In exporting goods, the issue of attribution of the right to import resulting from the export performance in an export agency contract under the credit of another exporter's name for the convenience of recovering the export World.

Unless otherwise agreed in an export agency contract, it is reasonable to view that the revenue accruing from the export performance or the export compensation, etc. is attributed to the exporter who actually exported.

Scar Young Maritime Corporation

Tae Dong-dong Fisheries Corporation

Seoul High Court Decision 64Na21 delivered on August 7, 1964, 200

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

The respondent's ground of appeal No. 1 is examined.

Since the export performance agreement between the exporter and the exporter should have been executed under the name of the exporter for the convenience of the collection of the goods, it is reasonable to view that the export performance of the exporter would be attributed to the exporter unless otherwise agreed in the export agency agreement between the exporter and the exporter and the other exporter and the exporter will be attributed to the other exporter. As such, the original judgment is reasonable in terms of social norms for the reasons of rejecting the offset of the respondent's right to import and the export compensation, and the respondent has participated in the commercial trade in which the exporter would be entitled to the compensation of the total amount of 7 months from the date of the request, and then the exporter will not be entitled to the compensation of 9 months from the date of the request to the exporter for the first five months from the date of the request to the exporter for the first six months from the date of the request to the exporter for the second six months from the date of the request to the exporter for the second six months from the date of the request to the exporter for the second six months from the date of the request to the exporter for the second six months from the date of the request.

The grounds of appeal No. 2 are examined.

The contents of the testimony of the motive for the witness and the written evidence No. 1 may be written on the basis of the original judgment that the court below did not adopt, and the court below's decision is dependent on the judgment of the court of first instance and the court below's decision that did not adopt the testimony of the witness No. 4 and the first instance court's decision, and it cannot be found that the court below's decision was unlawful even if examining the record. There is no reason for this argument.

Accordingly, as explained in the judgment on the first ground for appeal, the original judgment shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the Seoul High Court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Mag-kim Kim-bun and Magman