[Damages] 207Na22453

Plaintiff and Appellant ○○ Incorporated Company

Changwon-si

dedicated representative director

1. A stock company of 000;

Busan Central District

[Defendant-Appellee]

2. ◈◈◈ 주식회사

Mag-si, Nam-gu

대표이사 ▷▷▷

3. ▲▲▲▲ 주식회사

Seoul Central District

▽▽▽▽▽▽

2-2, 1, 1, 1, 3, 4

Busan Southern-gu

Busan District Court Decision 2007Gahap1657 Decided November 16, 2007

April 15, 2008

April 29, 2008

1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendants jointly and severally with the plaintiff KRW 235,034,660, and the plaintiff as to this.

6% per annum from the day after the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case to the date of rendering a judgment of the first instance; and

The payment of 20% interest per annum from the date of full payment shall be made.

1. Basic facts

The following facts are acknowledged, either under dispute between the parties, or under consideration of each of the evidence 1, 3, 1, 2, 2, 3, 4, 5-1, 2, 39, 17, 14-1, 5-2, 5-2, 1, 5-3, 5-2, 5-3, 5-2, 5-2, 5-2, 5-1, 5-2, 5-2, 5-2, 5-2, 5-2, 5-2, 5-2, 5-2, 5-2, 5-2, 5-2, 5-3, 5-2, 1, 5-2, 5-2, 5-2, 5-2, and 3-3

A. The Plaintiff was manufactured from Tyo A-Tech Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Japan Dogian") in the Gusan ADM (ADM), a sub-contractor, upon being requested to manufacture in Japan 73,008,018, the total price of which was 73,000,000,018.

B. On November 9, 2005, the Plaintiff entered into a contract on the transportation of the above mining machine into with the Defendant Lao Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant”) to Japan through Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant”), (hereinafter “instant transportation contract”) (the actual transportation request appears to have been made by Gu U.S. M.). On November 9, 2005, Co., Ltd.’s request for Ku U.S. LM: around 00, 100 U.S. C. container operation made it possible to divide the above mining machine into the two special transportation vehicle, and to report it to Busan U.S. (hereinafter “Defendant 3”).

다. 위 화물조작장에서 1, 2, 6번 포장케이스에 담긴 호닝머신의 일부 부품 ( 이하 ' 이 사건 화물 ' 이라 한다 ) 이 40피트 플랫 랙 컨테이너 ( 번호 AMZU4206586 - 3, 이하 ' 이 사건 컨테이너 ' 라 한다 ) 3 ) 에 묶여 적입되자, ◆◆◆◆◆ 주식회사 소속 부산 * * 사 * * * * 호트랙터의 지입차주인 피고 ☆☆☆은 같은 날 17 : 05경 이 사건 컨테이너를 위 트랙터에 신고 위 화물조작장에서 약 1km 떨어진 부산항 제7부두 제72번 선석에 접안한 피고의 부산익스프레스호 옆까지 운반하였다 .

D. Although the aggregate weight of the instant cargo was indicated in 25 tons (No. 18 tons + No. 2. 5 tons + No. 6. 3.5 tons) on the container container’s filling and packing cases, as a result of measuring the weight with Harbourin in the course of shipment, the shipment was revoked, which was revealed in excess of 38 tons exceeding 35 tons (including the weight of the container), the maximum load of the said crick, and Defendant ○○ and Defendant ○○ decided to return the instant container as the cargo handling unit.

E. Accordingly, Defendant 17: around 10 on the same day, Defendant 1: (a) driven the Track on which the instant container was loaded and proceeded with approximately 150 meters from 73 lines in order to return to the said cargo handling place; (b) the instant container was lost balance and the instant container was destroyed due to the destruction of the instant cargo. After the accident, the instant cargo was divided into the 2 Trackter, and the weight was measured at the 1219 authorized measurement and certification business establishment located in Nam-dong, Nam-gu, Busan, Busan, and thus, the net weight was 32.18 tons (=16 tons + 16 tons).

바. 피고 ○○은 이 사건 컨테이너를 제외한 나머지 2개의 컨테이너를 부산 익스프레스호에 선적하여 같은 달 11. 도착지인 일본 히로시마항까지 운송한 후 같은 달 15. 선하증권상의 수하인인 일본 도요사에 인도하였다. 한편 원고는 이 사건 화물의 외 형부분 ( 기계내부의 정밀부품은 일본에서 수리하기로 하였다 ) 을 수리한 후 피고 소◇에게 인계하였고, 피고 ○○은 같은 달 28. 위 부산익스프레스호에 선적한 다음 같은 달 30. 선하증권상의 수하인인 일본 도요사에 인도하였다 .

사. 피고 소 은 피고 ○○에게 부산항에서 취급하는 선박에 대한 컨테이너 조작과 제반작업 등에 관한 업무를, 피고 은 피고 ▲▲▲▲ 주식회사 ( 이하 ' 피고 ▲▲▲▲ ' 라 한다 ) 에게 컨테이너 본선 셔틀 ( Shuttle ) 운송 ( 근거리 ), 내륙운송 등에 관한 업무를, 피고 ▲▲▲▲는 협력사인 ■■■■ 주식회사 ( 이하 ' ■■■■ ' 이라 한다 ) 에게 컨테이너 본선 셔틀 ( Shuttle ) 운송 ( 근거리 ), 내륙운송 업무를 각 위임하였고, ■■■ ■은 피고 ☆☆☆이 소속된 ◆◆◆◆◆ 주식회사에게 같은 업무를 재차 위임하였다 .

2. The plaintiff's assertion

이 사건 운송계약은 1개의 계약으로 육상운송 ( 화물조작장 - 72번 선석 ) 과 해상운송(부산 - 히로시마 ) 이 이루어지도록 되어 있으므로 복합운송에 해당한다. 원고가 피고 소에게 이 사건 화물의 중량을 잘못 알려준 것은 사실이지만, 선적 과정에서 중량 초과사실이 밝혀졌으므로 이 사건 컨테이너가 전복될 가능성이 농후하였는바, 이러한 경우 피고들은 이 사건 컨테이너를 위 화물조작장으로 반송함에 있어 그에 적합한 운송수단을 사용하여야 하는데, 직선도로가 아니고 폭이 15m에 불과한 도로를 U턴 할 수 밖에 없다는 사정을 잘 알고 있었음에도 불구하고, 아무런 조치없이 피고 ☆☆☆의 트랙터에 이 사건 컨테이너를 싣고 반송하던 중 전복사고가 일어나 이 사건 화물이 파손되었다. 따라서 피고 ○ ○은 이 사건 운송계약의 불이행을 원인으로 한 손해배상으로, 피고 ☆☆☆과 그 사용자인 피고 ▲▲▲▲는 불법행위를 원인으로 한 손해배상으로, 연대하여 원고에게 이 사건 화물의 수리비 등에 상당하는 청구취지 기재 돈을 지급할 의무가 있다 .

3. Whether the transport contract of this case is a multimodal transport

해상운송에 있어 복합운송 ( combined transport, multimodal transport ) 이란 1개의 운송계약에 수인의 운송인이 관여하는 통운송중에서 서로 다른 2가지 이상의 운송수단을 이용하여 운송을 실행하는 것이다. 그런데, 상법 제788조가 " 운송인은 자기 또는 선원 , 기타의 선박사용인이 운송물의 수령, 선적, 적부, 운송, 보관, 양륙과 인도에 관하여 주의를 해태하지 아니하였음을 증명하지 아니하면 운송물의 멸실, 훼손 또는 연착으로 인한 손해를 배상할 책임이 있다 " 고 규정하고 있는 점에 비추어 반드시 지리적 개념상의 해상에서 현실적으로 운송을 실행하는 자만을 해상운송인으로 해석하여야 할 근거는 없다. 여기에 앞서 살핀 사실관계에 비추어 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정, 즉 ① 제작장소인 창원시에서 코로지스에 의하여 피고 ② 의 컨테이너 화물조작장까지 운송되었으므로 육상운송은 이로써 마쳐진 점, ② 이후 이 사건 화물은 원고와 피고 소◇◇ 사이의 이 사건 운송계약에 따라 운송선박인 부산익스프레스호에 선적할 목적으로 위 화물조작장에서 선적을 위하여 이 사건 컨테이너에 적입된 점, ③ 피고 ☆☆☆은 선적을 위하여 이 사건 컨테이너를 위 화물조작장에서 부산항 제7부두까지 운송하였는데 그 거리가 약 1km 정도에 불과하고, 운행구역도 부산항 구내인 점, ④ 피고 ① ◇, ▲▲▲▲, ☆☆☆은 모두 해상운송인인 피고 이 부산항에서 행하는 선적, 보관 등의 업무를 위하여 위임 내지 재위임을 받은 자들에 불과한 점 등에 비추어 보면, 이 사건 운송계약은 부산항 내에서 트랙터가 실제 운송수단으로 일부 이용되었다는 사정에도 불구하고 해상운송계약에 해당하므로, 이 사건에 관하여는 상법의 해상운송에 관한 규정을 적용함이 상당하다 .

4. Determination on the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit

A. (1) The above defendant asserts that the lawsuit of this case brought after the limitation period has expired is unlawful.

Therefore, Article 811 of the Commercial Act provides that "any claims and obligations of a carrier against a charterer, consignor, or consignee shall be terminated if no judicial claim is made within one year from the date on which the carrier delivers or delivers the cargo to a consignee, regardless of the cause of the claims." However, this period may be extended by agreement between the parties. "The date on which the carrier delivers the cargo to a consignee" under Article 811 of the Commercial Act means the date on which the delivery should have been made if the contract of carriage was performed in accordance with the contents of the contract (see Supreme Court Decision 97Da28490 delivered on November 28, 1997). The first lawsuit is unlawful since the remainder of the cargo except the cargo of this case, which was transported by the plaintiff to the above defendant under the contract of carriage of this case, was delivered to Doggian on November 15, 2005, which was brought against the defendant 207 after the lapse of one year from that time.

(2) The Plaintiff asserted that the Japanese Dogman should complete the repair of the instant cargo and finally notify the Plaintiff of the details of the damage, and the exclusion period should be calculated from February 18, 2006. However, there is no ground to regard it as such.

In other words, the plaintiff and the defendant 2 agreed to consult on compensation for damages from the time when he was notified of the details of the damage from Japan's Dogian. This constitutes an implied extension agreement, and even if not, since the defendant's exclusion period and assertion are deceiving the plaintiff or abused his rights, it is insufficient to recognize that there was an extension agreement on the exclusion period only by the testimony of the public health team, the witness Park ○-○ and Park Jong-○'s witness at the court of first instance, and the defendant 2's testimony of each part of the defendant 2's right cannot be permitted in violation of the good faith principle, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that there was no other evidence to prove that there was deceiving the plaintiff or abusing his right. Furthermore, according to each of the above evidence, the plaintiff's assertion that the defendant's direct repair of the freight of this case constitutes an implied extension agreement, and even if not, the plaintiff's assertion that "the defendant did not have any special reasons to exclude the plaintiff's damages from 20 days after being notified of the final damages on February 18, 200006.

나. 피고, ▲▲▲▲, ☆☆☆에 대한 청구

The above Defendants asserted that, on the back of the bill of lading issued by the Defendant, the above Defendants stated the so-called "the so-called "the so-called" clause (Himaldaya Clause), which can be asserted by the carrier, that the Defendant’s lawsuit, the carrier, has been subject to the limitation period under Article 811 of the Commercial Act. Thus, the above Defendants asserted that they have invoked the above arguments by the Defendant’s lawsuit.

그러므로 보건대, 앞서 채용한 증거들에 을나4호증, 을다4호증의 각 기재를 더하여 보면, 피고 이 이 사건 운송계약에 따라 이 사건 화물을 제외한 나머지 컨테이너 2개를 운송하면서, 이 사건 화물을 2차로 운송하면서 발행한 각 선하증권의 뒷면에 이른바 ' 히말라야 약관 ' 4 ) 이 기재되어 있는 사실이 인정되는바, 이 사건 화물의 운송과 관련한 컨테이너 조작과 제반작업 등에 관한 업무 내지 컨테이너 본선 셔틀 (Shuttle ) 운송 ( 근거리 ) 등에 관한 업무 등을 담당하면서 해상운송인인 피고 소 의하수급인 또는 운송관련자의 지위에 있는 피고, ▲▲▲▲, ☆☆☆은 위 ' 히말라야 약관 ' 에 따라 피고 소소의 상법 제811조에 기한 주장을 원용할 수 있다 .

Therefore, the lawsuit of this case against the above defendants is unlawful as it was filed after the expiration of the exclusion period under Article 811 of the Commercial Act.

C. The plaintiff's assertion on the plaintiff's second defense (1)

The Plaintiff indicated the weight-oriented point on the front side of the cargo packing case of this case, and indicated to the point of entry (referring to the part of loading for klilift, and the part of loading for klift). The Defendants sent the freight of this case in excess of weight to the cargo handling place and did not take any measures as prescribed in paragraph (2) but did not transport the freight of this case while transporting the freight of this case. The Defendants’ negligence falls under the proviso of Article 789-3(2) of the Commercial Act, and thus, the Defendants cannot assert the lapse of the exclusion period as prescribed in Article 811 of the Commercial Act.

(2) Determination

(A) The assertion about Defendant ○

상법 제811조는 운송인의 악의나 고의 여부 등 그 청구원인의 여하를 가리지 아니하고 적용되므로 ( 대법원 1997. 9. 30. 선고 96다54850 판결 참조 ), 원고의 위 피고에 대한 주장은 더 나아가 살필 필요 없이 이유 없다 . ( 나 ) 피고, ▲▲▲▲, ☆☆☆에 대한 주장

Article 789-3 (2) of the Commercial Act provides that "where a claim for compensation for damage with respect to cargo has been made to an employee or agent of a carrier and such damage has arisen in the course of performing his/her duties, such employee or agent may invoke the defenses and the limitation of liability which the carrier may claim. However, the same shall not apply where the damage has occurred due to an intentional act or omission (hereinafter " intentional act or reckless act") committed with intent or with intent of the employee or agent while recognizing the concern about the occurrence of the loss, damage, or delay in arrival of the cargo." "employee or agent" refers to a person who conducts such duties under the command and supervision of the carrier pursuant to an employment contract or delegation contract, etc. and includes an independent contractor who conducts such duties regardless of such direction and supervision. Thus, such independent contractor cannot invoke defenses under Article 811 of the Commercial Act. However, if so-called "the bill of lading" must be referred to as "the latter part of this case, it can be asserted that the damage was caused by an act or omission of the carrier."

According to the above facts, although the above defendants were delegated or re-entrusted with the operation of containers related to marine transportation and the operation of the package of container package transport, etc. by the defendant, it is reasonable to view that they are independent contractors who are engaged in their own business based on their own judgment without being bound and supervised by the defendant's lawsuit. Thus, the above defendants are policyholders under Article 789-3 of the Commercial Act.

The defenses that the defendant could assert pursuant to the "Mali-gu Clause", not the provisions of paragraph 2, can be invoked.

In addition, "In intentional or reckless act" in the proviso of Article 789-3 (2) of the Commercial Act refers to "the act is performed although it is desired to cause damage, or it was aware of such fact for the purpose of the occurrence thereof, or the act is committed with intent or negligence equivalent to the intention (the act was committed with intent)" (the burden of proof is deemed to be the plaintiff who asserts the responsibility of the above defendants.

Therefore, according to the testimony of the witness of the first instance court and the highest ○○○○○○○, Defendant 1 instructed that the instant cargo should not be loaded but be returned to the cargo handling place, and Defendant 1’s “The instant cargo was temporarily rejected, but Defendant 1’s employees refused to transport the instant cargo at once,” and “the fact that the instant cargo was previously loaded, under the direction of Defendant 1’s staff, that the instant cargo was previously loaded.”

However, with respect to whether the above Defendants’ accident occurred due to intentional or reckless act of not taking any measures despite the fact that the weight exceeds the weight, i.e., the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence of this case, i., ① the relationship that did not take account of weight-oriented weight in the process of loading the packages of the instant cargo or the instant container, and there is no ground to deem that the Defendants’ failure to report the fact that the weight exceeded the weight was caused by the weight exceeding the weight exceeding the weight exceeding the level of 143 m (O/H 143m). Furthermore, in light of the fact that there is no reason to view that the Defendants’ assertion that it was difficult to recognize that the Defendants’ failure to report the fact that the weight exceeded the weight of the instant cargo exceeds the quantity of 38 m (O/W 38mm) on both sides of the instant container and that it was difficult to recognize that the Defendants’ testimony or the instant cargo-oriented weight exceeded the weight exceeding the quantity of 143m (O/W 38m) on each of the instant container.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion against the above Defendants is without merit.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case against the defendants is unlawful, and it shall be dismissed in its entirety. The judgment of the court of first instance is just in its conclusion, and all appeals against the defendants are dismissed in its entirety. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Young-young

Judges Shin Gyeong-sa

Judge Lee Jae-chul

1) Machines that rhythm the structure of a structure by dymmetrics, and rhymble the structure of this case, and rhymbles for automobiles

Cyliner Blocks are machines processing blocks.

2) The sales contract between the Plaintiff and the Japanese Dogian was concluded on the condition that “F.O. B. Bank Port (port of registry).” The Haging machine was cargo.

There is no participation in the examination.

(iii) Weight and height and breadth of green containers (Flat Racker) which are larger than ordinary containers;

A container used for loading means a form in which all-round is open and only bed.

4) The original text of Article 36 of the back Terms and Conditions of the bill of lading is "36. (E.M.)"

servantor of the Construction Company. A gaser (i.e., empoyed at the time of delivery to be from the contractor or contractor of the Construction Company.

- Dominer in the area of shall operations in the area of shall operations, and Domina Domina Domina Doz. Domina Domina Domina Domina,

1999 1111111.20 201.21 201.21 201.22.33 201.33 201.332.333.33.33.31.31.

In other words, neglect or de fau raying from arglecing

The Secretary General of the United Nations of the United Nations in the Republic of Korea shall be responsible for the General Secretariat of the Republic of Korea in the United Nations.

foregoing provisions in this clause, every exemption limitation, condition and liberty herein contained and

ex licitation on the basis of the liability to grant ex ante payments, de facto laver nure lapped by the Secretary of the Ministry of Finance and Economy

277, 198 28 2, 198 2, 198 2, 198 2, 208 2, 208 2, 201

servants or agent of the carrier as aforesaid and for the purpose of all the foregoing provisions of this

clause. The Construction Company is able to be responsible for any damage, damage, damage, or damage, damage, damage, damage, damage, damage, damage, damage, damage, damage, damage, damage, damage, damage, damage, damage, damage, damage, damage, damage, damage, damage, damage, damage

2.999 1.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2. 2. 3

contractor(s) and other persons of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport to be included in the area to be included in the area to be included in the area.

contractor, in the process of concluding a contract, is able to see by a law enforcement agency, e.g., 017