The case recognizing a substitute issuance of a bill of lading

The case affirming the judgment of the court below which acknowledged an agent who signed a bill of lading and delivered it to the consignor as a carrier under the provisions of Article 813 of the Commercial Act, on the grounds that the carrier cannot be deemed to have issued the bill of lading only by the carrier itself in issuing and delivering it to the consignor, and that it may also be issued through his agent, and the judgment of the court below is not accepted as a carrier under the

Articles 48 and 813 of the Commercial Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jong-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellee)

Daedae Co., Ltd. (Attorney Park Jung-hee et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Maritime Aviation Corporation

Seoul Private District Court Decision 93Na8459 delivered on December 16, 1994

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

The Plaintiff’s attorney’s ground of appeal is examined.

1. On the first ground for appeal

In the case of acting as an agent for commercial activities, it is effective for the principal (Article 48 of the Commercial Act). The court below acknowledged that the defendant signed the bill of this case on behalf of the non-party Es. Es. (hereinafter referred to as the "non-party Es.) without stating that the defendant will issue the bill of this case on behalf of the non-party Es. (hereinafter referred to as the "non-party Es.), but even if the defendant decided that the bill of this case was issued on behalf of the non-party company, such circumstance alone does not constitute an error of law as

2. On the second ground for appeal

Examining the evidence prepared by the court below in comparison with the records, the court below accepted the measures that the court below recognized that the defendant issued the bill of lading of this case on behalf of the same company as the domestic agent of the non-party company rather than the original carrier or the successive carrier, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence such as the theory of lawsuit, and there is no ground for

3. On the third ground for appeal

In issuing and delivering a bill of lading to the shipper, etc. under Article 813 of the Commercial Act, it cannot be deemed that only the carrier itself, such as the theory of lawsuit, can be issued through its agent. Thus, even if the court below did not recognize the defendant, who was the actor of the contract of this case, signed the bill of this case and delivered it to the plaintiff, as the carrier under the contract of this case, and recognized the non-party company as the carrier, it shall not be deemed that there was an error of law that interpretation contrary to the purport of the provision of the above law, such as the theory of lawsuit

4. 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 Shin Sung-sung (Presiding Justice)