Where an import agent concludes a transport contract on behalf of an end user, whether or not the obligation to pay the freight exists

If an import agent concludes a marine transportation contract on behalf of the actual user of the import business, and enters into a bill of lading issued accordingly as a consignee, he/she has the obligation to pay the freight according to the marine transportation contract regardless of the actual user's obligation to pay the freight.

Article 801 of the Commercial Act

Korea Shipping Corporation

Federation

Seoul Civil History District Court (82 Gohap3849)

(1) Of the part against the plaintiff in the original judgment, the next part ordering payment shall be revoked.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 15,140,819 won with an annual interest rate of 6% from June 23, 1982 to the date of full payment.

(2) The plaintiff's remaining appeal is dismissed.

(3) All the costs of the first and second trials shall be borne by the defendant.

(4) A provisional execution may be effected on the portion of the money under Paragraph (1).

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 15,140,819 and the amount at the rate of 25 percent per annum from the next day of service to the day of full payment.

All the costs of lawsuit of the first and second instances shall be borne by the defendant and a declaration of provisional execution.

In light of the above facts, Gap's 1, 2, 1, 2 (No. 40 No. 2), Eul evidence No. 4-1, 2 (No. 40), Eul evidence No. 5-1, 2 (No. 5-2), and Eul evidence No. 1 and 2 (No. 9-1, No. 4) which were issued by the plaintiff on behalf of the defendant 1-4, and the defendant 1-6-1, No. 9-1, No. 3-4, each of the above facts that the defendant 1-4 and the defendant 1-4 were not the defendant 4-4, and the defendant 1-1, No. 9-1, No. 94, No. 1-2, and the defendant 1-4, each of the above facts that the defendant 4-4 and the defendant 1-2 were the defendant 4-4, each of which were the defendant 1-4, and the defendant 1-4, each of the above facts.

According to the above facts, the actual users of the above cargo will be called the Non-Party Diplomatic Co., Ltd., but the defendant is obligated to pay the freight according to the above marine transportation contract, regardless of the payment obligation of the above users, as long as the bill of lading issued by the above non-party D Co., Ltd. under the marine transportation contract of this case is written as a signator.

In the above maritime transport contract, the plaintiff knew that the defendant was merely an actual user and a mere nominal user, and the above non-party company had been claiming the above non-party company for the cargo charges directly every time since the non-party company received notification from the defendant company under the name of the defendant. Thus, with respect to the special circumstances that the above non-party company excluded the defendant from the defendant's liability for the payment of the cargo charges of this case between the plaintiff and the defendant and the above non-party company decided to pay the cargo charges of this case directly, the above non-party company did not have any other evidence to recognize it in addition to the portion of the testimony of the court below's witness Kim-do and the party witness stand-off, and even if the above non-party company paid the cargo charges of this case, such transaction practices are merely a part for the convenience of the price resolution in order to avoid complexity in the process of claiming the freight charges to the above non-party company. Therefore, the above argument by the defendant is without merit.

On the wind of the plaintiff's arrival of the shipping documents, etc., the plaintiff was placed in the storage of the cargo of this case at the request of the above non-party company without receiving the bill of lading and freight, and in this case, the plaintiff was required to exercise the right of retention but did not exercise it. Thus, even if the defendant is obligated to pay the freight, the above claim for freight should be terminated due to the plaintiff's exercise of the right of retention, and the plaintiff should not deliver the cargo of this case without receiving the above bill of retention or freight, and even if it was gross negligence, the defendant's obligation should be exempted. However, the above exercise of the right of retention does not necessarily have the duty to exercise it as the plaintiff's right. In addition, there was a case where the cargo of this case arrived first before the arrival of the shipping documents through operation due to rapid increase of shipping at the port of Busan, and delivery of the cargo to the plaintiff without receiving the bill of lading and freight of this case without receiving the freight of this case without receiving the freight of this case from the plaintiff.

Therefore, the defendant is liable to pay damages for delay at the rate of 6% per annum under the Commercial Act from June 23, 1982 to the date of full payment, which is obvious in the record that the above sum of the freight 15,140,819 won and the above sum of the freight 15,819 won were sought against the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff is liable to pay damages for delay at the rate of 6% per annum under the Commercial Act from June 23, 1982 to the date of full payment (it is reasonable that the plaintiff claimed damages for delay at the rate of 25% per annum, but the defendant in this case is reasonable to dispute). The plaintiff's claim in this case is reasonable within the above recognition scope, and the remaining claims are without merit. Since the original judgment differs from this part, the part of the above cited money in the original judgment is dismissed, and the remaining appeal of the plaintiff is dismissed, and with respect to the payment of litigation costs and the issuance of provisional execution, it is so decided as per Disposition by the Civil Procedure Act.

Judges Lee Jae-won (Presiding Judge)