A. Whether the carrier, etc. can recognize intentional or gross negligence with respect to the fact that the legitimate holder’s right of a bill of lading may be infringed due to the commercial customs of “a guarantee” and “a guarantee limit” (affirmative)

B. Purport of Articles 820 and 129 of the Commercial Act

C. Burden of risk where the legitimate holder of a bill of lading infringes on the rights of the legitimate holder of the bill of lading due to “Do”

D. Whether the right to claim for tort damages is also transferred to the holder of a bill of lading as a result of the transfer of a bill of lading by being incorporated into a bill of lading (affirmative)

E. The meaning of negligence in offsetting negligence

(f) The case affirming the court below's decision that held that the victim's negligence of neglecting his duty of care as the issuing bank of the letter of credit and the cargo shipping guarantee as 30 percent in liability for the ship's agent's liability for the damage of the shipping agent who delivered the cargo

A. The so-called "guarantee limit" in the form of delivering the cargo to an end-user, who is a notification office in return for the cargo taking guarantee and redemption in the name of the bank issuing the bill of lading, is generally performed in the international shipping industry and is not directly aimed at exempting the legitimate holder of the bill of lading from the liability of the carrier or shipping agent, but rather under the premise of compensating the damages to the legitimate holder of the bill of lading due to "guarantee limit". Thus, if the carrier or shipping agent delivers the cargo to a person who is not the true holder of the bill of lading, the carrier or shipping agent can be deemed to have been aware of the infringement of the rights of the bill of lading holder if it is delivered the cargo to the person who is not the true holder of the bill of lading, and if it is not aware of the occurrence of the result, it can be deemed that the carrier or shipping agent was gross negligence of the carrier or shipping agent's duty of care.

B. The provisions of Articles 820 and 129 of the Commercial Act provide that the carrier has the obligation to refuse a request for delivery of the cargo without a presentation of a bill of lading, along with the right to refuse a request for delivery of the cargo without a presentation of a bill of lading.

C. Even if the so-called “Do” which delivers the cargo without redeeming it with the bill of lading under an agreement that the marine carrier or shipping agency shall receive the return of the cargo from the person claiming the delivery of the cargo, is naturally premised on the fact that it is conducted entirely under the risk burden of the carrier or shipping agency, if the right of the legitimate holder of the bill of lading is infringed due to the “Do”, it shall be liable for the damages arising therefrom.

D. In the event of the loss of cargo due to “guarantee”, etc., not only the right to claim damages due to nonperformance but also the right to claim damages due to tort is incorporated into a bill of lading and transferred to a bill of lading holder.

E. The tortfeasor’s negligence in a tort is the strong negligence that is the breach of duty, and the negligence in offsetting the victim’s negligence, unlike the former, shall be deemed to refer to the weak care required for the principle of good faith and common life, as well as for the principle of good faith, unlike the former.

(f) The case affirming the court below's decision that the victim neglected his duty of care as the issuing bank for the issuance of the letter of credit and the cargo shipping guarantee as 30 percent in the case of the ship's agent's liability for damages to the bill of lading holder which delivered the cargo to the end user by the forged cargo shipping ledger without redeeming the bill of lading

(b)(f)Article 750 of the Civil Code and Article 820 (Article 129) of the Commercial Code; (f) Article 763 (Article 396) of the Civil Code;

A. D. Supreme Court Decision 90Meu8098 delivered on April 26, 1991 (Gong1991, 1484). Supreme Court Decision 87Meu1791 delivered on March 14, 1989 (Gong1989, 593). Supreme Court Decision 83Meu64 delivered on December 27, 1983 (Gong1984, 259).

[Defendant-Appellee] Korea Industrial Bank of Korea

Shin Young Shipping Co., Ltd., Counsel for the defendant-appellant and one other

Seoul High Court Decision 90Na7274 delivered on March 27, 1991

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

1. We examine the Defendant’s grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the non-party company's act of using the bill of lading No. 1 was justified on August 20, 198, and that the non-party company's right to receive delivery of the cargo was no more than 100 tons of the bill of lading No. 9, and that the non-party company's right to receive delivery of the cargo was no more than 10 tons of the bill of lading No. 9, and that it was no more than 10 tons of the bill of lading No. 9, and that it was no more than 10 tons of the bill of lading No. 9 and no more than 200 tons of the bill of lading No. 9 and no more than 10 tons of the bill of lading No.

2. We examine the Defendant’s ground of appeal No. 3

In the event cargo has been lost due to the degree of guarantee, the right to claim damages due to default as well as the right to claim damages due to tort is also transferred to the bill of lading holder as a result of the transfer of the bill of lading (see Supreme Court Decision 90Meu8098 delivered on April 26, 191). Thus, the judgment below that the holder of a bill of lading can exercise the right to claim damages due to the bill of lading holder is just and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the real right effect

3. We examine the Defendant’s ground of appeal No. 4

The court below held that although the plaintiff allowed the effective date of the letter of credit to a maximum of 182 days from the final date of shipment and inserted a clause allowing the Swelth bill of lading into the terms of the letter of credit, the above mobilization unemployment company entered into a transfer security agreement with the above mobilization unemployment company with respect to the cargo, and the above mobilization unemployment company's prior delivery of the documents necessary for customs clearance of the goods of this case, such as commercial invoice, from the above Amamaar, it cannot be deemed that the plaintiff or the above Amaarar cannot be deemed to have consented to the delivery of the goods of this case to the carrier or the transportation agency of this case without redemption of the bill of lading. The above decision of the court below is justified, as pointed out in the grounds for appeal, there were no errors in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence, misapprehending the legal principles as to the ownership relationship with the cargo, or misunderstanding the legal principles as to the probative value of the disposal document, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

4. We examine the Plaintiff’s grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found that the plaintiff, based on macroficial evidence, neglected the time limit for delivery of cargo without a bill of lading by setting the effective date of the letter of credit in the long-term transaction of delivery of the goods and settlement of funds, and neglected the payment of the imported bill of credit in addition to the conditions for acceptance of the Stegy Bill of Lading bill of lading, and neglected the management of the bill of lading bill of lading bill of delivery without a bill of lading. The court below determined that the plaintiff neglected the duty of care as the issuing bank of the letter of credit and the cargo shipping guarantee, which could be used as substitute for the bill of lading, and that the plaintiff neglected the duty of care as the issuing bank of the bill of credit and the cargo shipping guarantee. In light of the records, the court below's finding of facts and determination is just and it did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to comparative negligence or comparative negligence, as it did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to comparative negligence or comparative negligence, as it did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to comparative negligence or comparative negligence.

The appeal by the plaintiff and the defendant is without merit, and all of the appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against each party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)