beta
Text
The plaintiffs' appeal and the plaintiff A's preliminary claim added by this court are all dismissed.
Expenses for appeal shall be the expenses for appeal.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as the ground of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the following judgments to the plaintiff's new assertion (including the conjunctive claim) at the court of first instance (including the plaintiff's conjunctive claim), and therefore, it is difficult to change the factual relations and judgments recognized by the court of first instance even if the plaintiffs were to appear in the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court of first instance pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act and the testimony of witness F of the court of first instance, even if the plaintiffs were to appear in the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court of first instance, and there is no error as alleged by the plaintiffs as the grounds for appeal).
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion on the conclusion of the contract of carriage by proxy, etc. argues that the Defendant’s conclusion of the contract of carriage with F, the shipping agent, delegated the right of representation to F, thereby concluding the contract of carriage between the Defendant and the Plaintiffs.
However, as alleged by the plaintiff A, there is no clear evidence to prove that the defendant entrusted F with the conclusion of the contract of carriage with the plaintiffs and granted the power of representation to F so that the contract of carriage was concluded between the defendant and the plaintiffs. Thus, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit without any further review as to the remaining points.
B. The judgment of the plaintiff A on the conjunctive cause of action was that the contract of carriage was not concluded between the plaintiff A and the defendant.
However, in the process of issuing and delivering the tax invoice (No. 1-2) against the Defendant, the Plaintiff demanded that the Plaintiff pay the tax invoice directly to himself/herself, not F, and the Defendant agreed to do so. Therefore, the Defendant also asserted that he/she is liable to pay the transport fee under the above direct payment agreement with the Plaintiff, and added it to the ancillary claim by this court.