(a)the parties to a contract of carriage of goods at sea, if the export and import contract is concluded under the terms and conditions of delivery on board (F.O.B.);

B. Whether the status of a consignor under a contract of carriage is transferred to a consignee under a bill of lading when a bill of lading was issued in a contract of carriage of marine goods

(c) Whether a maritime carrier may claim the payment of freight if the consignee of the bill of lading refuses the receipt of the cargo.

A. Since the terms and conditions of credit, such as the terms and conditions of delivery on behalf of the buyer (F.O.B.), are nothing more than an agreement on the cost and risk burden between the parties to the export and import contract, it is difficult for the buyer to view that the buyer explicitly or implicitly granted the seller the right of representation to conclude the contract of carriage of goods on behalf of the buyer, on the ground that there was an agreement between the buyer and the seller under the terms and conditions of delivery on behalf of the buyer

B. The term "bill of lading" means a bill of lading which proves the receipt or shipment of the cargo in accordance with the contract of carriage of the cargo at the designated port, and is issued at the time of receipt or shipment of the cargo by the carrier in accordance with the contract of carriage. The holder of the bill of lading shall acquire the ownership of the cargo, and if the bill of lading has been issued, disposal of the cargo shall be made in the bill of carriage. If the bill of lading has been prepared, matters concerning transportation shall be based on the bill of lading between the carrier and the holder of the bill of lading. However, such provisions only regulate the ownership of the cargo if the bill of lading was issued, or regulate the relation between the carrier and the holder of the bill of lading who asserts the ownership of the cargo, and also cannot be deemed to have the status of the consignor as a party to the contract of carriage as a matter of course intended to transfer

C. As to the status of a consignee of a bill of lading, Article 614(1) of the German Commercial Act, Article 41(2) of the French Charter Contract and the Sea Transport Contract (No. 66-1078 of December 31, 1964) takes a different position from that of Article 1 of the English Bill of Lading Act (BLLOF LADIN ACT, 1855). Thus, even if the English bill of lading Act provides for the consignee of a bill of lading with the obligation to receive the cargo and to pay the cargo, such position cannot be viewed as an international practice regarding the status of the consignee of the bill of lading.

Articles 820, 132, 820, and 131 of the Commercial Act

Sea-Landvice, Inc. (Sea-Landvice, Inc.)

3.0.00.00.00.

Seoul High Court Decision 91Na90375 delivered on September 17, 1992

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the court below shall be revoked.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 151,299,013 won with 25% interest per annum from the day following the day when a duplicate of the complaint of this case is served on the defendant to the day of complete payment.

1. The following facts can be acknowledged in full view of Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 6-1, 2 (each bill of lading surface and back), Gap evidence Nos. 20-1 to 4 (each letter of credit issuance), Eul evidence Nos. 1-1 to 4 (each import agency contract), Eul evidence Nos. 4-1 (written confirmations), and the testimony of the above witness (excluding the part which is not trusted after the witness testimony of the court below as long as the witness testimony of the court below is not established), and the whole purport of the pleading cannot be acknowledged in full view of the following facts, and there is no counter evidence.

A. On March 191, 191, the Defendant entered into an import agency contract on behalf of the Defendant to carry out all business activities related to the import of the goods, such as filing an application for import approval with the Government and filing an application for issuance of a letter of credit with the Bank in its name, and receive commission from the above franchise agreement, in importing the goods from the Republic of Korea to the Republic of the Philippines (FRESHHPPPLE).

B. Around that time, according to the above import agency contract, the Defendant opened four copies of the letter of credit for revocation in the name of the beneficiary under the name of the Defendant at the Seoul Trust Bank, Seoul, Inc. (hereinafter “Seoul Trust Bank”) as the Canadian Accenture Accenture Accenture Accenture Accenture Accenture Accenture Accenture (hereinafter “KNAT US FIS INTRP.”), as follows:

1. Credit number: M2026-105-NS-0580 (hereinafter referred to as the "Credit")

Water : 10,200 boxes of propha fluors

amount of gold: US$ 53,040 in the aggregate of US$ 5.20 per box.

Terms and Conditions of Transport: the Terms and Conditions of Delivery of the Shipping on Board (F.O.B. MNIL POTRT)

Documents: Seoul Trust Bank will become a consignee and the FREIGHT COLT, and the bill of lading for non-accidented shipment or the bill of lading for non-accidentd aviation, all other documents, and two kinds

2. Credit number: M2026-104-NS-0370 (hereinafter 370 credit)

Water : Biophypha 8,500 boxes

amount: US$7.20 per box, the sum of US$61,200 per box.

Terms and Conditions of Transportation: Terms and Conditions of Transportation Cost (C& F.BUSN PRT)

Documents: Seoul Trust Bank will become a consignee and two kinds of documents, including all documents of non-accidented shipped bill of lading marked as freight prepaid (FREIHPA).

3. Credit number: M2026-104-NS-0705 (hereinafter referred to as the "Credit")

Water : 5,100 Poppy fluors

amount of gold: US$7.20 per box, the sum of US$36,720

Terms and Conditions of Transportation: Terms and Conditions of Transportation Cost (C& F.BUSN PRT)

Special Conditions: Permissible shipment by means of Hashes Hashes Hashes Hashes Hashes Hashes Hashes Hashes Hashes Hashes Hashes Hashes Hashes Hashes Had

Documents: Seoul Trust Bank will become a consignee and two kinds of documents, including all documents of non-accidented shipped bill of lading marked as freight prepaid (FREIHPA).

4. Credit number: M2026-104-NS-0057 (hereinafter referred to as the "Credit")

Water : 5,100 Poppy fluors

amount of gold: US$5.50 per box, the sum of US$28,050

Terms and Conditions of Transport: the Terms and Conditions of Delivery of the Shipping on Board (F.O.B. MNIL POTRT)

Special Conditions: Permissible shipment by means of Hashes Hashes Hashes Hashes Hashes Hashes Hashes Hashes Hashes Hashes Hashes Hashes Hashes Hashes Had

Documents: Seoul Trust Bank will become a consignee, and all documents of non-accidented shipment and two kinds, other than documents, marked as FREIGHT COLT

C. The Plaintiff, a marine transportation business entity, entered into a transportation contract with the Defendant under the terms and conditions of the letter of credit as seen above. The Plaintiff, at the request of the Accenture Company, loaded 307,021 kilograms of biochemical (hereinafter the instant cargo) on the 17 freezing containers (40 feet) owned by the Plaintiff and loaded 17 Scockidine (MAS CUDDINE) and PPE No. 900 (PUTOE 9E) from April 27, 191 to May 18 of the same year, and then the consignor and the exporter (SIPPP/EOPE) entered into a transportation contract with the Defendant under the BOTRT Agreement with the consignor and the consignee and the consignee (COESGNNNNE) enter into a transportation contract with the Defendant under the bill of lading contract with the Defendant, and the consignee and the consignee and the consignee (BOENNNNE 2, 2001.

(1) Number of a bill of lading: SEAU41530294 (hereinafter referred to as " bill of lading")

Water : 6,800 74,800 kilograms of Biopathal fluors

Total amount of freight: US$ 13,520

Freight Payment Method: Prepaid (FREIGHPREA)

(2) Number of a bill of lading: SEAU4153030314 (hereinafter referred to as " bill of lading")

Water: 1,440 15,840 kilograms of raw wave fluors 1,40 kilograms

Total amount of freight: US$380

Freight Payment Method: Prepaid (FREIGHPREA)

(3) Number of a bill of lading: SEAU41530735 (hereinafter referred to as " bill of lading")

Water : 5,093 56,023 kilograms of Biophafluors 5,093

Total amount of freight: US$10,140

Freight Payment Method: FREIGHT COLECT

(4) Number of a bill of lading: SEAU4153051 (hereinafter referred to as " bill of lading")

Water: 4,664 51,304 kilograms of raw waveafluors 51,304

Total amount of freight: US$10,140

Freight Payment Method: Prepaid (FREIGHPREA)

(5) Number of bill of lading: SEAU41530148 (hereinafter referred to as " bill of lading")

Water: 6,570 72,270 kilograms of raw wave fluors

Total amount of freight: US$ 13,520

Freight Payment Method: FREIGHT COLECT

(6) Number of bill of lading: SEAU41530153 (hereinafter referred to as " bill of lading")

Water: 3,344 36,784 kilograms of Biophypha fluors 36,784

Total amount of freight: US$6760

Freight Payment Method: FREIGHT COLECT

D. On the back of each of the above B/L, Article 13 of the Terms and Conditions states that ........ the consignor, consignee, holder of a bill of lading, and owner of the cargo are jointly and severally liable to the carrier for the payment of all the freight, ..... the amount to be paid to the carrier for the collection of the amount to be paid to the general average and carrier, ....." all the amount to be paid to the carrier shall be paid at the time of loss and shall be paid in full as specified in the currency or fee table or agreement of the port of loading or unloading corresponding thereto or at the option of the carrier, and Article 11 of the same Terms and Conditions provide that ..... in the port where the carrier delivers the cargo to the consignee even if the consignee was prepared for delivery, if the consignee fails to immediately accept the cargo, the cargo

E. Meanwhile, when an importer opens a letter of credit with a bank’s loan, it is the practice of L/C transaction to enter a bank as a consignee and enter an importer as a notifying party on the bill of lading in order to secure a bank’s credit. The above bill of lading also designated a consignee on the bill of lading as a Seoul Trust Bank in order to secure a bank’s credit, or the actual importer of the instant cargo was the defendant, and thus, the above bill of lading designated a consignee on the bill of lading as a defendant.

On the basis of the above facts, although the actual user of the freight of this case requested the defendant to import the freight of this case by proxy, the defendant is bound to be in the position of the purchaser of the freight of this case as long as the defendant has carried out the external business such as opening the letter of credit in the name of the defendant as the import agent of the above franchise, and the consignee under the above bill of lading is stated as Seoul Trust Bank, and even though the defendant is stated as the notice line on the bill of lading, it is merely in accordance with the purpose of the security for the issuing bank of the letter of credit, and therefore, the defendant is in substance in the same position as the consignee under the above bill

2. Furthermore, the plaintiff asserted that, as a party to the contract of carriage of the freight of this case, Accent Company entered into a transportation contract with the plaintiff on behalf of the defendant, who is the purchaser of the freight of this case, and received the above bill of lading from the plaintiff, the plaintiff, as a party to the contract of carriage of this case, that the sum of the freight of 30,420 U.S. dollars for the freight of this case on each bill of lading of 735, 1148, 1153 was 22,145, 760 won calculated on May 27, 1991 by converting 22,145, 760 won, 735, 1141, 1148, 1153 into the contract of carriage of the freight of this case, 51,782 won, and 939 U.S. dollars, 36,5797,979,97.39,000 won, 297.

On the other hand, the testimony of the court below, which corresponds to the fact that Accent Company entered into the contract of this case on behalf of the defendant, is not believed. However, in the issuance of L/C of this case 580 and 57 among L/C of this case, the defendant demanded a bill of lading with the terms and conditions of delivery (F.O.B.). Accordingly, the plaintiff's issuance of the bill of lading of this case 735, 1148 and 1153 as the bill of this case's bill of this case's bill of lading No. 735, 1148 and 1153 as the delivery method of the bill of this case's bill of this case's bill of this case's bill of this case's bill of lading No. 735, 735, 1148, and 1153 as the above, there is no express evidence that the terms and conditions of the L/C of this case's bill of lading as the terms and conditions of delivery between the buyer and the seller's.

In addition, the Plaintiff asserts that Nonparty 1, a freight forwarder located in the Republic of the Philippines, concluded a transportation contract with the Plaintiff on behalf of the Defendant, explicitly or implicitly, on behalf of the Defendant.

On the other hand, this case’s testimony of this case’s testimony of this case’s witness, consistent with the Plaintiff’s argument, is not believed, and it is also stated in the letter of credit Nos. 705 and 57 of this case’s letter of credit No. 4 that the shipping of this case’s cargo is possible under Hassk Hask Hask Hask Hask Hask Hask Hask Hask Hask Hask Hask Hask Hask Hask Hask Hask, located in the export site of this case’s cargo. This document appears to the purport that the payment by the letter of credit is possible, but this special condition under the letter of credit is merely merely an agreement between the parties to the export and import contract or the method of payment. Thus, the above recognition alone does not provide any other evidence to acknowledge that the buyer explicitly or implicitly granted the right of representation to conclude the shipping contract on behalf of the shipping company.

In addition, the Plaintiff asserts that the terms and conditions of the letter of credit are the terms and conditions of the shipment (F.O.B.) and accordingly, the seller is liable for the shipment contract and the bill of lading entry as the consignor under the contract of carriage as the consignor under the contract of carriage in case the seller is issued a bill of lading with the carrier with the post-payment (FREIGH COLT) as the consignee under the contract of carriage in the capacity of the buyer or the consignee under the contract of carriage in the manner of international trade and the contract of carriage. Thus, the Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant is liable for the shipment contract and the bill of lading entry as the consignor under the contract of carriage in the case of the carriage.

In light of the fact that there is such practice as the plaintiff's assertion, the court below's testimony of the witnesses, and fact-finding on the Chairman of the Korea International Trade Association of this Court shall not be believed. However, according to the result of fact-finding on the Chairman of the Korea International Trade Association of this Court (except for the above-mentioned part), the International Commercial Conference established and amended in 1990 of the International Rules on the Interpretation of the Terms and Conditions of Trade (International Rules 190) shall be established, and the International Trade Association Rules (F.O.B.) established for the purpose of international trade under the Terms and Conditions of Delivery (F.B.), the seller shall bear all the costs and risks imposed due to export until the date on which the goods are on board the designated port pass through the contract, and the buyer shall be deemed to bear all the risks and risks arising from the sale and purchase of the goods at his own expense, and the buyer shall not be deemed to have agreed on the terms and conditions of the sale and purchase of the goods at his own discretion, but shall not be deemed to have agreed on all the sale and sale of the goods at his own expense.

Therefore, under the premise that the contract of carriage of the freight of this case was concluded between the plaintiff and the defendant, the plaintiff's assertion that held the defendant liable under the terms and conditions of the bill of this case is without merit.

3. Next, the plaintiff asserts that when a bill of lading was issued in a contract of carriage of goods at sea, the bill of lading is incorporated not only into all the rights and obligations of the consignor to the carrier, and once the bill of lading is issued, the status of the consignor under the contract of carriage at the same time is transferred to the consignee under the contract of carriage at the same time. The defendant who is the actual consignee of the bill of carriage at the time of the bill of carriage at the same time is liable to pay the amount claimed by the plaintiff to the plaintiff as the carrier in accordance

I think, the bill of lading is issued at the time of receipt or shipment of the cargo by proving the receipt or shipment of the cargo in accordance with the contract of carriage of the cargo at the designated port. The bill of lading holder acquires the ownership of the cargo and, if a bill of lading is issued, disposal of the cargo must be made (Articles 820 and 132 of the Commercial Act). If a bill of lading is prepared, matters concerning carriage shall be made as stated in the bill of lading between the carrier and the holder (Articles 820 and 131 of the Commercial Act before the amendment of December 31, 191). Such provisions of the Commercial Act only regulates the ownership of the cargo if the bill of lading was issued, or regulate the relation between the consignee and the consignee as to the cargo, and it cannot be viewed that the defendant would transfer the cargo to the consignee or the consignee's right to ownership under the contract of carriage. Meanwhile, the plaintiff cannot be viewed as a bill of lading holder or the consignee's right to ownership under the contract of carriage with the bill of lading bill of lading bill of this case.

4. In the event that a contract of carriage of goods by sea was concluded as a carriage of goods, the consignee of the bill of lading is obligated to receive the goods without delay if he is notified of the arrival of the goods from the carrier. However, the defendant unfairly rejected the delivery of the goods of this case after the consignee arrives at the port of Busan and then the consignee was notified of the arrival of the goods of this case. In such a case, the consignee shall be deemed the consignee who received the goods under Article 800(1) of the Commercial Act, and the defendant asserts that the consignee is responsible for the terms and conditions of the contract of this case or the bill of lading.

In light of the above facts, Gap's bill of lading No. 1 to 6, Gap's evidence No. 8 without dispute over its establishment, Gap's evidence No. 19 (Food Import Declaration), Gap's witness's testimony as to the above portion, and Gap's testimony as to the above article No. 10-1 to 6, and the above witness's testimony (except the above-mentioned part), the plaintiff's delivery of the cargo to 9-1 to 19-7, which was ordered to receive the freight of this case for the purpose of the above 9-7, shall be deemed to have arrived at the port of 191. The plaintiff's delivery of the freight of this case to 9-7, which was ordered to receive the freight of this case to 9-7, on the ground of the above facts that the defendant's delivery of the freight of this case to 19-7, which was ordered to receive the freight of this case to 9-7, which was ordered to receive the freight of this case from the above 9-6, and the plaintiff's delivery of the freight of this case.

In addition, the plaintiff argued that the consignee and the consignee, the seller and the consignor, and the plaintiff, the consignee, without receiving the cargo as stipulated in Article 800(1) of the Commercial Act, agreed on the delivery condition (F.O.B.) as to the carriage of the cargo, and that the defendant, the consignee, the consignee, and the consignee, the consignee, the consignee, and the consignee, the consignor, and the consignee, were liable for the carriage of the cargo as stipulated in the carriage contract or the bill of lading. Thus, the plaintiff's agreement on the delivery condition (F.O.B.) was not asserted as to the delivery of the cargo at the request of the consignor, and even if the plaintiff, the consignee, the consignor, and the consignee, issued the bill of lading as stipulated in the bill of lading No. 735, 1148, and 1153, the bill of lading No. 80 of the Commercial Act, the delivery method and the bill of lading No. 30 of this case cannot be asserted as the delivery condition of the cargo.

The plaintiff asserts that the consignee under the bill of lading bears the obligation to receive the cargo when he receives the notice of arrival from the carrier is a practice in the carriage of goods at sea. Thus, although the defendant who received the notice of arrival of the cargo of this case from the plaintiff who is the carrier, even though he did not actually receive the cargo of this case, the defendant's assertion that the defendant is in the same position as the consignee who received the cargo of this case under Article 800 (1) of the Commercial Act is not trustable. However, Article 1 of the English bill of lading Act (BLSODINGT ACT 185) provides that the consignee or the consignee under the bill of lading of this case is not obliged to receive the cargo of this case, and it is difficult to view that the consignee or the consignee under the bill of lading of this case bears all the obligation to pay the cargo of this case to the consignee under the bill of lading of this case as if he had concluded the contract of carriage between him and the carrier, it is also difficult to view that the consignee or the consignee under the bill of lading of lading of this case has any duty to pay the freight of this case 16.

5. The plaintiff asserts that, upon receiving the notice of arrival of the cargo of this case from the plaintiff, the plaintiff did not receive the cargo of this case immediately despite its duty to receive the cargo of this case, and caused damage to the plaintiff that caused the plaintiff to pay the delayed cost and the cost of scrapping as alleged in paragraph (2). Thus, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for the above damage caused by such tort.

The plaintiff's above assertion is without merit, since the defendant is not obliged to receive the freight of this case, and there is no evidence to acknowledge it differently.

6. The Plaintiff asserts that, as the manager of the instant cargo on behalf of the Defendant, who is the owner of the instant cargo, was removed from the Plaintiff’s expense when the instant cargo became decomposed, the Plaintiff sought reimbursement of KRW 29,832,438, which is necessary or beneficial expenses to be disbursed for the Defendant pursuant to Article 739(1) of the Civil Act.

Article 70 (1) of the Customs Act provides that a person who intends to destroy or destroy goods stored in a bonded area for corruption, damage, or any other reason shall obtain approval from the head of the customs office. Article 127 (1) 2 of the same Act provides that the goods which constitute perishable or deteriorated goods among the goods stored in the bonded area may be returned or discarded to the shipper, shipper, shipper, or a person entrusted by him/her, or discarded them after notifying him/her of such fact. Since there is no dispute over each of the public goods, the plaintiff's assertion that the goods in this case were delivered with the bill of lading No. 8-1 through 5 (each approval of destruction) presumed to be authentic, and since the plaintiff's testimony on the bill of lading No. 9-1 through 6 (each written confirmation of destruction) that the goods in this case were delivered to him/her on the basis of the plaintiff's testimony on the bill of lading No. 1 and the defendant's testimony on the ground that the plaintiff's delivery of the goods in this case had not been done within 1 to 5th and 15th 15th 15th m of the same reason.

6. If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court below with the same conclusion is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff who has lost.

Judges Hong Il-il (Presiding Judge)