logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 2018.10.25 2017다263543
부적운임 등 청구의 소
Text

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Legal nature and burden of proof of public freight;

(a)The freight charter shall be calculated on the basis of the quantity of the freight according to a voyage charter in which the carrier provides the charterer with the whole or a part of the ship to the carriage of the freight, and the charterer agrees to pay the freight in response thereto;

In order to guarantee the minimum amount of the freight from the freight charter agreement, if the charterer fails to set the lowest limit of the quantity of the cargo to be loaded on the relevant ship in order to guarantee the carrier the minimum amount of the freight, the so-called "public freight or the cargo freight ("Ded" hereinafter) to be paid in the absence or shortage of the loading of the relevant cargo shall not be the actual freight, but shall be the compensation for the failure to perform the relevant terms and conditions of the freight charter agreement, and the payment agreement shall be a kind of liquidated damages.

(See Supreme Court Decision 93Do1064 delivered on December 7, 1993, etc.). B.

If the amount of damages is estimated due to the default, the creditor may claim the amount of damages without proving the occurrence of the damage and the amount of the damages if only the fact of the default is proved.

The debtor may be exempted from liability for payment of estimated compensation by proving and proving that there is no cause attributable to himself/herself, unless he/she agrees not to ask for any cause attributable to the debtor in default.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2006Da9408 Decided December 27, 2007, etc.) On February 2, 2007, as to C’s revocation of the secondary shipment load (ground of appeal No. 4)

A. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record, the following facts are revealed.

(1) The Defendant, as the exporter, exercised the right of intervention as a freight forwarder, is a maritime transport contract for transporting the Plaintiff and export facilities to Brazil in Korea (hereinafter “instant transport contract”).

arrow