(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.01.16 2014가단72720

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.01.16 2014가단72720

중재판정취소

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On December 18, 2012, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a charter contract with the following terms (hereinafter “instant contract”).

(1) The owner of a ship: The freight of the Plaintiff’s (2): the Plaintiff’s (3) ship: the freight of the diesel ship’s “NScar” or its substitute ship’s (4): about 1,933 Cbbbic (5): the loading port/port of the machinery: Msan, Korea/marketing or trial end: (6) the time limit for arrival of the ship’s port of loading: the maritime freight of December 27, 2012 from 31 to 31.7: US dollars per ton, the conditions that the ship’s loading and unloading are made: freight of 38 U.S. dollars per ton; and (8) the freight of the ship should be deposited into the account designated by the owner within 3 banking days after the issuance of the bill of lading.

(9) If a dispute arises, the arbitration shall be governed by the English law in Seoul.

(10) Other detailed provisions shall be governed by GENCON C/P 94.

B. The plaintiff requested the cancellation of the contract of this case and did not provide the defendant with the cargo. The defendant demanded USD 57,102 within the agreed freight. The plaintiff rejected this request, and the defendant filed an application for arbitration with the Korea Commercial Arbitration Board against the plaintiff.

C. In the above arbitral proceedings, the Defendant sought reimbursement of USD 57,102 and damages for delay pursuant to the contract of this case. Accordingly, the Plaintiff agreed to refer the dispute related to the contract of this case to a voluntary arbitration, which is unlawful. On the other hand, the application for arbitration filed against the Plaintiff was not allowed to make a notification of cancellation inevitably due to the cancellation of the contract of this case, but did not have been allowed to make a notification of cancellation inevitably due to the cancellation of the contract of this case, but it was argued to the purport that the application for arbitration filed against the Plaintiff was unjust.

The KCAB No. 1311-0233, March 25, 2014, in the instant case.

유사 판례

-대법원 2022. 9. 7.자 2020마5970 결정

-대법원 1999. 4. 23. 선고 98다13211 판결

-서울남부지방법원 2017.02.09 2016가단13431

-서울중앙지방법원 2016. 12. 13. 선고 2015가합564421 제10민사부 판결

-인천지방법원 2017. 10. 17.자 2015라838 결정