[1] Requirements for the establishment of a joint tort and whether aiding and abetting by negligence in a joint tort is possible (affirmative)

[2] In a case where a domestic transporter issued a cargo delivery order to an importer without having received a bill of lading and an importer entered into a contract for the transfer of security with a third party using such delivery order, the case holding that the act of issuing a cargo delivery order by the said domestic transporter constitutes a joint tort as an act of conspiracy or aiding and abetting the importer's tort, and a proximate causal relation is also acknowledged between the damages suffered by the third party by loss of the right to transfer security

[1] Article 760 of the Civil Act / [2] Article 760 of the Civil Act, Articles 129 and 861 of the Commercial Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 99Da41749 delivered on April 11, 200 (Gong2000Sang, 1172) Supreme Court Decision 2002Da35850 Delivered on January 10, 2003 (Gong2003Sang, 616) Supreme Court Decision 2009Da1313 Delivered on April 23, 2009 (Gong2009Sang, 755)

The Saemaul Bank of Korea (Law Firm Barun, Attorneys Seo Ho-ho et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Ethiopier Shipping Co., Ltd. and one other (Law Firm Sejong Chang, Attorneys Kim Hyun-tae et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Busan High Court Decision 2009Na5384 decided September 4, 2009

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Busan High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

원심판결 이유에 의하면, 원심은 제1심판결을 인용하여, 소외 망인(이하 ‘망인’이라 한다)은 수산물수입업체인 주식회사 골든수산(이하 ‘골든수산’이라 한다) 외에 개인명의로 예스수산을 운영해 온 사실, 골든수산 및 예스수산은 중국의 닝데 용리우 라지 옐로우 크로커(이하 ‘닝데 용리우’라 한다), 얀타이 워터스타 푸드스터프(이하 ‘얀타이 워터스타’라 한다)로부터 냉동갈치와 냉동조기를 수입하면서 대금결제는 신용장에 의하기로 하는 내용의 수입계약을 체결하였고, 수산물을 수입하기 위하여 골든수산은 수산업협동조합중앙회(이하 ‘수협’이라고 한다)에, 예스수산은 주식회사 부산은행(이하 ‘부산은행’이라 한다)에 각각 신용장을 개설한 사실, 닝데 용리우 및 얀타이 워터스타는 골든수산 및 예스수산이 수입하기로 한 수산물의 운송을 운송주선인인 에이지아이 로지스틱(이하 ‘AGI’라 한다)에 의뢰하였고, AGI는 실제 운송인에게 의뢰하여 수산물을 중국의 센젠항, 칭타오항 등에서 대한민국 부산항까지 운송하기로 하는 해상운송계약을 체결하면서, ① 골든수산이 수입하기로 한 수산물에 관하여는 송하인을 닝데 용리우 또는 얀타이 워터스타, 수하인을 수협의 지시인, 통지처를 골든수산, 양하항을 부산항으로 한 하우스 선하증권(HOUSE B/L)을, ② 예스수산이 수입하기로 한 수산물에 관하여는 송하인을 닝데 용리우 또는 얀타이 워터스타, 수하인을 부산은행의 지시인, 통지처를 예스수산 또는 골든수산, 양하항을 부산항으로 한 하우스 선하증권(HOUSE B/L)을 각 발행한 사실, 수산물을 실제 운송한 주식회사 오오씨엘코리아(이하 ‘OOCL’이라 한다)는 AGI에 수하인을 AGI의 국내 운송취급인인 피고 에이티이유니버살해운항공 주식회사(이하 ‘피고 에이티이유니버살해운항공’이라 한다)로 하여 하우스 선하증권에 대응하는 마스터 선하증권(MASTER B/L)을 발행한 사실, 창고업자인 정현아이스텍 주식회사(이하 ‘정현아이스텍’이라 한다)는 망인으로부터 골든수산 및 예스수산이 수입한 수산물의 입고의뢰를 받고, 2005. 3. 30.부터 2005. 6. 16.까지 사이에 망인이 지시하는 바에 따라 피고 에이티이유니버살해운항공에 수입화물배정요청서를 보내 수산물을 냉동창고에 입고한 사실, 그런데 골든수산 및 예스수산은 위와 같이 수입한 수산물의 수입대금을 결제하지 않았고, 이에 수협과 부산은행이 골든수산 및 예스수산을 대신하여 중국의 신용장매입은행에 수입대금을 지급하고 하우스 선하증권을 넘겨받아 소지하게 된 사실, 망인은 피고 에이티이유니버살해운항공의 부산지사장인 피고 2에게 선하증권을 교부하지 아니한 채 수산물에 대한 화물인도지시서(D/O)를 모사전송(FAX)의 방식으로 송부해 줄 것을 부탁하였고, 이에 피고 2는 2005. 4. 4.경부터 2005. 6. 21.까지 사이에 수 회에 걸쳐 선하증권을 회수하지 않은 상태에서 수산물에 대한 화물인도지시서를 골든수산과 예스수산에 모사전송(FAX) 방식으로 송부한 사실, 정현아이스텍은 골든수산 및 예스수산으로부터 위와 같은 화물인도지시서를 제시받고 망인에게 하주(하주) 이름을 골든수산 또는 예스수산으로 한 물품보관증을 발급하였고, 골든수산 및 망인은 2005. 4. 11.부터 2005. 5. 20.까지 사이에 원고로부터 8차례에 걸쳐 합계 12억 6,600만 원을 대출받으면서 원고에게 물품보관증을 교부하고 점유개정의 방법으로 수산물을 목적물로 한 양도담보계약을 체결한 사실, 부산은행 및 수협은 각각 정현아이스텍을 상대로 선하증권에 기하여 수산물의 인도를 구하는 소송을 제기하였고, 그 소송 계속 중 원고가 정현아이스텍을 위하여 보조참가를 하였는데, 그 소송 결과 양도담보권을 선의취득하였다는 원고의 항변이 배척되어 부산은행 및 수협의 청구가 인용됨으로써 원고가 수산물에 대한 양도담보권을 상실한 사실을 인정하였다.

Furthermore, the court below reasoned that "the defendant 2, the president of the Busan District Court of the Busan District of the Busan District of the Nitterasia, in collusion with the deceased and issued a cargo delivery order without recovering the bill of lading, and he issued a cargo delivery certificate to the defendant AB or the deceased in accordance with the order of the delivery of the cargo by Nitterasia Maritime Aviation. The plaintiff ordered the plaintiff to provide fishery products as a security deposit and loan to AB and the deceased regardless of whether it had been provided as a security deposit, and caused damages equivalent to the proceeds from the disposal of fishery products as a result of the lawsuit with the Busan Bank and the Suhyup Bank, and this was based on the above unlawful act by the defendant 2." Since the plaintiff's assertion that "the consignee who sent the cargo delivery order by the defendant 2 and his employer was not entitled to compensate for the damages suffered by the plaintiff, and that the plaintiff could not be viewed as having delivered the cargo delivery order to the consignee or the consignee's agent for the delivery of the cargo, and that the plaintiff could not be viewed as having any legitimate reason for the plaintiff's delivery order or delivery of the cargo.

However, this decision of the court below cannot be accepted for the following reasons.

In the case of a joint tort under Article 760 of the Civil Act where several persons jointly inflict damage on another person, the joint tort is established without requiring not only a conspiracy among actors, but also a common perception. However, if the joint tort is objectively related to the joint tort, it is sufficient if the joint tort occurred, and the damage is caused by the related joint act. The joint tort refers to all direct and indirect acts that facilitate the tort, and aid and abetting the joint tort refers to all acts that facilitate the tort, and it is possible to assist by negligence as an interpretation of the Civil Act that considers the negligence as a matter of principle for the purpose of compensating for the damage, unlike the Criminal Act. In this case, the content of the negligence refers to a violation of this duty on the premise that there is a duty of care not to assist the tort (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Da1313, Apr. 23, 2009, etc.).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below and the records, the international transportation business entity or transportation broker (AGI in this case) generally issued a bill of lading to the deceased or the actual carrier (OCL in this case) based on the deceased's order to deliver the bill of lading to the deceased, and the bill of lading is transferred in the order of the issuing bank ? negotiating bank ? importer ? the bill of lading is transferred in the order of the international transportation business entity ? the domestic transportation business entity present the bill of lading to the actual carrier and present the order to deliver the cargo to the consignee at least that the delivery order was not issued to the local transportation business entity ? if it appears that the delivery order was not issued to the consignee or the delivery agent - if it appears that the delivery order was not issued to the consignee or the delivery agent - the delivery order was not issued to the consignee or the delivery agent - the delivery order was also issued to the consignee or the delivery agent - the delivery order was also issued to the consignee or the delivery agent - the delivery order was also presented to the Busan Fishery Products's legitimate delivery order.

Examining these circumstances in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, Defendant 2’s issuance of a cargo delivery order without obtaining a bill of lading is an unlawful act in itself. Furthermore, as if Alley Fisheries or the Deceased had the right to dispose of fishery products, it would be sufficient to deem it as a joint tort as an act of deceiving and providing the Plaintiff as concession security, and soliciting or aiding and abetting at least as to a tort borrowed from the Plaintiff, and it would be sufficient to deem it as a joint tort. This is also true even if Defendant 2 did not know even if it was used to provide fishery or the deceased’s fishery products as a security for transfer in order to obtain a loan from the Plaintiff.

On the other hand, if the plaintiff knew that the order for delivery of cargo was issued illegally, it is clear that the fishery product would have been provided as security for transfer, and that the fishery product would not have been provided as security for transfer to fishery or the deceased, and therefore, the plaintiff's loss should be deemed to have occurred simultaneously with the execution of the loan. Therefore, a proximate causal relation between the issuance of the order for delivery of illegal cargo by the defendant 2 and the plaintiff

Nevertheless, the court below rejected the Plaintiff’s claim on the grounds as indicated in its holding erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the establishment of joint tort and proximate causal relation, and thereby adversely affected the judgment.

Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Ahn Dai-hee (Presiding Justice)