In the event that a warehouse operator delivers to a person who is not a legitimate right holder the goods bailed, whether it constitutes a loss under Article 166 of the Commercial Act and the warehouse operator's malicious burden of proof.

Even in cases where a warehouseman is unable to receive the return of the deposited goods by delivering the deposited goods to a person who is not a legitimate right holder, and thus the lawful right holder is unable to receive the return thereof, the liability of the warehouseman is extinguished by prescription for one year after the loss under Article 166 of the Commercial Act, but in such cases, he shall not be exempted from the liability unless he proves that the warehouseman or his employee was not malicious.

Article 166 of the Commercial Act

[Judgment of the court below]

Seoul Freeboard Co., Ltd., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 77Na1400 decided May 30, 1978

The original judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal by the plaintiff's attorney are examined.

According to the judgment of the court below, on May 1974, 1974, the non-party 1, an employee of the non-party 1, who was the non-party 5, had the non-party 1, an employee of the non-party 1, kept freezing 250 boxes (five tons per box, five tons in total) under the name of the company. On June 7, 1974, the non-party 2, an employee of the non-party 1, who was the non-party 3 and the plaintiff, supplied 30 tons of monthly adoption and 40 tons to the non-party 1, who was the non-party 4 and the non-party 1, who was the non-party 5, the non-party 1, who was the non-party 9, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 7, the defendant's duty to request the plaintiff 1, the non-party 4 and the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the defendant 1, who was ordered.

Article 166 of the Commercial Act provides that since the above goods deposited are delivered to a person who is not a legitimate right holder, it is reasonable to view that the above goods fall under the case where the legitimate right holder did not receive such return. In this case, the bad faith refers to the case where the person delivered the goods delivered, knowing that the goods bailed were not a legitimate right holder. In this case, the court below's instructions that the defendant had a duty to remove the two goods deposited in this case by changing the name of the person who deposited the goods deposited in this case in the name of the plaintiff, and that the change of the name was requested by the plaintiff 1 and the above non-party 4, who is the warehouse staff of the defendant company, and the defendant did not release the goods deposited in this case to the non-party 3 without being delivered to the plaintiff and the non-party 4, who is the above non-party 4, because it is not clear that the above goods deposited in the name of the non-party 1 and the non-party 4, who is the witness of the above non-party 4 (the non-party).

Therefore, under Articles 400 and 406(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, the case shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to Seoul High Court Law. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Min Jae-chul (Presiding Justice)