보세창고업자의 액체화물 인도책임에 대한 판례연구

Abstract

The Seoul District Civil Court ruled that the owner of liquid cargo bonded warehouse is responsible to the cargo loss as he had not received the Original Bill of Lading when the consignee pumped out the Gas Oil from the liquid storage tank. The court applied the tort of negligence. However, this judgment was denied by the Seoul High Civil Court and the Supreme Court confirmed the High Court decision. There was an express rental contract for the liquid cargo tank between the tank owner and the consignee for two years. Nevertheless, the district court claimed the owner of storage tank is an fulfillment assistant of the ocean carrier and a cargo storage contract is implied between the tank owner and the carrier. It does not make sense that the court's claim of two points, namely, an implied contract and a carrier assistant in spite of the existence of express contract between the tank owner and the consignee. The problem is that the district court disregarded the privity of contract and chose the tort of negligence. The district court also ignored the clause of the ASBATANKVOY C/P predicating the tort of negligence which is Korean Civil Court's best weapon whenever there are disputes in the B/L.