Dongbu Fire and Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. and six others (Law Firm Cheonghae, Attorneys Choi Do-won, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

District Court Decision 201Na1448 delivered on September 1, 201

E. T. C. C. C. C. Z. L. H.P. (Law Firm Sejong, Attorney Lee Professor-hwan, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

April 10, 2014

Busan District Court Decision 2009Da17649 Decided November 21, 2012

1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

A. The defendant:

1) USD 592,747.68 in U.S. dollars to the Plaintiff East Fire Insurance Co., Ltd.;

2) USD 148,186.92 in U.S. dollars to Plaintiff Barn Loss Insurance Co., Ltd.

3) USD 185,233.65 U.S. dollars for Plaintiff Mtsts Fire Marine Insurance Co., Ltd.

4) USD 555,700.95 in US dollars to Plaintiff Hyundai Marine Fire Insurance Co., Ltd.;

5) USD 111,140.19 U.S. dollars for the Plaintiff ELA non-life insurance company;

6) USD 92,616.825 in U.S. dollars to the Plaintiff Hansung non-life insurance company;

7) USD 166,710.285 in US dollars to Plaintiff Samsung Fire Insurance Co., Ltd.

In addition, 5% interest per annum from October 31, 2008 to May 22, 2014 on each of the above amounts and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

B. All remaining claims of the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. 3/10 of the total litigation costs is assessed against the Defendant, and the remainder is assessed against the Plaintiffs, respectively.

3. Paragraph 1(a) of this Article may be provisionally executed.

1. Purport of claim

피고는, 원고 동부화재해상보험 주식회사에게 37,041,016원과 미합중국 통화 1,948,201달러 및 위 돈 중 37,041,016원에 대하여는 2008. 11. 26.부터, 미합중국 통화 954,618달러에 대하여는 2008. 10. 31.부터, 미합중국 통화 993,583달러에 대하여는 2008. 11. 28.부터 이 판결 선고일까지는 연 5%, 그 다음날부터 다 갚는 날까지는 연 20%의 각 비율로 계산한 돈을, 원고 롯데손해보험 주식회사에게 9,260,254원과 미합중국 통화 487,050달러 및 위 돈 중 9,260,254원에 대하여는 2008. 11. 26.부터, 미합중국 통화 238,654달러에 대하여는 2008. 10. 31.부터, 미합중국 통화 248,396달러에 대하여는 2008. 11. 28.부터 이 판결 선고일까지는 연 5%, 그 다음날부터 다 갚는 날까지는 연 20%의 각 비율로 계산한 돈을, 원고 메리츠화재해상보험 주식회사에게 11,575,317원과 미합중국 통화 608,812달러 및 위 돈 중 11,575,317원에 대하여는 2008. 11. 26.부터, 미합중국 통화 298,317달러에 대하여는 2008. 10. 31.부터, 미합중국 통화 310,495달러에 대하여는 2008. 11. 28.부터 이 판결 선고일까지는 연 5%, 그 다음날부터 다 갚는 날까지는 연 20%의 각 비율로 계산한 돈을, 원고 현대해상화재보험 주식회사에게 34,725,952원과 미합중국 통화 1,826,438달러 및 위 돈 중 34,725,952원에 대하여는 2008. 11. 26.부터, 미합중국 통화 894,954달러에 대하여는 2008. 10. 31.부터, 나머지 미합중국 통화 931,484달러에 대하여는 2008. 11. 28.부터 이 판결 선고일까지는 연 5%, 그 다음날부터 다 갚는 날까지는 연 20%의 각 비율로 계산한 돈을, 원고 엘아이지손해보험 주식회사에게 6,945,190원과 미합중국 통화 365,287달러 및 위 돈 중 6,945,190원에 대하여는 2008. 11. 26.부터, 미합중국 통화 178,990달러에 대하여는 2008. 10. 31.부터, 미합중국 통화 186,297달러에 대하여는 2008. 11. 28.부터 이 판결 선고일까지는 연 5%, 그 다음날부터 다 갚는 날까지는 연 20%의 각 비율로 계산한 돈을, 원고 한화손해보험 주식회사에게 5,787,658원과 미합중국 통화 304,406달러 및 위 돈 중 5,787,658원에 대하여는 2008. 11. 26.부터, 미합중국 통화 149,158달러에 대하여는 2008. 10. 31.부터, 미합중국 통화 155,248달러에 대하여는 2008. 11. 28.부터 이 판결 선고일까지는 연 5%, 그 다음날부터 다 갚는 날까지는 연 20%의 각 비율로 계산한 돈을, 원고 삼성화재해상보험 주식회사에게 10,417,785원과 미합중국 통화 547,931달러 및 위 돈 중 10,417,785원에 대하여는 2008. 11. 26.부터, 미합중국 통화 268,486달러에 대하여는 2008. 10. 31.부터, 미합중국 통화 279,445 달러에 대하여는 2008. 11. 28.부터 이 판결 선고일까지는 연 5%, 그 다음날부터 다 갚는 날까지는 연 20%의 각 비율로 계산한 돈을 지급하라.

2. The purport of the plaintiffs' appeal

US dollars 1, 35, 43.32 and USD 28.1 to US dollars 2.5 to US dollars 2.8, USD 28.1 to US dollars 2.7, USD 28.1 to US dollars 2.8, USD 28.1 to US dollars 2.7, USD 28.1 to US dollars 2.8, USD 28.1 to US dollars 2.5 to US dollars 2.7, USD 361 to US dollars 8.1 to US dollars 2.7, USD 28.1 to US dollars 8.2, USD 28 to US dollars 18.7, USD 36.1 to US dollars 8.2, USD 208 to US dollars 18, USD 208, USD 268 to US dollars 28.15 to US dollars, USD 36.7 to US dollars 18,254 to US dollars 208.168 to US dollars 208.28

3. The defendant's purport of appeal

The part of the judgment of the first instance against the defendant shall be revoked, and the plaintiffs' claims corresponding to the above revocation shall be dismissed.

1. Basic facts

A. Sales contract of the instant cargo

1) The Plaintiffs are corporations engaged in insurance business, etc., and the Defendant is the owners of ○○△△△△△△△△△ (English name omitted), the gross tonnage of which is 26,751 tons, ship-type chemical/oil tank vessels, Singapore in the country of registry, 208 in the building year, and hereinafter “○○○○”).

2) On May 27, 2008, the Plaintiff’s subsidiary intervenor of the Switzerland’s nationality entered into a sales contract with the Gold Petroleum Chemical Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “gold Petroleum Chemical Co., Ltd.”) to sell styrenine 3,896.341 tons of the instant cargo (hereinafter “SM”) to 1,650 U.S. dollars per ton (hereinafter “U.S. currency”) totaling 6,428,962.65 U.S. dollars (hereinafter “the instant cargo”).

3) The details of the instant sales contract are as follows.

C Products: SM with ASM D2827/00 SP

O Quantity: 4,000 tons (it may be increased or decreased by 5% at the seller's option)

O Price: USD 1,650 per ton.

O Specifics: Permissible shipment of combined cargo / Possibility of divided shipment / Possibility of transshipment

O Inspection: The inspection at the port of registry shall be conducted by the independent inspector admitted by both the seller and the buyer. The result of the inspection of quantity, quality and cleanliness of the vessel shall be final and binding on both parties(1).

(O) Applicable Law: This contract shall be governed and interpreted by the English law, regardless of the conflict of laws and regulations. The International Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods does not apply to this contract.

B. Maritime transport contract of the instant cargo concluded between the Defendant and call

Around May 30, 2008, call entered into a marine transportation contract (hereinafter “instant marine transportation contract”) with freight of USD 80 per ton per ton in relation to maritime transportation to the port of Ulsan in the United States with the Defendant for the instant cargo to be delivered to the Defendant pursuant to the instant sales contract. The instant marine transportation contract entered into a charter contract with the Defendant as the form of partial revision and alteration (KLMAR Trms 2000) of the draft charter contract between the Defendant and the horses. In particular, with respect to the applicable law, the contract was amended as follows: “The removal of new desire, the United Kingdom law note 3).”

(State 3)

C. The bill of lading

1) The instant cargo, which is a manufacturer, is separated into the 52 (507.655 tons), and 59 (3,388.681 tons) and was stored in the ground tank in the Dabane (hereinafter “Dabane”) factories of the United States of America (hereinafter “Dabane”) (hereinafter “Fitas”), each of the instant cargo was stored in the 52 (507.655 tons) and loaded in the 8S tank through this mold from July 3, 2008 to the 4BS in the 00-4BS and 8S tank in the United States of America.

2) After the instant cargo was loaded, the call received a bill of lading (the bill of lading number omitted; hereinafter “the instant bill of lading”) from the captain of ○○○ Ship (hereinafter “the instant bill of lading”) and subsequently, the gold oil chemical received the instant bill of lading through the bank, which is the issuing bank, via the issuing bank.

3) Meanwhile, the main contents of the instant bill of lading are as follows.

O Cargo: SM 3,896.341 metric tons

O A consignor: Callma

O Consignee: Geumho Petroleum Chemical (under the instruction of the Bank of Korea)

O Port: U.S. Frang ports

O Unloading: Ulsan Port of the Republic of Korea

O Freight shall be governed by a charter party.

O The cargo is transported according to the voyage transport contract between Tamer AS and Komer AS, Inc. entered into at Norwalk on June 20, 2008, and all the terms and conditions of the above voyage transport contract, including the arbitration clause entered into in the above transport contract, are applied to the rights of the parties involved in the cargo and regulate them (hereinafter referred to as “former B/L of this case”).

O If this bill of lading is a title instrument to which this bill of lading is in force in accordance with the U.S. Maritime Cargo Transportation Act or the International Convention for the Unification of the Provisions of the U.S. Maritime Cargo Transportation Act approved on Apr. 16, 1936 or the International Convention for the Unification of the Provisions of the International Convention (The Hague Rules) on the Uniform of the Bills of Lading in Kenya on Aug. 25, 1924, because the port of loading or the port of discharge (port of unloading) is in force, this bill of lading shall be deemed to be incorporated into this bill of lading, and the provisions of this Act shall be deemed to be incorporated into this bill of lading, and any part of this bill of lading shall not be deemed to be a waiver of the rights or discharge of the carrier or an increase in the liability (hereinafter referred to as the “after the bill of lading”).

D. Characteristics of the instant cargo

1) SM, which is the instant cargo, is a polylymer’s intermediate material used for making polythren resin, synthetic rubber, etc., which is a promulted liquid in the direction-oriented color.

2) The Moomer, which is a component of SM, has the chemical characteristic of Moomer, and is one of the compounds occurring from Mooms to Mooms. Since SM's polys content is high, SM is solidified and is made with different chemical products depending on polys content. Therefore, in order to produce a variety of chemical products, SM loses its value as a chemical product, because it is good to contain less than 10 p.m., if the polys content is less than 10 p.m., the product nature is the highest, and more than 10 p.m. is reduced, and if polys content is extremely high, it would lose its value as a chemical product.

3) The mid-term reaction of Mano money is affected by external persons, such as temperature, oxygen, light, etc. as described in Table 1 â…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………â…………………………ââââââââââââââââââ…………………âââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââ…âââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââ

The higher light of the gravity reaction(s) in the table temperature contained in the main text is lower than 5% and lower than 5-7% lower than that of the promotion when exposure to less than 5% of the promotion, thereby promoting more than 7% lower than 50% (at least 50 degrees of interference).

E. Loading of the instant cargo

1) The instant cargo was loaded from July 3, 2008 to July 4, 2008. At the time of the shipment, Multilurgic State, as a manufacturer, provided and received the instant cargo to the 00th mate 1st mate, stating the guidelines to be performed by the carrier with respect to the above major external persons affecting the SM Gunn Gunn, etc. In relation to the said major external persons, the manufacturer of Multilurgic State, as at the time of the shipment, provided and received the instant cargo navigation information. The instant ship navigation information sheet stated the guidance that “the temperature does not exceed 29.44 degrees, and does not exceed 8% of the available oxygen, and that “the temperature and nitrogen shall not exceed 8%, and shall check and present copies of the record at the port of unloading twice a day.” Meanwhile, the main contents of the instant cargo storage document are as follows:

1. Sovereign No. 1. Suppression Document 1. Suppression : 4-Ter-Butyol 2. Suppression : 10-15 pm: Date and time of the Suppression 3. Suppression : 10-15 pm mp from the TBC-level circulation period during the effective control period following the SM storage status on June 30, 2008 (Air Pochization) 10-15 pm mp 85 p m m 29.4m from the steam space to (5-7% small quantity): 110 (Sup 43.3 degrees): 8.5m rupture and effective rate: 85m rupture should not be reduced by more than 7m rupture and effective rate. They should not be reduced by more than 5m 5m rupture and effective rate.

2) Each sampling of 52 and 59 of the instant cargo was collected prior to the mixture and shipment of the instant cargo. As set out in the instant sales contract, each sampling of ○○○ tank (4BS, and 8S) was collected after the shipment, and all of the sampling was stored in the sampling yard of ○○ho Lake (○○) after the verification of SGS, and the result of the sampling verification at the time of shipment is as indicated in Table 2. SGS issued a quality certificate to the effect that the shipment of the instant cargo loaded ○○ is adequate according to the result of the above verification.

Ppm (unit: hereinafter the same shall apply) TBC 526.4 (Spm) 10-15 V90 ( normal) 10-15 4BS 3 ( normal) 15 8S 3 (ordinary) 15 15

F. Maritime cargo insurance contract concluded between the plaintiffs and Geumho Petroleum Chemical

on June 16, 2008 with the plaintiffs on June 16, 2008, for the purpose of securing risks arising from the maritime transport from the port of loading the cargo of this case to the port of Ulsan, Hho Petroleum chemical is USD 7,260,000 ($ 6,600,000 in invoice x 110% in invoice x 7,071,858.915 in actual amount of insurance). Under the ratio of insurance by the joint insurer 4, the marine cargo insurance contract (securities number omitted) was concluded as stated in the column of the “Supplement ratio” in Table 4.

G. Detection of marine transportation of the instant cargo and defects in the instant cargo

1) On July 4, 2008, 00 ○ came into the port of the Republic of Pakistan and departing from the port of the Republic of Pakistan on July 15, 2008, after entering the port of the Republic of Pakistan on July 15, 2008 through the Cusscisty (Entry from July 6, 2008) and the restington (Entry from July 9, 2008), and depart again on July 15, 2008 on the following day. The first class mate of the Republic of Pakistan as referred to in the above paragraph ○-1, who left the port of the Republic of Pakistan, left the port of the Republic of Pakistan, and went into the port of Ulsan on August 12, 2008 after the end of the 40-day Tuen Navigation.

2) From August 15, 2008, 008, ○○ began loading and unloading of the instant cargo at a Ulsan Tank Terminal (UT). During the loading and unloading process, the Overseas Testing Corporation (OMIC), which is a cargo testing agency that is a consignee of the instant cargo, collected samples of the instant cargo from two tanks (4BS, 8S) where the instant cargo was stored for analysis to verify whether the instant cargo was abnormal, and discovered that the numerical content was too high as a result of verification, and that the instant cargo was considerably dead, to the extent that the instant cargo was not commercialized. Thereafter, the carrier and consignee’s joint research institute requested the analysis of each port of loading and port of loading and unloading of the instant cargo. The result of the analysis is as follows:

6 4BS ( normal) 4BS 4BS 4BS 6(normally) 48S 6(normally) 48S 4BS 42S (Tanks) 6 4BS 42S (Tanks) 68S (Tanks) 68S (Tanks) 3,500 5

3) After receiving a report on the above facts from the Overseas Testing Corporation, the Geum Petroleum chemical suspended loading and unloading work in the situation where approximately 180.529 tons of the cargo of this case were unloaded at one hour, one hour after the loading and unloading of the cargo of this case, and the Ulsan Tank Terminal refused to receive the cargo of this case on the grounds that there is a concern about damage to tank equipment as a tank equipment due to the process of the heavy reaction and deterioration of the cargo of this case. The Geum Petroleum Chemical of this case, from August 26, 2008 to 15:00 of the following day, was finally unloaded and stored the remainder of 3,704.673 tons of the cargo of this case at a female tank terminal. After that, the Geum Petroleum Chemical of this case sold the cargo of this case which was finally unloaded at KRW 907,64,855 won for fuel instead of the petrochemicals.

(h) Payment of insurance money;

The plaintiffs paid USD 6,723,981.5 (3,704.673 tons x 1,650% x 110% x 110% of the purchase price of the instant cargo to Fuho Petroleum Chemical, which was finally unloaded and kept in a fish tank terminal among the instant cargo (3,704.673 tons x 1,650 x 110%) and the additional transport charges from Pulsan to Pulsan 45,00 dollars excluding USD 907,64,888,125 won, and the remainder of USD 115,753,176 won from the instant cargo to the transfer of the instant cargo to Friho Petroleum Terminal.

USD 1, 75, USD 167, USD 285, USD 47, USD 47, USD 975, USD 975, USD 285, USD 297, USD 975, USD 975, USD 2845, USD 97, USD 975, USD 2845, USD 297, USD 975, USD 297, USD 485, USD 97, USD 2945, USD 97, USD 2945, USD 975, USD 2845, USD 975, USD 2945, USD 975, USD 2945, USD 275, USD 975, USD 2945, USD 975, USD 297, USD 2685, USD 268, 397, 260, 260, 254 fire insurance premium + KRW 108,5317,157

[Ground of recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 9, Gap evidence 15, Gap evidence 23 through 36, Gap evidence 38, 40, 41, Eul evidence 9, and 20 evidence (including each number), and images, the application chemical engineering department of Busan University at Busan University at the court of first instance, non-party 1, Lao terminal Korea Co., Ltd., Geumho Petroleum chemical, the fact-finding results, the testimony of non-party 2 of the first instance court, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

1) The Plaintiffs asserts that there are selective liability or tort liability against the Defendant under the contract of carriage.

2) The governing law on the Defendant’s contractual liability, which is a carrier based on the instant bill of lading, is the English law according to the Preamble of the instant bill of lading.

3) If the applicable law agreed upon by the description of the instant bill of lading cannot be specified, the law of the country most closely linked to the bill of lading shall be the governing law. Thus, the Korean law, which is the location of the port of loading and unloading and the country most closely linked to the law of the Republic of Korea where the damage occurred, shall be the governing law. The Korean law is the same as the English law.

4) In the interpretation of the English law or the Korean law, if the holder of a bill of lading proves that the cargo was damaged during the course of carriage, the carrier has to perform his/her duty of care as to the cargo or prove the reason for exemption of the carrier. However, in this case, the Defendant, as the carrier, did not fulfill his/her duty of care as to the cargo and did not have any defect in the cargo of this case at the time of shipment, there is no reason for

5) Article 60 subparag. 4 of the Private International Act provides that the limitation of liability of the carrier shall be governed by the laws of Singapore as the State of registry, but the laws of Singapore are the same as those of the English law or the laws of the Republic of Korea.

6) Even if the U.S. Act applies with respect to the limitation of liability of a carrier under the latter part of the instant bill of lading as argued by the Defendant, it is not a conflict of laws, and thus, it cannot be contrary to the English law, the governing law. Under the English law, the English law sets the scope of the limit of liability of a carrier higher than that of the U.S. Maritime Cargo Transportation Act, which is the higher than that of the U.S. 66.67 units or the 2nd unit of total weight per unit. Furthermore, even if the governing law based on the limitation of liability by the latter part of the bill of lading becomes the U.S. Maritime Cargo Transportation Act, the amount of the carrier’s limitation of liability may be raised by the entry in the bill of lading or the agreement between the parties concerned, and thus, the amount of the carrier’

7) With respect to interest in arrears, under English law, the rate of interest in delay before and after the imposition of a sentence may be determined by the court at its discretion. If the rate of interest in delay after the imposition of a sentence is ordered to be fulfilled in a pound, it shall be eight percent per annum, but if ordering performance in any currency other than that, the court may also determine

8) In relation to tort liability, the Korean law, the place where the damage occurred, is the governing law.

B. Defendant’s assertion

1) The main text of the instant bill of lading merely states the general contents of the contract to be incorporated into the bill of lading, and thus cannot be deemed as an agreement on the governing law. Accordingly, the governing law of the instant bill of lading is not incorporated into the instant bill of lading. Thus, the governing law of the instant bill of lading is the U.S. Sea Cargo Transportation Act by the latter part of the instant bill

2) If the applicable law agreed upon by the entry of the instant bill of lading cannot be specified, the law of the country most closely linked to the bill of lading shall be the applicable law. The U.S. law, which constitutes the place of issuance and the port of registry, shall be the law of the country most closely linked to the bill of lading.

3) Under the interpretation of the U.S. law, the holder of a bill of lading must prove the breach of the carrier’s duty of care, and the plaintiffs failed to prove that the bill of lading was not sufficiently. Rather, there was a hidden defect in the instant cargo, which was not known at the time of the shipment, and since the instant cargo was damaged due to such hidden defect, there was a reason for exemption

4) Even if the English law is the overall governing law as argued by the Plaintiff, the governing law on the limitation of liability set forth in the latter part of the instant bill of lading is the U.S. Marine Cargo Transportation Act. Since the U.S. law is not merely incorporated into the contract from the substantive legal point of view, it is not limited by the mandatory law of the English law, which is the overall governing law.

5) Regarding interest in arrears, the U.S. law and the U.S. law should be applied to the U.S. Prime (US Prime) rate publicly announced at the time of the pronouncement of the judgment. According to this, approximately KRW 3.25% is equivalent.

6) The governing law of tort liability ought to be based on the governing law of legal relations infringed by Article 32(3) of the Private International Act, and thus, the U.S. law is the same as the governing law of the instant bill of lading.

3. The governing law of the defendant's contractual liability based on the instant bill of lading

(a) Related Acts and subordinate statutes;

The current Private International Act, which applies to this case, provides for the determination of the governing law of the carrier's contractual liability based on the bill of lading as follows.

Article 25 (Party Autonomy)

(1) Contracts shall be governed by the law that the parties have chosen explicitly or implicitly: Provided, That the implied choice shall be limited to the case where it is reasonably recognizable from the contents of the contracts and all other circumstances.

Article 26 (Objectives Connection at Time of Determination of Applicable Law)

(1) If parties fail to choose the applicable law, the contract shall be governed by the law of the country most closely related to the contract.

B. Applicable law chosen by the parties

According to the above private international law, in determining the governing law for the contractual liability of a carrier under the bill of lading of this case, first of all, the law chosen by the parties explicitly or implicitly in accordance with the principle of party autonomy shall be the law of the country where the contract is most closely connected with the contract in case where the parties cannot be deemed to have selected the governing law because their intent is unclear. Accordingly, first, this article examines what is the law of the parties’ choice as the governing law for

1) Whether the governing law provision under the voyage transport contract of this case is incorporated into the bill of lading of this case

In general, in order to transfer an arbitration clause under a charter party to a bill of lading, the provisions that the arbitration clause in the charter party should be stated in the bill of lading that "in the bill of lading" should be stated in the bill of lading, and the charter party should be specified in that clause (Provided, That even if the charter party was not specified by the above method, the existence of the charter party and the contents of the arbitration clause should be stated separately where the holder of the bill of lading knew of the existence of the charter party and the contents of the arbitration clause). If it is stated to the effect that all of the general provisions in the charter party are included in the charter party without specifying an arbitration clause, and it is not clear whether the arbitration clause in the charter party is included in the bill of lading, the transferee of the bill of lading should have known or could have known the existence of the arbitration clause in the bill of lading which is included in the bill of lading. The arbitration clause in the charter party should not conflict with the other provisions in the bill of lading because the arbitration clause is incorporated into the bill of lading.

In full view of these legal principles and the following circumstances recognized by the facts as above, the provisions of the English law set forth as the governing law under the voyage contract of this case were incorporated into the bill of lading of this case, and accordingly, the general and general governing law of the bill of this case shall be the English law.

① The full text of the instant bill of lading states that all the terms and conditions of the instant maritime transport contract are incorporated into the instant bill of lading, and stipulates that the English law shall be the governing law in the instant maritime transport contract.

② In the instant bill of lading, it is determined that the bill of lading holder knew or could have known, inter alia, the existence of the provision designating the governing law, in light of the time and place of the conclusion of the maritime carriage contract to be incorporated, and the parties thereto, and the fact that the freight was paid according to the carriage contract (the instant carriage contract).

③ Since the instant bill of lading is not a ship owner but a ship lessee’s bill of lading, and the instant bill of lading is a charter party bill of lading (Evidence No. 5-3), the instant bill of lading stated that it is a charter party bill of lading. In this regard, it appears that the Defendant knew or could have known the existence of the instant bill of lading concluded between the Defendant and call.

④ The key issue of this case is whether the provision of the governing law in the contract of voyage was incorporated not into the bill of lading but into the bill of lading according to the general stipulation of incorporation into the bill of lading. The issue of determining the governing law is not only explicitly but also implicitly but also explicitly, as set forth in Article 25(1) of the Act on Private International Law, but also can be determined by the law of the country most closely related to the contract, even if the parties did not choose, the strict standard for determining the governing law can be somewhat relaxed.

2) The issue of division of applicable law

Despite the provisions regarding the general governing law in a bill of lading, there are cases where the part on the limitation of liability of a carrier is set in particular as well as the terms and conditions which set the law of a particular country (i.e., the legal meaning of the said terms and conditions in relation to the general governing law provisions on the bill of lading. In this case, it is a question whether the said terms and conditions can be viewed as being the designation of substantive law or as the designation of conflict law. If it is viewed as the designation of substantive law, it is difficult to violate the general governing law provisions, and thus, there is no division of the governing law. However, if the part on the limitation of liability of a carrier is regarded as the designation of conflict law, the governing law set forth in the said terms and conditions

On the other hand, there is no reason to interpret that only one applicable law shall be designated for a single contract, and as provided by Article 25 of the Private International Act, the most important thing in designating the applicable law is the autonomy of the parties, i.e., the intention of the parties if the parties agree to divide the applicable law, such intent of the parties shall be respected if the parties agree to divide the applicable law. Notwithstanding the general governing law provision, if the parties agree to determine the applicable law of a specific country with respect to the limitation of liability of a carrier under the same bill of lading, barring special circumstances, such as where the said agreement cannot be against the general governing law provision, it is reasonable to deem that the parties’ intent is to preferentially apply

Therefore, the question is whether the governing law should be divided under the bill of lading of this case, and the governing law of the bill of this case shall be general, overall, and the limitation of liability of the carrier shall be divided into the English law as a whole, the English law as well as the U.S. law as to the limitation of liability of the carrier.

① The full text of the instant bill of lading is a general provision stating that all the conditions of the instant bill of lading are incorporated into the instant bill of lading. On the other hand, the latter part of the instant bill of lading explicitly provides that the scope of the Defendant’s liability shall be governed by the U.S. Maritime Cargo Transportation Act. Thus, as long as the conditions stipulated in the latter part of the instant bill of lading are met, setting the Defendant’s scope of liability according to the U.S. Maritime Cargo Transportation Act

② As alleged by the Plaintiff, if the latter part of the instant bill of lading is considered not as a conflict of law but as a substantive law provision, it cannot be deemed as a violation of the mandatory provisions of the English law as a whole designated governing law, and accordingly, the limitation of liability is governed by the provisions of the English law with a limitation of liability higher than the U.S. Maritime Cargo Transportation Act. This is against the provisions of the latter part of the instant bill of lading providing that the waiver of carrier’s liability against the U.S. Maritime Cargo Transportation Act as well as the increase in liability is denied, and thus, any other description of the instant bill of lading

3) The issue of interpreting the latter part of the instant bill of lading

① As a requirement for the designation of the U.S. Maritime Cargo Act as the governing law, the above law shall apply to an international maritime cargo transport contract if the port of loading or unloading is located in the U.S. and the port of loading or unloading is located in the U.S. under the U.S. Maritime Cargo Transportation Act. However, as seen earlier, Article 1312 of the U.S. Maritime Cargo Transportation Act provides that the port of loading or unloading of the instant cargo is the port of loading or unloading, and Article 1312 of the U.S. Maritime Cargo Transportation Act provides that “this Chapter applies to any international maritime cargo transport contract in the U.S. where the port of loading or unloading is located in the U.S.,” so the governing law on the limitation of liability of the Defendant, which is the carrier under the instant bill of lading, shall be

② The Plaintiffs asserts that, in cases where the port of loading or unloading is located in the U.S. and the port of loading or unloading is located in the U.S. under the provisions of the U.S. Maritime Cargo Act, the said Act should be interpreted as the law governing the port of loading in accordance with the Private International Law of Suspension of Law, in addition to the application of the said Act to the international port of loading or unloading contract. However, the conditions asserted by the Plaintiff are not derived from the text of the bill of lading after the bill of lading. However, if the Plaintiff claims, even though the port of loading is identical, it is unreasonable that the governing law varies depending on which the port of loading is a country, and if the court of forum determines the location of the port of loading in accordance with the Private International Act of Suspension of Law as the governing law, the law governing the port of loading is naturally the law governing the port of loading in accordance with the said Private International Act even if the latter part of

③ The Plaintiffs also asserted that, if the U.S. Maritime Cargo Transportation Act is the governing law, there is no reason to define the port of registry in the form of home as stated in the latter part of the instant bill of lading, not simply stating that the U.S. Maritime Cargo Transportation Act applies if the port of registry is located in the U.S........

④ Furthermore, the Plaintiffs asserts that the provision under which the parties set the English law as general and general governing law was incorporated into the instant bill of lading, and that the scope of the carrier’s limitation of liability increased to the extent set forth in the English law.

On the other hand, Article 1305 of the U.S. Maritime Cargo Transportation Act provides that "if the waiver or increase of the carrier's rights or responsibility is embodied in a bill of lading issued to the consignor, the carrier may waive all or part of his rights or liabilities, or increase his liabilities or liabilities, as prescribed in this Chapter." However, the following circumstances recognized as above are as follows: ① the latter part of the bill of lading applies in preference to the general governing law as agreed upon by the parties; ② the latter part of the bill of lading provides that the increase of the carrier's liabilities against the U.S. Maritime Cargo Transportation Act shall not be in violation; ② the latter part of the bill of lading of this case provides that any other description of the bill of this case shall not be in violation; ③ the latter part of the bill of this case shall not be directly defined as the governing law, but shall be indirectly defined by incorporating the contents of the contract of this case into the bill of this case into the bill of lading, and the latter part of the bill of this case shall be directly defined, and thus the requirements of the bill of this case shall not be specified.

4) The issue under Article 60 subparag. 4 of the Private International Act

The plaintiffs claim that Article 60 subparagraph 4 of the Private International Act provides that "the law of the country of registry shall apply to "whether the shipowner, charterer, the ship manager, the operator, and other employees of the ship may claim the limitation of liability and the scope of such limitation of liability." However, since the country of registry under 00 which has transported the cargo of this case is Singapore, the defendant's limitation of liability as the carrier shall be governed by the law of Singapore which has the same provision as that of the English law. However, this is related to the limitation of liability of the shipowner, etc. under Articles 769 through 776 of the Commercial Act. Thus, the above provision cannot be deemed to apply to the limitation of liability of the carrier against the bill of lading holder

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, with respect to the defendant's contractual liability claims against the defendant based on the bill of lading of this case, the English law generally provides the governing law, but the U.S. law provides the governing law for the limitation of liability of the defendant who is the carrier.

4. Judgment on the defendant's contractual liability

(a) the provision of the English law and burden of proof;

The relevant provisions of the English Maritime Cargo Transport Act applicable to the contractual liability of the carrier under the instant bill of lading are as follows.

Article 3 Liabilities of Carriers and Ships

1. A carrier shall have the duty of due care to properly perform the following matters at the time of the transfer and voyage of a voyage:

(a) Ensuring the safe navigation of the ship;

(b) To board the necessary crew, to supply the ship's ship's and the required goods;

(c) keep the hold, air conditioners and other parts of the ship to load the cargo suitable for the receipt, transport and preservation of the cargo;

1. In accordance with the provisions of Article 4, a carrier shall have the obligation to load, handle, store, transport, maintain, manage, and unload the cargo properly and in depth.

Article 4

1. A carrier and a vessel are not liable for loss of or damage to the cargo due to the seaworthiness of a carrier unless it is caused by a breach of the carrier’s duty of care, by allowing the safe navigation of the vessel in accordance with Article 3(1), by distributing the necessary crew’s boarding, the ship’s captain and the necessary goods, by receiving, transporting, and preserving the cargo, and by maintaining the suitable conditions for loading the cargo. If the loss or damage occurs from the seaworthiness of the carrier, the carrier and the other party asserting exceptions under this Article have the duty of proving the proper performance of the duty of care to be performed.

2. A carrier or ship shall not be liable for any loss or damage to the goods due to the following descriptions:

(m) the hidden defect, nature or defectiveness of the cargo, a decrease in the volume or volume of the Cargo due to the loss or damage to the Cargo; or

On the other hand, with regard to the burden of proof of the carrier's liability under Article 3 (2) of the English Maritime Cargo Transportation Act, the owner of the cargo (i.e. the holder of the bill of lading) has delivered the cargo stated in the bill of lading to the carrier without any defect, the holder of the bill of lading bears the burden of proving that the damage, such as the loss or damage, was caused to the cargo in the course of loading and transporting the cargo, and if the holder of the bill of lading has fulfilled his/her duty of care for the cargo under Article 3 (2) of the English Maritime Cargo Transportation Act

B. Determination as to the occurrence of contractual liability

1) Occurrence of contractual liability

In accordance with the legal principles of the above English Maritime Cargo Transportation Act, the cargo of this case was delivered to the carrier without any defect from the consignor, and then it was examined whether the damage, such as the loss or damage, occurred during the marine transportation

In general, in order to identify the origin of the product when transporting liquid chemical products, such as the freight of this case at sea, samples after loading and unloading shall be collected and verified as to whether they were dead or not. In other words, at the port of loading, an independent authorized person commissioned by the consignor under the contract of carriage shall, after loading liquid chemical products into the cargo tank, collect samples of the shipping port in the cargo tank and immediately analyze part of them to the importer, and notify the consignee of the result. The remainder shall be stored in the cargo tank and transported to the sea along with the goods loaded in the cargo tank. At the port of loading and unloading, an independent authorized person commissioned by the consignee shall collect the samples of the goods loaded in the cargo tank and verify whether they were dead or not, but, at the port of loading and unloading, the goods shall continue to be unloaded for the period of loading and unloading without any error in the loading and unloading port of the goods loaded in the cargo tank. If the goods loaded in the loading and unloading port of loading and unloading are found to have been shipped from the beginning, whether the goods loaded in the cargo tank had been loaded with the shipping tank.

According to the above facts, as a result of collecting and verifying samples shipped in combination with land tanks by the consignor, the quality assurance letter was prepared to the effect that there is no error in the sample of the port of registry as a result of the verification, and in particular, the document was prepared to the effect that it was put into the object of 15 pm with respect to the input of heavy-scale agents, and the receipt confirmation was made by the defendant, the carrier, the consignee, the consignee, and the consignee, as a result of the joint supervision and examination of the cargo of this case at the port of loading and unloading at the port of loading and unloading, the cargo of this case was removed from the carrier without delivery, and the cargo of this case was found to have been transported to the carrier in the course of loading and unloading without delivery. Accordingly, the cargo of this case was found to have been damaged by the carrier in the course of loading and unloading.

Therefore, the defendant, who is a carrier, shall be liable to compensate the plaintiffs who are the bill of lading holders for damages under the contract of this case, unless there are special circumstances.

2) Judgment on the defendant's defense

As to this, the Defendant, at the time of the shipment of the instant cargo, was not put in place to the extent that it could suppress the joint reaction during the voyage period, and there was a lack of oxygen respect, and in the case of the cargo loaded in ○○○-4BS tank, the Defendant did not take any measures against this despite the discovery of excessive water content at the time of the final sampling after the completion of the shipment, so the combined reaction of the instant cargo was accelerated during the voyage period. As such, the instant cargo is bound from the time of the shipment, and there was a hidden defect from the time of the shipment, and the Defendant protested that he fulfilled his duty of care over the instant cargo, which is the cargo, throughout the entire process.

On the other hand, as shown in the Defendant’s argument, the entries of Nos. 1, 2, 4, 7, 27, 34 through 36, 44, and 45, the testimony of Nonparty 3 of the first instance court, the appraisal of Nonparty 4 of the first instance court’s appraiser Nonparty 4, the result of the inquiry of Nonparty 4 of the first instance court’s appraiser Nonparty 4 in light of the following circumstances, and there is no other evidence to prove it otherwise.

① According to the sampling at the port of loading and unloading port of this case, it was confirmed that the spaw of the instant cargo showed extreme spathy spathm as 1,093 and 3,500pm, while the sampling at the port of loading was both before and after shipment or after shipment, and the sampling at the port of loading was all normal spathy. Meanwhile, the cargo at the land 52 tank mixed with the cargo at the port of 59 tank, which is normal spathy, was in a state of spathy before marine transportation, but the spathy was in a state of 26.4 pm., while the spathy was in a state of spathy, but the spathy and normal spathy were in a state of spathy. The spathy of the instant cargo of this case was in a state of spathy spathy.

② The Defendant’s expert opinion is not only based on the information provided by the Defendant, but also on an indirect opinion that is not a direct evidence of the situation before and after the marine transport of the instant cargo, or of the maritime transport process under 00. In particular, the appraisal result of Nonparty 4 of the first instance trial is a test that affects each outside person’s heavy reaction in a virtual situation. As a result of the said test, each outside person’s independent person’s impact on a heavy aggregate reaction can only be identified as a result of the test, and it cannot be explained that the collapse effect caused by each outside person’s combination, other than the influence of the person subject to the test, affects a heavy aggregate reaction.

③ In order for the Defendant to be deemed to have hidden defects from the time of loading the instant cargo, it should be presumed that at least the Defendant performed all the guidelines for the investigation during the maritime transport process, or that the implementation of the guidelines did not affect the defect of the instant cargo even if the guidelines were not performed. However, according to the facts acknowledged earlier, the Defendant, as the carrier, did not properly perform the guidelines of the manufacturer during the maritime transport process as examined below, and there is a probable probability that the defect of the instant cargo was affected by the defect of the instant cargo, according to the aforementioned facts and the purport of the evidence No. 5-9, No. 22, No. 30-1 and No. 15, and the testimony and arguments of Non-Party 2 and Non-Party 5 of the first instance trial.

④ In the ship navigation information sheet issued to the ○○○-1st mate from the Dauran Co., Ltd., the instant cargo manufacturer, stated that “the temperature does not exceed 29.44 degrees, and the load and nitrogen shall not exceed 8.8%, and the temperature and nitrogen, etc. shall be inspected twice a day and a copy of the record shall be presented at the port of loading and unloading at the port of unloading,” and even though these contents are also reflected in the ship operation guidelines, the Defendant did not measure and record the temperature and ozone of the instant cargo tank on which the instant cargo was loaded, and as a result, did not communicate with the Dauran District during the transportation of the instant cargo.

⑤ Although the cargo of this case could have been maintained at an adequate level if it had been withdrawn from a nitrogen reduction measure with respect to a nitrogen reduction device, the defendant did not have a nitrogen reduction unit once the cargo of this case was transported at sea. In addition, the temperature of the cargo of this case was considerably affected by the sea water temperature, and it seems that the sea water temperature was above 30 degrees at the time when the defendant transported the cargo at sea near the enemy map. Thus, as the cargo of this case was rapidly conducted when the sea was transported at sea near the enemy map, the heavy response was rapidly conducted, so there was no need to conduct a circular cooling, even though the defendant did not take a circular reduction measure.

6) If the Defendant measured the temperature and the content of the ozone in accordance with the above guidelines, it seems that it would have been possible to maintain the adequate temperature and the content of the ozone in a timely manner by checking the changes in temperature and the content of the ozone in a timely manner and by taking appropriate circular cooling or nitrogen reduction measures.

Therefore, the defendant's defense as the carrier is without merit.

C. Limitation on liability for damages

1) Relevant provisions of the U.S. Maritime Cargo Transportation Act, the applicable law for limitation of liability

The relevant provisions of the U.S. Maritime Cargo Transportation Law, which is the governing law of limitation on the defendant's liability for damages, are as follows:

§ 1304. Carriers and vessel's rights and immunity

5. (Scope of Liability; Appraisal of Cargo)

A carrier or ship shall not be liable for the cargo which has not been packed or packed for loss of or damage to the cargo unless the consignor has notified the carrier of the nature and value of the cargo prior to shipment and has not been stated in the bill of lading in excess of USD 500 per unit of freight or equivalent value in other currency as a practice).

2) Limitation on liability

The fact that the freight of this case is USD 80 per ton under the voyage carriage contract of this case, and the fact that the freight of this case is to be paid according to the charter contract is recognized as above. Thus, the actual freight of this case is ton, and thus, the defendant's liability for damages concerning the freight of this case is limited to USD 500 per ton under the U.S. Maritime Cargo Transportation Act as seen earlier.

3) Calculation of the amount of indemnity

As seen earlier, the Plaintiffs paid as insurance money the amount equivalent to 110% of the purchase price to 3,704,673 tons of the instant cargo, which was sold to the Geum Ho Petroleum Chemical, as the amount of damages, as the amount of damages. As such, the amount of damage compensation against the Defendant of Geumho Petroleum Chemical, which the Plaintiffs may claim against the Defendant, is USD 1,852,336.5 per ton of the said cargo (= USD 3,704.67 x 500). If it is calculated according to each insured ratio of the Plaintiff, the amount of damage compensation for the Defendant of Geumho Petroleum Chemical, which is the amount of USD 500 per ton of the said cargo.

The insured ratio indemnity ($ 32% of the insured premium ($ 592,747.68) included in the main text shall be 8% of the insured loss insurance 148,186.92 Mez fire insurance 10% of the 185.233.65 Hyundai Maritime Fire Insurance 30% 55,700.95 EL 6% of the insurance policy 111,140.19 5% of the insurance policy 92,616.825 Samsung 9% of the insurance policy 16,710.285% total 100% of the insurance policy 1,852,236.5% of the insurance policy

(d) damages for delay;

Since damages for delay are paid along with the original obligation as compensation for delay of the obligation, it shall be determined by the governing law governing the original obligation. As seen earlier, since the governing law on the contractual liability of the carrier based on the bill of lading of this case is the English law, the scope of damages for delay shall be determined by the English law. Meanwhile, the relevant laws and regulations of the UK as to damages for delay are as follows.

Law of 1981 higher court

Article 35 (Power of High Court to grant interest to A obligations and Compensation for Damages

(1) In accordance with the rules of the court, the court may apply a simple interest rate to the total amount, regardless of the time of enforcement (e.g., the time of enforcement), and the court shall apply to all or part of the borrowed debt or the amount of damages, in accordance with the interest rate established by the court rules, or in accordance with the court rules, with respect to the part of the judgment or the part paid before the judgment, the court determines that the loan obligation or the amount of damages is appropriate,

(b) On the amount of judgment, the date of the judgment.

Law of 1838

Article 17 Interest Rate on Obligations in Court Decision

(1) All obligations on the judgment shall be charged with interest at the rate of eight percent per annum (8%) per annum until the date of full payment (not later than the date of full payment).

Enforcement Act of 1970

§ 44. Interest on any judgment money specified in any other currency than the United Kingdom currency

(1) In the event that a judgment is indicated in a currency which is not the English currency and that the amount of the judgment is subject to Article 17 of the Judgment Act of 1838, the court may order the court to apply the interest rate that it considers appropriate to the obligation.

According to the above English laws and regulations, the delayed interest rate from the date of occurrence of the cause of the claim to the date of rendering the judgment in this case shall be set at the discretion of the court, and in principle, 8% per annum or 20% per annum after the date of the judgment: Provided, That in the case of this case, 5% per annum from the date of payment of insurance money of each plaintiff to May 15, 2014, which is the date of the judgment of this case, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

E. Sub-committee

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff Dongdong Fire Insurance Co., Ltd. 592,747 dollars, 148,186.92 USD 18,233.65 to Plaintiff Matts Fire Insurance Co., Ltd., 185,23.65 dollars, 55,700.95 USD 11,140.19 dollars to Plaintiff Hyundai Marine Fire Insurance Co., Ltd., Ltd., 111,140.19 USD 92,616.825 dollars to Korea Commercial Fire Insurance Co., Ltd., 16,710.285 USD, and each of them to Plaintiff Samsung Samsung Fire Insurance Co., Ltd., Ltd., from October 31, 2008 to May 15, 2014, which was the date of the first insurance payment, to pay damages for delay at the rate of 20% per annum from the following day to the date of payment.

5. Determination as to tort liability

A. Although the applicable law to contracts established by a bill of lading is stipulated in the terms and conditions of the bill of lading, the purport of this provision is not to apply the law to claims for damages arising out of non-performance of obligations under the contract of carriage, but to exclusively apply the same. Article 32(1) of the Private International Act provides that "the place where the act was committed shall be governed by the law of the place where the act was committed," and "the place where the act was committed" includes not only tort but also the result of damage. If the ship carrying the freight continues to cause damage until the arrival in the territory of the Republic of Korea, it is reasonable to view that the damage occurred before the arrival in the territory of the Republic of Korea is included in the result of the damage. In this case, it is difficult to distinguish the damage that occurred before the arrival in the territory of the Republic of Korea and the damage that occurred after the arrival in that area from the series of continuous negligence, and thus, the law of the Republic of Korea shall be applied to the claim for full damages. In addition, even if there is no special provision on liability under the contract of carriage or implied agreement between the parties, it shall be deemed as tort.

According to the above facts, SM's heavy reaction, which is the defect of the freight of this case, continued to occur until 00 Hoho arrives in the territory of the Republic of Korea. As such, the law of the Republic of Korea shall be the governing law with respect to the claim for damages arising from tort, and as seen earlier, the limitation of liability pursuant to the U.S. Maritime Cargo Transportation Act

B. Therefore, as to the selective claim on the Plaintiff’s liability of tort, even if the scope of liability for damages under contract and liability for tort are identical according to the above limitation of liability, and the Korean law, which is the principle of the law of tort, is applied to the damages for delay, it is identical to damages for delay on the amount recognized as the contractual liability, and thus, the amount of claimant’s liability is the same as the selective claimant’s contractual liability, and thus,

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims are justified within the scope of the above recognition and the remaining claims are dismissed as they are without merit. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is partially unfair, the judgment of the court of first instance is modified as above, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Earwon (Presiding Judge) Clinical citizens

Note 1) Insat lad-Report to be applied to Angetable urveyor, chinaer and Sane to be able to be applied to an Angetablead-report; Posiyer and Sane to be applied to quantity, qual andves to be applied.

2) The Minister of Trade, Industry and Energy concludes a plan for the establishment of an England Governing Province for the establishment of a space for the establishment of a space for the establishment of a space for the establishment of a space for the establishment of a space for the establishment of a space for the establishment of a space for the establishment of a space for the establishment of a space for the establishment of a space for the establishment of a space for the establishment of a space for the establishment of a space for the establishment of a space for the establishment of a space for the establishment of a space for the establishment

Note 3)

주4) This shipment is carried under and pursuant to the term of the contract Affreightment/Charter party Dated June 20, 2008 at Norwalk, between Team Tankers AS and Kolmar Americas Inc., as Charterers, and All the terms whatsoever of the said Contract of Affreightment/Charter Party including the arbitration clause specified therein apply to and govern the rights of the parties concerned in this shipment.

주5) If this Bill of Lading is a document of title to which the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act of the United States, approved April 16, 1936, or similar legislation giving statutory effect to the International Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules relating to Bill of lading at Brussels of August 25, 1924, applies by reason of the port of loading or discharge being in territory in which the said Act or other similar legislation is in force, this Bill of Lading shall have effect subject to the provision of the said Act or other similar legislation, as the case may be, which shall be deemed incorporated herein, and nothing herein contained shall be deemed a surrender by the carrier of any of its rights or immunities or an increase of any of its responsibilities under said Act or other similar legislation.

State6) Do Governor Special Self-Governing Province for Tearster shall lappy to be lapped from the Fund to the United States of America.

주7) A carrier shall be at liberty to surrender in whole or in part all or any of his rights and immunities or to increase any of his responsibilities and liabilities under this chapter, provided such surrender or increase shall be embodied in the bill of lading issued to the shipper.

주8) Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1971 SCHEDULEE+W+S+N.I. The Hague Rules as amended by the Brussels Protocol 1968 Article III 1. The carrier shall be bound before and at the beginning of the voyage to exercise due diligence to- (a) Make the ship seaworthy; (b) Properly man, equip, and supply the ship; (c) Make the holds, refrigerating and cooling chambers, and all other parts of the ship in which goods are carried, fit and safe for their reception, carriage, and preservation. 2. Subject to the provisions of Article Ⅳ, the carrier shall properly and carefully load, handle, stow, carry, keep, care for, and discharge the goods carried. Article Ⅳ 1. Neither the carrier nor the ship shall be liable for loss or damage arising or resulting from unseaworthiness unless caused by want of due diligence on the part of the carrier to make the ship seaworthy, and to secure that the ship is properly manned, equipped and supplied, and to make the holds, refrigerating and cool chambers and all other parts of the ship in which goods are carried fit and safe for their reception, carriage and preservation in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1of Article III. Whenever loss or damage has resulted from unseaworthiness the burden of proving the exercise of due diligence shall be on the carrier or other person claiming exemption under this article. 2. Neither the carrier nor the ship shall be responsible for loss or damage arising or resulting from- (m) Wastage in bulk or weight or any other loss or damage arising from inherent defect, quality, or vice of the goods

주9) The Carriage of Goods by Sea Act §1304 Rights and immunities of carrier and ship 5. (Amount of liability; valuation of cargo) Neither the carrier nor the ship shall in any event be or become liable for any loss or damage to or in connection with the transportation of goods in an amount exceeding $500 per package lawful money of the United States, or in case of goods not shipped in packages, per customary freight unit, or the equivalent of that sum in other currency, unless the nature and value of such goods have been declared by the shipper before shipment and inserted in the bill of lading.

주10) Senior Courts Act 1981 35A Power of Hight Court to award interest on debts and damages. (1) Subject to rules of court, in proceeding(whenever instituted) before the High Court for the recovery of a debt or damages there may be included in any sum for which judgment is given simple interest, at such rate as the court thinks fit or as rules of court may provide, on all or any part of the debt or damages in respect of which judgment is given, or payment is made before judgment, for all or any part of the period between the date when the cause of action arose and- (b) in the case of the sum for which judgment is given, the date of the judgment. Judgments Act 1838 17 Judgment debts to carry interest (1) Every judgment debt shall carry interest at the rate of pounds per centum per annum from…until the same shall be satisfied, Administration of Justice Act 1970 44A Interest on judgment debts expressed in currencies other than sterling (1) Where a judgment is given for a sum expressed in a currency other than sterling and the judgment debt is one to which section 17 of the Judgments Act 1838 applies, the court may order that the interest rate applicable to the debt shall be such rate as the court thinks fit.