보세창고업자의 화물 불법인도에 대한 해상운송인, 해상운송 대리인의 불법행위책임과 채무불이행책임에 관한 연구

Under every contract of carriage of goods by sea, the carrier shall be subject to the responsibilities and liabilities in relation to the loading, handling, stowage, carriage, custody,care and discharge of such goods. The carrier makes a deposit contract with the bonded warehouse operator normally and the bonded warehouse operator receives the delivery order issued by the carrier and delivers the goods to the presenter of delivery order . Under korean customs institution, the buyer must make a deposit contract with the bonded warehouse operator and the carrier must deliver the goods to him. This generates the conflict of the law between the buyer and the carrier, the bonded warehouse operator. The Supreme Court ruled the wrongful acts of the bonded warehouse operator by the relation of korean law that the buyer made a express deposit contract with the bonded warehouse operator and the carrier made a implied deposit contract with the bonded warehouse operator. The judgement of Supreme Court does not show correctly the reason that the implied deposit contract between the carrier and the bonded warehouse operator takes precedence of the express deposit contract with the bonded warehouse operator. This article presented the substitute deposit contract to solve this problem. The carrier, buyer, bonded warehouse operator, consignee agreed that the buyer as a substitute of the carrier must make a deposit contract with the bonded warehouse operator at time the contract of carriage concluded. The express deposit contract that the buyer make with the bonded warehouse operator is equal the express deposit contract that the carrier make with the bonded warehouse operator. The writer of this article agrees to the Supreme Court Judgement in respect of its holding that the carrier, the agent of the carrier are not liable sounding in tort for the reason that the carrier, the agent of the carrier are not in the position of an employer the bonded warehouse operator but does not agree that the Supreme Court denied the contractual liability of the carrier, the agent of the carrier for the reason that the carrier, the agent of the carrier are not in the position of an employer of the bonded warehouse operator.