측이 요구하는 경우 선장은 용선자와 그 대리점이, 항해사가 발급한 화물인수증의 내용대로 용선자측이 사용하는 양식으로 선하증권을 선주 또는 선장 명의로 발급할 권리를 갖게 한다. 용선자측은 선장이나 용선자와 그 대리점이 위와 같이 선하증권을 발급한 결과 또는 화물인수증과 선하증권에 기재된 내역이 서로 어긋난 데 대하여 선주가 책임을 지거나 피해를 입지 않게 한다."(제49조) 및 "선하증권의 원본을 제시하지 아니하면 화물을 선박에서 하역해서는 아니 된다. 이를 위반하는 경우에는 용선자는 선주가 가입한 P&I; Club의 약관 내용 또는 선주가 수락할 수 있는 수하인측의 면책조치에 따라 선주를 면책하여야 한다."(제57조)는 내용이 포함되어 있는 사실을 인정한 다음, 피고는 이 사건 선박의 선주로서 그 선장에게 위와 같은 지시를 함으로써 선하증권의 소지인인 원고가 화물을 인도받을 수 없게 하였으므로, 원고의 선하증권상 권리를 침해한 불법행위자로서 원고가 입은 손해를 배상할 의무가 있다고 판단하였다.

As a result, the delivery of cargo to a person who is not a holder of a bill of lading without redeeming it with a bill of lading is premised on the compensation for damage caused thereby. If the right of the carrier was infringed on by intention or gross negligence as a result, it shall not be delivered to the holder of the bill of lading, then tort shall be constituted (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 91Da4249, Feb. 14, 1992; 91Da14123, Dec. 10, 1991; 87Meu1791, Mar. 14, 1989). Even if a time charter party has entered into a contract of carriage, the last charterer shall not deliver the cargo without presenting the original bill of lading, and if it has been violated, the charterer shall be relieved of the cargo, regardless of whether the carrier and the person who was not a holder of the bill of lading should be bound to deliver the cargo through the bill of lading bill of lading, and so long as the charterer instructed the carrier and the person who was not a holder of the bill of lading.

In light of the records and these legal principles, we affirm the fact-finding and judgment of the court below as just, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of facts, or misunderstanding of legal principles as to illegal acts due to charter party and guarantee. The ground of appeal pointing this out is not acceptable.

2. On the third ground for appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the defendant's assertion of comparative negligence on the ground that it is difficult to view that the plaintiff was negligent in neglecting his duty of care in light of social norms or the principle of good faith merely because the plaintiff did not receive separate security in relation to the payment of the letter of credit amount, or did not collect the import deposit, even though it did not cause damage or expansion. The plaintiff did not know the whereabouts of the cargo despite having received shipping documents as the issuing bank. In light of the records, the court below's fact-finding and judgment are just and acceptable, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles as to comparative negligence, omission of judgment, and incomplete hearing. The ground of appeal on this point cannot be accepted.

3. 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 Lee In-hee (Presiding Justice)