The case holding that the domestic transportation business entity is liable for damages to the domestic transportation business entity of the owner of the goods, in case where the goods were transported to the showers held by the owner of the goods at the request of the marine transportation business entity who entered into a transportation contract for the imported goods, and the goods were transported to the warehouse of the owner of the goods, and the showers located in the place until the customs clearance procedure, etc. was completed.

The case holding that the domestic transportation business entity is liable for damages to the domestic transportation business entity of the owner of the goods, in case where the goods were transported to the showers held by the owner of the goods at the request of the marine transportation business entity who entered into a transportation contract for the imported goods, and the goods were transported to the warehouse of the owner of the goods, and the showers located in the place until the customs clearance procedure, etc. was completed.

Articles 125 and 780 of the Commercial Act, Article 390 of the Civil Act

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

Attorney Lee Jae-in, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Dong Jinsung Industrial Co., Ltd., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 90Na30601 delivered on December 7, 1990

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

(1) As to the Defendant’s liability for damages of this case

The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court below is as follows. In other words, even if the defendant, a company engaged in the business of manufacturing, selling, etc. of chemical substances, entered into a transportation contract with the Hong Kong Shipping Co., Ltd. for import of chemical substances from the Hong Kong Construction Co., Ltd., and the above non-party company requested the transportation of imported chemical substances to the above non-party company, the non-party company entered into a transportation contract with the non-party 1, and completed the transportation contract with the non-party 1, and then it was not possible for the plaintiff to request the plaintiff to pay for the cargo for the transportation of the cargo at the time of loading and unloading of the plaintiff's goods to the place designated by the defendant Co., Ltd. on August 4, 198, the court below held that two containers containing the defendant's imported cargo were directly carried out by the plaintiff for transportation of the above goods at the time of loading and unloading of the plaintiff's goods at least after the plaintiff's request to return the goods to the plaintiff.

(2) The defendant's possession of the shower of this case is rather difficult for the defendant to immediately return the shower due to lack of customs clearance and loading and unloading procedures after taking over imported cargo from the plaintiff, rather than by the plaintiff's free deposit, it is reasonable to deem that the defendant continued to use the import cargo loaded in the shower market until completion of the procedure for customs clearance and loading and unloading. In such a case, since the possessor has a duty to preserve the goods with due care as a good manager, the possessor has a duty to keep the goods free of charge. Thus, as long as the defendant kept the shower's custody with due care, it constitutes a gratuitous deposit of the goods owned by the plaintiff, the judgment of the first instance court, which rejected the defendant's argument that the defendant did not have a duty to compensate the plaintiff for damages due to the failure to perform the duty to return the goods, and it is not acceptable to accept the conclusion of the judgment of the court of first instance.

(3) Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Jae-sung (Presiding Justice)