Whether a legitimate holder of a bill of lading is a consignee under Article 811 of the Commercial Act (affirmative) and whether Article 811 of the Commercial Act applies to cases where a holder of a bill of lading imposes on a carrier liability for damages arising from a tort that infringes on a carrier’s right to collateral security for the cargo (affirmative)

Article 811 of the Commercial Act applies to cases where a legitimate holder of a bill of lading has been issued under a marine transportation contract, and Article 811 of the Commercial Act applies not only to a claim for performance of a marine transportation contract of a carrier but also to a claim for damages arising out of a carrier's tort, etc. As such, Article 811 of the Commercial Act applies to cases where a holder of a bill of lading imposes on a carrier a liability for damages arising out of an infringement of a carrier's security right to the cargo.

Article 811 of the Commercial Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Han-sung, Attorneys Lee Jong-soo and 1 other, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Korean Bank, Inc.

National Air Service Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Yang Dong-dong Office, Attorney Lee Chang-hoon, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 98Na49472 delivered on June 18, 1999

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

In cases where a bill of lading has been issued according to a marine transportation contract, the legitimate holder of the bill of lading is the consignee under Article 811 of the Commercial Act. Article 811 of the Commercial Act applies not only to a claim for performance of a marine transportation contract of a carrier, but also to a claim for damages arising from a tort of a carrier (see Supreme Court Decision 96Da4246 delivered on April 11, 1997). Thus, Article 811 of the Commercial Act applies to cases where a holder of a bill of lading is liable for damages arising from a tort against a carrier who infringed a carrier’s right to transfer the bill of lading against the carrier.

The decision of the court below to this purport is justified, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as alleged in the grounds of appeal. Therefore, the grounds of appeal on this point are rejected

In addition, the court below's decision that the plaintiff and the defendant cannot be deemed to have agreed on the extension of the exclusion period under the proviso of Article 811 of the Commercial Act is proper, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence, incomplete hearing, and non-exercise of the right to explanation, as alleged in the grounds of appeal. Therefore

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Cho Chang-tae (Presiding Justice)