(a) the case holding that, although the date of shipment is stipulated as "by October 31, 1990," the sales contract is " by 190.10.0" and the credit is "before October 31, 1990", the date of shipment shall be "by 190.31.10."

(b) This case by way of a defined time sale and purchase of the Foreaf (C.I.F.) agreement with the date of shipment;

A. The case holding that although the date of shipment is "by October 31, 1990," the sales contract is "by 190.10," and the credit is "by 31 October 31, 1990," the shipment date is "by 1990.31."

B. The case holding that, in case where there is a so-called S.I.F. contract for international maritime sales, a seller shall conclude a contract of carriage for the purpose of transporting an object to a specified destination within the agreed date or time limit, deliver the goods to the purchaser (or the issuing bank where a letter of credit has been issued) and may claim the payment for the delivery of the goods at the port of loading in consideration of the inventory quantity, demand and supply situation of the imported goods, price trends in the goods, price trends in the goods at the time of sale and export, and the seller shall also be deemed to have agreed on the date of loading in consideration of the shipping price at the port of loading and unloading, and in this case, the date of loading in the bill of lading shall be consistent with the date of loading under the contract as a matter of principle with the date of loading set forth in the bill of credit.

A. Articles 105 and 531 of the Civil Act

Attorney Kim Jong-jin, et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee, Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee)

Seoul High Court Decision 2001Na14888 decided May 1, 200

Seoul High Court Decision 92Na57556 delivered on November 3, 1993

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff’s attorney.

1. On the first ground for appeal

A. According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, the so-called comprehensive company engaged in export and import business as its main business 90.9.28. 190. 190, the court below held that, according to the above 90-year shipping contract, the defendant company opened the 90-year shipping contract with the plaintiff company as 90. 90-year shipping documents, 1990-600-6000-600-600-600-600-600-60-600-60-600-60-600-60-60-60-60-60-60-60-60-60-60-60-60-60-60-60-60-60-60-60-60-60-60-70-70-70-70-70-70-700-70

B. In light of the records, the above fact-finding by the court below cannot be deemed to have any error.

The above evidence No. 1 is an offer sent by the plaintiff to the defendant and the defendant signed within the meaning of the defendant's consent, so it appears that the loading date under the original contract between the plaintiff and the defendant was around October 1990. On the other hand, the above evidence No. 1 was prepared and sent to the defendant within the meaning of confirming the establishment of the sale and purchase contract by the above offer and consent. The loading date is limited to 10 months in 1990, and as stated in the letter of credit issued by the defendant with the plaintiff as the beneficiary before October 31, 1990, if the plaintiff did not raise any objection against it, it is reasonable to view that the loading date under the contract of this case was up to October 31, 1990. The court below's decision is justified and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles, and there is no ground for appeal.

2. On the second ground for appeal

In light of the records, the court below did not err in the violation of the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit, in its determination that it is difficult to recognize the plaintiff's assertion that the defendant company had to extend the validity of the above credit on November 7, 190. The arguments are without merit.

3. As to the remaining grounds of appeal

If there is a so-called "C.I.F. terms and conditions" as in this case, the seller shall deliver the goods on the main line of the port of loading within the agreed date or within the period stipulated in the contract for carriage of the goods to the destination stipulated in the contract. The seller may deliver the bill of lading, insurance policy, the invoice, etc. concerning such carriage to the purchaser (the issuing bank if the letter of credit has been issued) and claim the payment. In this case, the date of shipment under the bill of lading should, in principle, coincide with the date of shipment under the contract, be consistent with the date of shipment under the contract.

Furthermore, according to the records, the object of the sale of this case is Aluminum, which is a raw material with price fluctuation at the time of sale and export. The defendant, the buyer, is a general company that mainly engages in export and import and has entered into the above Aluminum sales contract for the purpose of resale. In such a case, an ordinary buyer (import) shall negotiate with the seller (export) to ensure that the goods arrive at the port of import at the most favorable time in consideration of inventory quantity, supply situation, international and domestic price trends of the imported raw materials, navigational days of the goods from the place of loading to the place of unloading, and thus the contract on the date of loading is particularly important in terms of contract. If the loading is delayed, it is likely that the defendant would have suffered damages, and the plaintiff, the seller, had been well aware of these circumstances, and since the purchase price was decided to settle by means of credit issued with the plaintiff as beneficiary, the plaintiff, the seller, can not be seen as being entitled to the bill of lading payment from the bank issuing the bill of lading within the agreed period, and thus, the plaintiff can not immediately claim the shipment payment within the agreed period.

Therefore, although the reasoning of the court below differs, the conclusion of rejecting the plaintiff's claim for damages of this case on the premise that the contract of this case continues to exist even after the expiration of the period of shipment and the contract of this case was rescinded due to the defendant's default is justifiable, and the remaining grounds of appeal on the premise that the contract of this case is not a final installment sale

4. Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed, and all costs of appeal shall be assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Cho Chang-tae (Presiding Justice)