All
| TITLE | Supreme Court Decision 2020Da280685 Decided December 1, 2022 【Damages (Etc.)】 [full Text] |
|---|---|
| Summary | |
| 【Main Issues and Holdings】 [1] Whether the period within which the rights and obligations of a sea carrier against a consignor or a consignee shall not be terminated stipulated in Article 814(1) of the Commercial Act corresponds to the period of exclusion (affirmative) The starting point of the reckoning of the above period of exclusion (= the date when the cargo has been delivered or will be delivered) and the meaning of “the date when the cargo will be delivered” Whether the above period of exclusion is applicable to the claims and obligations of a sea carrier against a consignor or consignee even where the reason for the claim is an unlawful act (affirmative) [2] The institutional purpose of the period of exclusion Whether the provisions regarding the period of exclusion are applicable to the right that has not arisen (negative) [3] In a case where: the goods, the transportation of which Stock Company A, which is a consolidated forwarding agent, requested to Foreign Company B, which is a sea carrier, in accordance with a transportation contract, were the wastes that a waste treatment business entity intended to carry out under the guise of the exported goods; as Stock Company A and the consignee designated by Stock Company A did not receive the goods, damages such as container overuse surcharges, terminal storage fee, etc. have occurred; and Foreign Company B claimed damages against Stock Company A when two years has elapsed from the arrival date of the goods, the case holding that even though the starting point of the reckoning of the period of exclusion of the claim for damages that arises after “the date when the goods should have been delivered,” of a claim for damages arising from container overuse surcharges and terminal storage fee should be deemed as the date the claim occurred, the lower court viewed even the claim that arose within one year after the date when a lawsuit was filed, of the above claim for damages, as inappropriate due to the passage of the period of exclusion of one year prescribed in Article 814(1) of the Commercial Act, and, in so determining, the lower court erred and adversely affected the conclusion of judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine | |
