C. C.S. P. S. P. P. S. (Law Firm Doon, Attorney Yoon Jin-ho, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Esamerasation and Fire Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. (Attorneys Lee Han-han, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

October 7, 2014

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 65,120,319 won with 5% interest per annum from July 25, 2013 to June 13, 2014, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

3. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Basic facts

A. On March 25, 2013, the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a cargo liability insurance contract with the Plaintiff, the insured period from April 5, 2013 to April 5, 2014, the maximum compensation amount of KRW 100 million (10 million per accident), and KRW 5 million per self-paid (1 accident) (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”). Of the grounds for the payment of insurance proceeds as stipulated in the relevant terms and conditions, the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into the instant insurance contract with the Defendant, and the contents related to the instant case are as follows.

SECTION 1 - Legal liability for cargo

A. Legal liability of the insured for delay in transportation, damage to cargo, destruction or damage which occurred during the insurance period within the extent of customary law, contract, state or international conventions, or statutes;

* Exemption Clause

In addition to the common exemption clause, the following losses shall not be compensated:

1. A claim for compensation by a third party, except for any damage, damage, or delay in carriage, incurred in the protection, management, or control of the insured or in respect of the cargo to which the insured is responsible under the transportation and storage contract.

B. On January 21, 2013, the Plaintiff: (a) was commissioned to provide multi-modal transport services from the registry of imported cargo ( female DNA 20con, total weight of 658kg) to the marine transportation, bonded warehouse storage, customs clearance, and delivery to the store located in the Dongdaemun-gu market; (b) on January 21, 2013, the Plaintiff was entrusted to provide multi-modal transport services; (c) was shipped to the sea transport chain vessel with the sea-based fluorian vessel built on the sea transport chain; and (d) received in Incheon on January 22, 2013, the Plaintiff stored the said cargo in the bonded warehouse (hereinafter referred to as “instant bonded warehouse”) of the Incheon Jung-gu, Jung-gu, Incheon ( Address 1 omitted); and (d) went through customs clearance on January 22, 2013; and (e) kept the said cargo in the instant bonded warehouse for delivery at the request of the scheduled date.

C. The Plaintiff was commissioned to provide all transportation brokerage services for the combined cargo from Es (Ploish Ploish Ploon, total weight of 53 km) to the marine transportation, bonded warehouse storage, customs clearance, and delivery of Esloteck to the warehouse located in Slock. On May 12, 2013, the Plaintiff was requested to store the above cargo in the instant bonded warehouse on May 13, 2013; the Plaintiff was requested to store the cargo in the instant bonded warehouse on May 14, 2013; to store the cargo in the instant bonded warehouse on May 13, 2013; to store the cargo in the instant bonded warehouse on May 14, 2013; to store the cargo in the instant bonded warehouse on May 13, 2013; to store the cargo in the instant bonded warehouse on May 14, 2013; to store the cargo in the instant bonded warehouse on May 13, 2013 at the request of Slock.

D. At around 04:40 on July 25, 2013, a fire that could not identify the cause of the instant bonded warehouse has occurred, and thereafter, the following freight (hereinafter “instant freight”) was transferred in 17,860,452 (i.e., KRW 15,053,100 + customs duties + KRW 1,956,90 + KRW 33,000 + customs clearance commission + KRW 19,30,000 + KRW 80,000 + KRW 30,000 + KRW 30,000 + KRW 30,000 + KRW 30,00 + KRW 30,00 + KRW 93,577,00 + KRW 57,000 + KRW 93,571,561,566). It incurred damages from the total of KRW 30,570,000 + KRW 370,57,000.3

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 13, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination:

A. Determination on the cause of the claim

A forwarding agent is liable for compensating the Plaintiff for damages due to the loss of, damage to, or delay in the delivery of the cargo unless it proves that he or his employees did not neglect due care in connection with the receipt, delivery, storage, the choice of the carrier or other shipping agents (Article 115 of the Commercial Act). In light of the above legal principles, unless it is proven that the Plaintiff or his employees did not neglect due care in the custody of the cargo of this case, the Plaintiff is liable for compensating the Plaintiff for damages due to the loss of the cargo of this case from the late delivery date and the SBE EBE, and the Defendant is liable for paying the Plaintiff the insurance proceeds equivalent to the amount of damages of the cargo of this case (i.e., KRW 65,120,319 (=17,860,452 won + KRW 25,094,812 won + KRW 27,165,555 - KRW 50,000 per annum, 200,000).

B. Judgment on the defendant's argument

1) The defendant alleged that the plaintiff did not breach his duty of care as a forwarding agent, such as selecting a carrier and a warehouseman suitable for the transportation of the goods entrusted as a forwarding agent, but there is no evidence to support that the plaintiff did not neglect such duty of care. Thus, the above assertion is without merit.

2) The Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff is not liable for damages since the instant cargo at the request of the owner was delivered to the owner as long as the delivery of the instant cargo was delayed at the request of the owner of the goods while the Plaintiff delayed the shipment and delivery of the instant cargo, and as long as the shipment was delayed at the request of the owner of the goods, the instant cargo at that time shall be deemed to have been delivered to the owner of the goods. However, as long as the Plaintiff was arranged not only through customs as to the instant cargo but also through domestic transportation, it cannot be deemed that the instant cargo was delivered to the owner on the ground that the Plaintiff delayed the shipment at the request

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim shall be accepted on the grounds of its reasoning, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Haba-in