1. Where the governing law of a contract of carriage under a bill of lading is the Korean law, whether the governing law at the time of exercising the right of subrogation is the Korean law;

2. Whether the terms and conditions of immunity stated in the bill of lading apply to tort liability

1. If the rights of the parties stipulated in the terms and conditions of a bill of lading are to be interpreted in accordance with Korean law, and the governing law of the contract of carriage of this case is prescribed in Korean law, exercising such rights in subrogation of the legitimate holder of the above bill of lading shall also be the governing law.

2. Unless there are special circumstances, it is clear that the terms and conditions of discharge stated in a bill of lading include not only the non-performance liability under the contract of carriage to be asserted by the holder of the securities but also the tort liability on the ground of infringement of the ownership of the cargo. Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the securities holder and the carrier have a hidden agreement between the securities holder and the carrier to apply the above terms and conditions of discharge not only the non-performance liability under the contract of carriage but also the tort liability on the ground of infringement of the ownership of the cargo. Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that there was a hidden agreement between the securities holder and the carrier to apply the above terms and conditions of discharge to the tort liability.

Articles 789, 814, 820 of the Commercial Code, Article 13 of the Conflict of Laws

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Han-chul, Attorneys Lee In-bok et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

United Nations Maritime Fire Insurance Corporation

Co., Ltd.

Seoul Civil District Court (Law No. 82Ga363 delivered on October 29, 1982)

1. The part of the lower judgment against the Plaintiff, which orders payment under the following, shall be revoked.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 294,875 and the amount at the rate of five percent per annum from March 1, 1980 to the date of full payment.

2. All remaining appeals by the plaintiff and the defendant are dismissed.

3. The costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant in both the first and second instances.

4. Paragraph (1) above and Paragraph (1) above of the original judgment can be provisionally executed.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of 29,635,189 won with 6% interest per annum from March 1, 1980 to the date of full payment.

The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant and a declaration of provisional execution.

(Effect of Plaintiff’s Appeal) The part of the lower judgment against the Plaintiff shall be revoked.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of 294,875 won and the amount calculated by the rate of 6 percent per annum from March 1, 1980 to the date of full payment and the amount of 29,340,314 won per annum from March 1, 1980 to the date of full payment.

The costs of lawsuit shall be assessed against the defendant in both the first and second trials and a declaration of provisional execution.

(Purpose of Defendant’s Appeal) The part of the lower judgment against the Defendant shall be revoked, and the Plaintiff’s claim on this part shall be dismissed.

All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff in the first and second instances.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

각 진정성립에 다툼이 없는 갑 제1호증(선하증권), 갑 제4호증(화물인수도증), 갑 제6호증(화물적부도), 갑 제13호증의 1(신용장), 2(신용장정정서), 갑 제14호증(원산지증명서), 갑 제15호증(선하증권이면), 원심증인 고오또 시게유끼(후등무지)의 증언에 의하여 진정성립이 인정되는 갑 제2호증(상업송장), 갑 제3호증(포장명세서), 갑 제8호증 (손해배상통지서), 갑 제9호증(보험증권), 갑 제10호증(보험금청구서), 갑 제11호증 (대위장), 원심증인 바바우지오끼(마장씨흥)의 증언에 의하여 진정성립이 인정되는 갑 제5호증의 1, 2(각 검수표), 갑 제7호증(검정보고서)의 각 기재와 위 증인들의 각 증언에 변론의 전취지를 종합하면, 국내의 무역상사인 소외 주식회사 쌍용(이하 쌍용이라고만 표시한다)이 일본국 현지 법인인 소외 쌍용재팬과 국내산 열연강판 1,042개 1,910,553 메트릭톤(M/T)을 운임포함가격 미국돈 509,895.22불에 수출하기로 하는 수출입계약을 맺고 그 후인 1980. 1. 14. 피고회사와 사이에 피고소유의 선박인 시·카프(SEA. CALF)호로 대한민국 포항으로부터 일본국 나고야(명고옥)항까지 위 강판을 운송하기로 하는 해상운송계약을 체결한 사실, 피고는 위 운송계약의 이행을 위하여 위 강판을 인도받아 위 선박에 선적하고 이에 대하여 무고장 선하증권(번호 피·에치·엔 PHN-2)을 발행하여 송하인인 위 쌍용에게 교부한 사실, 위 화물의 송하인인 위 쌍용은 피고로부터 위 무고장 선하증권을 교부받아 그 무렵 거래은행인 대한민국 서울소재 한일은행에 매도하고 수하인인 위 소외 쌍용재팬이 일본국의 신용장개설은행인 한일은행 동경지점을 통하여 위 선하증권을 교부받음으로써 그 증권의 정당한 소지인이 되었고 한편 위 쌍용과 피고는 위 선하증권 약관에 따라 위 선하증권의 내용이나 증권에 규정된 당사자의 권리는 한국법에 따라 해석하기로 하여 이 사건 운송계약의 준거법을 한국법으로 정한 사실(약관 제19조), 소외 쌍용재팬은 위 선하증권의 정당한 소지인으로서 해상운송상의 위험을 담보하기 위하여 같은해 1. 17. 일본국의 보험회사인 원고와 위 강판에 관하여 보험금액을 일본돈 133,552,000엔으로 하고 담보위험의 범위는 비율불문 단독 해손담보조건(W.A.I.O.P)으로 하는 내용의 해상적하보험계약을 체결하고 당일 원고에게 보험료로 일본돈 233,716엔을 지급하고 원고로부터 보험증권(279-4329846)을 발행교부받은 사실, 위 강판의 운송선박인 위 시·카프호가 같은해 1. 14. 대한민국 포항항을 출발하여 일본국 나고야로 가는도중 폭풍우를 만나게 되었던바, 위 선박은 1962년에 건조된 비교적 선령이 오래된 낡은 선박으로서 선박내 선창구의 덮개가 낡고 그 위를 덮은 방수포도 일부가 헤어진 데다가 위 선창의 통풍장치에 약 2센치미터 가량의 구멍이 뚫려있었고 통풍구 뚜껑도 녹슬어 이가 맞지 아니하는 등 바닷물이 선창안으로 스며들 우려가 있었음에도 불구하고 해상운송업자인 피고나 그 피용자인 선장 또는 선원들이 항해중 폭풍우를 만날 경우를 대비하여 화물이 바닷물에 침수되지 않도록 위와 같은 시설물의 하자를 보수한 후 출항해야 할 것인데도 이를 보수치 아니한 채 그대로 적하출항 함으로써 바닷물이 그 안으로 들어와 선적된 위 강판중 444개가 심하게 녹이슬게 되어 위 강판의 수하인인 위 소외 쌍용재팬이 위 선박이 나고야항에 도착한 같은해 1. 25.경 강판을 인도받고 감정한 결과 녹슨강판 444개, 무게 885.99메트릭톤중 21.46퍼센트에 해당하는 190,133 매트릭톤의 강판이 몹시 녹이 슬어 멸실된 것과 다름없는 피해가 발생한 것으로 밝혀져 피고회사의 일본국 대리점에 그 사유를 통지하고 원고에게 보험금액의 지급을 청구함으로써 원고가 같은해 2.28. 위 쌍용재팬에게 위 해상적하 보험계약에 따라 그 보험금으로 일본 돈 13,290,761엔을 지급한 사실을 인정할 수 있고 이에 배치되는 을 제1호증의 기재와 원심증인 박우태, 원심 및 당심증인 오세영의 각 증언부분은 믿을 수 없으며(다만 오세영의 증언중 뒤에 일부 믿는 부분 제외) 달리 위 인정을 좌우할 아무런 증거없다.

According to the above facts, the above accident occurred due to the defect of the above ship's facilities, which was discovered, repaired, and supplemented in advance by the captain or the crew of the above ship who is the defendant company or its employees, or due to the negligence in the course of the business when the cargo was loaded out of the port without any security, and thus, the defendant is liable for compensation of the above non-party 2's damage caused by the negligence of himself and his employees (the defendant asserts to the effect that if the marine carrier inflicts damage on another person due to the intention or negligence of himself or his employees, the liability for the non-performance of the contract of carriage under the Commercial Act shall not be held liable for tort under the Civil Act, but if the non-performance of the contract of carriage constitutes tort under the Civil Act at the same time, the victim shall be the marine carrier, and therefore, the above argument is groundless) since it is clear that the plaintiff paid the insurance money under the contract with the two panty as to the above damage suffered by the company under the above insurance contract.

However, the defendant first asserts that, insofar as the strong board, which is the cargo of this case, has already been damaged before the acquisition of ownership, and the transfer procedure of the right to claim damages has not been supported by the non-party 2's transfer of ownership, the non-party 2 cannot claim damages against the defendant. Accordingly, the plaintiff cannot claim damages against the defendant. In addition, according to Article 13 of the Conflict of Laws Act, the establishment and validity of a claim for damages caused by a tort shall not be governed by the law of the place where the underlying facts occurred. However, since sea water and cargo were damaged within the territorial sea of Japan, the law of Japan shall be the governing law. However, as long as the legitimate holder of a bill of lading representing the right to claim the return of the cargo of this case issued by the defendant becomes the legitimate holder of the bill of lading, it may exercise the right to claim damages caused by the loss or damage of the cargo of this case as indicated in the above bill of lading, and the right of the parties under the terms and conditions of the above bill of lading shall be interpreted in accordance with the Korean law.

Secondly, the defendant, as a marine carrier, has fulfilled his duty of care at the time of departure of a seagoing ship, as well as melting the above platform, which is the cargo of this case, is losses arising from the navigation of the captain, crew, and other employees of the above ship or the management of the ship. It is not so even if this is the damage that may normally arise due to the danger or accident on the sea or other navigable waters or the special nature or hidden defect of the above platform, which is the cargo of this case, or the damage that may not occur ordinarily due to the cargo of this case, or that the shipper, consignee, or cargo owner under the terms and conditions of the bill of lading (Article 2(11) of the bill of lading). Thus, the defendant, as the marine carrier, should be exempted from liability under the provisions of Articles 78(2) and 789(2) of the Commercial Act, or should be exempted from liability under the terms and conditions of the above Article 789(2) of the Commercial Act unless there is any evidence supporting the above defendant's assertion that the defendant's liability for damages cannot be applied to the above cargo of this case.

Third, according to Articles 812 and 121 of the Commercial Act, the defendant's liability as the shipowner and the sea carrier's liability under the above Articles 812 and 121 expires after the lapse of one year from the date on which the consignee received the cargo, and the above bill of lading also issued by the defendant, the defendant's liability had already been extinguished before the lawsuit was brought. Even if the defendant is liable for damages due to the tort, the defendant's liability for damages was extinguished by the prescription period of one year under international conventions, such as the 12th Amendment Protocol adopted at the Switzerland Diplomatic Conference on February 1968, since it is recognized that the defendant's liability for damages due to the tort has not been extinguished after the lapse of the prescription period of one year, as long as there was no agreement between the defendant and the defendant's liability for damages due to the tort and the non-performance of one's liability as well as the non-performance of one's liability for damages due to the non-performance of one's own rights after the lapse of prescription period of one's own liability.

2. Scope of compensation for damage.

According to the above facts, the non-party 2's non-party 2's 190,13's 2.2's 5's 97's 2.2's 5's 197's 2.5's 29's 97's 197's 2.5's 97's 2.5's 297's 97's 297's 39's 97's 97's 2.5's 97's 2.5's 97's 97's 2.5's 97's 97's 2.5's 97's 197's 39's 97's 196's 97's 196's 39's 197's 196's 196's 297's 319's 1975'''739''''''''''25'''''

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay damages for delay at the rate of 5% per annum from March 1, 1980 to the date following the day following the payment date of the above insurance money to the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified only within the above recognition scope, and the remainder is dismissed as there is no reason. Since the original judgment differently accepted the above cited amount, the part of the judgment below against the plaintiff, which is the difference between the above quoted amount and the quoted amount of the judgment below, is revoked, and the part of the judgment below against the plaintiff, which is the difference between the quoted amount and the quoted amount of the judgment below, is revoked and the plaintiff's claim as to this part is accepted, and the defendant's remaining appeal and the defendant's appeal are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of Article 89 and Article 96 of the Civil Procedure Act, and Article 6 (1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings with respect to the provisional execution declaration.

Judges Kim-sung (Presiding Judge)