記名式 선하증권의 讓渡에 관한 判例分析

Abstract

The carrier is undoubtedly contractually bound to deliver the goods to the consignee named in a non-negotiable straight bill of lading. However, there was a lawsuit brought by a holder (L/C opening bank; other than named consignee; plaintiff) of the original B/L in which specified "non-negotiable unless consigned to order" claiming that original B/L holder had the right to take delivery of the goods. The plaintiff took legal proceedings against the carrier who delivered the cargo to the named consignee in a straight B/L without redemption of the original B/L, alleging the carrier is liable for the loss of the goods. The Korean Supreme Court held that the plaintiff was not a legitimate holder of the B/L, because the plaintiff failed to follow procedures based on the Civil Code (Art. 450) which regulates that the non-negotiable B/L is transferable only when the transferor gives notice to the carrier of the transfer. When notice has been given, the transferee takes the place of the consignee and the carrier is responsible for delivering the goods to him. Therefore the carrier is immune from the liability when delivering goods to the consignee named in the non-negotiable straight B/L. According to this judgement, the goods could be disposable in the absence of document of title even in the event of default of credit. Therefore, the bank should be careful not to allow non-negotiable B/L in a L/C. When a negotiable document of title is not required, it is advisable to use a sea waybill rather than a non-negotiable B/L.