All
| TITLE | 【Syllabus of Latest Opinion】 Supreme Court Decision 2024Da270860 Decided August 14, 2025 【Damages (Etc.)】 [full Text] |
|---|---|
| Summary | |
| 【Main Issues and Holdings】 [1] Whether a forwarding agent may perform ancillary services that assist in achieving the purpose of transportation, such as customs clearance procedures, inspection, custody, insurance, receipt, and delivery of goods (affirmative) Where the forwarding agent may appoint a local forwarding agent at the destination to perform services as mentioned above, the obligations of the destination forwarding agent and where the destination forwarding agent delivers the goods to a person other than the holder of the bill of lading, thereby preventing delivery to the rightful holder, whether a tort is constituted (affirmative) [2] In a case where Foreign Corporation A entered into a sales contract to export goods to a domestic importer and requested Foreign Corporation B to transport goods; Foreign Corporation B, acting as an agent for Stock Company C, an ocean carrier, issued a House Bill of Lading (House B/L) to Foreign Corporation A, listing Foreign Corporation A as the consignor and the domestic importer as both the consignee and notify party, and Stock Company C then issued a Sea Waybill to Foreign Corporation B, listing Foreign Corporation B as the consignor and Stock Company D, acting under the authority of Foreign Corporation B, as both the consignee and notify party; the goods were transported to Busan Port, brought into a container terminal, and then moved to a bonded warehouse; a copy of a Master Delivery Order (Master D/O) that Stock Company C issued to Stock Company D, listing Stock Company D as the consignee and notify party, according to a self-transport request by Stock Company D, was handed over to the domestic importer by an employee of Stock Company D, and the importer presented only this copy to the bonded warehouse operator; the bonded warehouse operator who took the goods out to the importer after confirming the above copy without verifying whether payment for the goods had been made; and Foreign Corporation A filed a claim for damages equivalent to the value of the goods against Stock Company D and its representative director, the case holding that in light of the overall circumstances, even though the Master D/O issued by Stock Company D was used in the process of releasing the goods, and that the representative director of Stock Company D had consented to and acquiesced in the release of the goods, the lower court denied liability for damages on the part of Stock Company D and its representative director and, in so determining, erred and adversely affected the conclusion of judgment by misapprehending legal principles | |
