logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.08.22 2015가단5294850
구상금
Text

1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) paid KRW 98,458,700 to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and its amount from January 1, 2015 to August 22, 2017.

Reasons

The principal lawsuit and counterclaim shall be judged together.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Since 10 years ago, the Plaintiff had entered into a land transport contract in which the imported goods of Sampulp were to be transported between Sampulp Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Tulp”) and Sampulp Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Tulp”) and the Busan port in which the imported goods of Samptep arrive arrive, and had been engaged in transportation duties by entering into a transportation contract to transport the imported goods from the Litep and Tulp paper shop located in the ceiling (hereinafter “cargo container”). However, due to the shortage of storage in Tulp paper to store paper-imported goods, the Plaintiff had to deliver the goods to Sampulp when there was an extra space in the store of Sampulp.

B. On July 18, 2014, when the Plaintiff entered into a cargo transport contract with Sampulp, etc. on or around July 18, 2014, the Plaintiff: (a) requested the Defendant, who has its own storage facilities, to resume the land transport of the container; (b) upon the Plaintiff’s delegation, the Defendant received Sampulp’s cargo containers from the Busan port and stored them in the Defendant’s own storage facilities for a certain period; (c) transported and imported cargo to the Jeju factory; and (d) performed the work of returning empty containers.

(hereinafter “instant transport contract”). C.

On the other hand, when transporting a cargo container, the carrier agrees to lease the container from the ship owner who is the container owner and use the container during the transport period. In this case, if the carrier delays the return of the container due to the excess of the period of use agreed with the ship owner, the carrier bears the obligation to pay the refund fuel to the ship owner, and the Plaintiff enters into a contract for the use of the container with seven shipping companies, including the “MAE”, for the instant transport.

arrow