Open Decision Ledger · Civil obligations & remedies
When Article 797 of the Commercial Act limits a sea carrier's liability
Supreme Court, Nov. 13, 2025, 2025Da211111 (judgment)
Case name: 구상금
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
In combined transport where export cargo was damaged during the land leg because the sea carrier set the container temperature wrongly, does the liability limitation in Article 797 of the Commercial Act apply to that sea carrier's damages liability?
Holding
It does not apply here. Article 797 limits liability only where the loss, destruction or delay occurred during sea carriage, or in a part so closely and inseparably linked with sea carriage that it is in substance part of it; that is because sea carriage carries inherent risks and large losses, while the Commercial Act provides no limit for land carriage. The accident occurred while another carrier was carrying the goods overland from Incheon to Busan, providing the container before the land leg is neither receipt nor storage of the goods by the sea carrier, and setting the temperature wrongly is not a risk inherent in sea carriage, so the sea carrier's liability could not be limited under Article 797.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
상법 제797조의 책임제한 규정은 ‘해상운송 도중 또는 해상운송과 밀접 불가분하여 사실상 해상운송의 일부로 평가되는 부분’에서 운송물의 멸실·훼손 또는 연착이 발생한 경우에 한하여 적용된다고 봄이 타당하다.
Unofficial English translation
It is appropriate to regard the limitation of liability provision of Article 797 of the Commercial Act as applying only where the loss, damage, or delay of the cargo occurs 'during carriage by sea or in a part that is closely and inseparably connected with carriage by sea and is in fact evaluated as part of the carriage by sea.'
Disposition
Partly reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결 중 피고 ◇◇◇ 주식회사에 대한 원고 패소 부분을 파기하고, 이 부분 사건을 서울고등법원에 환송한다. 원고의 피고 △△△쉬핑 주식회사, 주식회사 □□□글로벌에 대한 상고 및 피고 주식회사 □□□글로벌의 상고를 모두 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
In the judgment of the court below, the part of the plaintiff's losing judgment against defendant ◇◇◇ Co., Ltd. is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court. The plaintiff's appeals against defendants △△△ Shipping Co., Ltd. and □□□ Global Co., Ltd. and the appeal of defendant □□□ Global Co., Ltd. are all dismissed.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
상법 제797조의 책임제한 규정은 ‘해상운송 도중 또는 해상운송과 밀접 불가분하여 사실상 해상운송의 일부로 평가되는 부분’에서 운송물의 멸실·훼손 또는 연착이 발생한 경우에 한하여 적용된다고 봄이 타당하다.
Unofficial English translation
It is appropriate to regard the limitation of liability provision of Article 797 of the Commercial Act as applying only where the loss, damage, or delay of the cargo occurs 'during carriage by sea or in a part that is closely and inseparably connected with carriage by sea and is in fact evaluated as part of the carriage by sea.'
Factors
- 해상운송은 육상운송과 달리 고유한 위험이 수반되고 손해액도 다액이므로 운송인의 책임을 제한할 필요가 있는 점
- 육상운송에 관하여는 상법이 운송인의 배상책임을 제한하는 규정을 두고 있지 않은 점
- 위 사고는 육상운송을 하는 도중에 발생한 것이어서 ‘해상운송 도중 또는 사실상 해상운송의 일부로 평가되는 부분’에서 운송물이 훼손되었다고 보기 어렵고 그 운송은 무 회사가 담당하였던 점
- 정 회사가 육상운송에 앞서 컨테이너를 제공한 것을 두고 해상운송인으로서 운송물을 수령하거나 보관하는 행위에 해당한다고 볼 수 없고, 컨테이너의 온도를 잘못 설정한 것이 해상운송에 수반되는 고유한 위험으로서 그로부터 해상운송인을 보호할 필요가 있다고 보기도 어려운 점
- 수출화물을 적입한 컨테이너가 정 회사의 컨테이너 터미널로 반입된 이후 장기간 보관과정에서 손해가 확대된 것으로 보이긴 하나 이는 손해배상책임을 제한하는 사유로 참작할 여지가 있을 뿐인 점
Unofficial English translation
• The fact that, unlike carriage by land, carriage by sea involves inherent risks and the amount of damages is substantial, so that there is a need to limit the carrier's liability
• The fact that the Commercial Act does not contain a provision limiting the carrier's liability for compensation with respect to carriage by land
• The fact that the said accident occurred during the course of the carriage by land, so that it is difficult to regard the cargo as having been damaged 'during carriage by sea or in a part in fact evaluated as part of the carriage by sea,' and the said transportation was handled by Company E
• The fact that Company D's provision of the container prior to the carriage by land cannot be regarded as constituting an act of a carrier by sea taking delivery of or storing the cargo, and the erroneous setting of the container temperature can hardly be regarded as an inherent risk attendant on carriage by sea such that the carrier by sea needs to be protected therefrom
• The fact that although it appears that the damage was aggravated during the long-term storage after the container laden with the export cargo was brought into Company D's container terminal, this is merely a matter that may be taken into account as a ground for limiting the liability for damages
Relation to precedent
States a new standard Read from the decision
상법 제797조의 책임제한 규정은 ‘해상운송 도중 또는 해상운송과 밀접 불가분하여 사실상 해상운송의 일부로 평가되는 부분’에서 운송물의 멸실·훼손 또는 연착이 발생한 경우에 한하여 적용된다고 봄이 타당하다.
Unofficial English translation
It is appropriate to regard the limitation of liability provision of Article 797 of the Commercial Act as applying only where the loss, damage, or delay of the cargo occurs 'during carriage by sea or in a part that is closely and inseparably connected with carriage by sea and is in fact evaluated as part of the carriage by sea.'
Decisions referred to
해당 본문 참조
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
How far must the long storage of the loaded container at the terminal expand the loss before it supports limiting the sea carrier's liability in amount?
The remand judgment of the Seoul High Court on the plaintiff's claim against Defendant 3 will show how the absence of Article 797 affects the amount payable. Any amendment to Article 797 of the Commercial Act, or any provision extending a liability limit to land carriage, would call for this entry to be read again.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
6 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-24
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on 6 of the 8 axes; the readings differed on axis 6 (relation to precedent), axis 7 (burden of proof).
Axis 6 (Relation to precedent): Primary “States a new standard” vs Independent “Cannot be determined”
The primary reading treats the holding as setting a new standard for the scope of Article 797, while the independent reading marks precedent status as unverifiable. The input gives no citation list, so the independent reader could not confirm whether the rule was previously stated.
상법 제797조의 책임제한 규정은 ‘해상운송 도중 또는 해상운송과 밀접 불가분하여 사실상 해상운송의 일부로 평가되는 부분’에서 운송물의 멸실·훼손 또는 연착이 발생한 경우에 한하여 적용된다고 봄이 타당하다.Axis 7 (Burden of proof): Primary “Not addressed” vs Independent “The opposing party”
The primary reading records no burden statement, while the independent reading assigns the burden to the opposing party. The text states the carrier's presumed liability under Article 795, but says nothing explicit about who must prove the sea-segment connection for Article 797, so the independent reader likely inferred it.
운송인은 자기 또는 선원이나 그 밖의 선박사용인이 운송물의 수령·선적·적부·운송·보관·양륙과 인도에 관하여 주의를 해태하지 아니하였음을 증명하지 아니하면 운송물의 멸실·훼손 또는 연착으로 인한 손해를 배상할 책임이 있다.Raw responses and comparison record: Protocol · Blind readings (JSONL) · Axis comparison (JSONL) · SHA-256 (JSON)
Lower-court contrast & scope of application
Lower-court reading vs. Supreme Court holding
Lower-court context: The Seoul High Court, in its judgment of 12 February 2025 (2024Na2023710), held that the accident arose from the concurrent fault of an employee of Defendant 3 (the sea carrier) and an employee of Defendant 2 (the land carrier), so that Defendant 1 was liable for non-performance, Defendants 3 and 2 were vicariously liable, and all three were bound in imperfect joint and several liability. Reflecting Company A's own fault it limited their liability to 70 per cent of the loss. It then held that Defendant 3's provision of the container and its temperature setting were acts ancillary to sea carriage, amounting in part to receipt and storage of the goods, so that its liability was the carrier's liability under Article 795(1) of the Commercial Act and was limited to the amount fixed by Article 797(1).
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court found no error in reducing liability to 70 per cent for Company A's contribution to the loss and its expansion. On the container, however, it held that the accident occurred during the land leg performed by Defendant 2, that providing the container beforehand is neither receipt nor storage of the goods by a sea carrier, and that the wrong temperature setting is not a risk inherent in sea carriage; the long storage at Defendant 3's terminal after the goods reached Busan may be taken into account in fixing the amount, but does not show that sea carriage had begun or that a duty of care in sea carriage was breached. It reversed the plaintiff's dismissal against Defendant 3 and remanded that part, while dismissing the plaintiff's appeals against Defendants 1 and 2 and Defendant 2's own appeal, which raised only a new argument first made on appeal.
Distinguishing conditions
- Loss of, damage to or delay of the goods that arises during the sea leg itself, or in the sea carrier's receipt, loading, stowage, carriage, storage, discharge or delivery so closely and inseparably linked with sea carriage that it is in substance part of it, where Article 797 applies of its own terms.
- A wrongly set container temperature that is itself a risk inherent in sea carriage, from which the sea carrier needs protection, since on these facts the Court found no such inherent risk.
Record verification notes
Establish from the file the route of each leg, the date and place the damage arose and which carrier performed the leg on which it arose, since the Court rested its holding on the accident having happened during the land carriage by another company. Separate the terminal storage period after arrival at Busan from the carriage itself: the Court treated it only as a circumstance to weigh when fixing the amount, and as no ground for holding that sea carriage had begun. Keep the 70 per cent reduction, which the Court upheld as not unreasonable under the principle of equity, apart from this rule, and note that the plaintiff's appeal against Defendant 1 was dismissed without separate reasoning, while Defendant 2's appeal was dismissed with brief reasoning, as an argument first raised on appeal for which the court below had made no error.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 해상운송에 관한 상법 제797조의 책임제한 규정이 육상운송에도 적용되는지 여부(소극) [2] 갑 주식회사가 수출화물의 운송을 을 주식회사에 의뢰하자, 을 회사가 인천항에서 부산항까지의 육상운송을 병 주식회사에, 부산항부터의 해상운송을 정 주식회사에 각각 하도급하였고, 이후 병 회사가 육상운송을 무 주식회사에 다시 위탁하였는데, 온도 조절기가 부착된 컨테이너를 이용하여 영상 18도로 수출화물을 운송하라는 갑 회사의 요청을 전달받고도 정 회사의 직원이 컨테이너 보관회사 직원에게 컨테이너 온도를 영하 18도로 설정할 것을 요청하고 무 회사의 직원은 컨테이너 온도를 확인하지 않은 채 육상운송을 하여 수출화물이 부산항 소재 정 회사의 컨테이너 터미널로 운송될 때까지 냉동상태에서 손상을 입는 사고가 발생하자, 수출화물 운송에 관하여 갑 회사와 해상적하보험계약을 체결한 기 보험회사가 갑 회사에 보험금을 지급하고 정 회사 등을 상대로 손해배상을 구한 사안에서, 위 사고로 인한 정 회사의 손해배상책임에 해상운송인의 책임제한에 관한 상법 제797조가 적용된다고 할 수 없는데도, 이와 달리 본 원심판단에 법리오해의 잘못이 있다고 한 사례
Unofficial English translation
[1] Whether the limitation of liability provision of Article 797 of the Commercial Act concerning carriage by sea applies to carriage by land (negative) [2] When Company A commissioned Company B to transport export cargo, Company B subcontracted the carriage by land from Incheon Port to Busan Port to Company C and the carriage by sea from Busan Port to Company D, and thereafter Company C entrusted the carriage by land to Company E again; and although an employee of Company D was informed of Company A's request to transport the export cargo at plus 18 degrees Celsius using a container equipped with a temperature controller, an employee of Company D asked an employee of the container storage company to set the container temperature at minus 18 degrees Celsius, and an employee of Company E conducted the carriage by land without checking the container temperature, and an accident occurred in which the export cargo was damaged in a frozen state by the time it was transported to Company D's container terminal located in Busan Port; in a case where insurance company F, which had entered into a marine cargo insurance contract with Company A regarding the transportation of the export cargo, paid the insurance proceeds to Company A and sought damages against Company D and others, a case in which it was held that there was an error of misapprehension of legal principles in the judgment below in that Article 797 of the Commercial Act concerning the limitation of liability of a carrier by sea cannot be regarded as applying to Company D's liability for damages arising from the said accident
Summary of the holding
[1] 상법은 해상운송에 관하여 제795조 제1항에서 ‘운송인은 자기 또는 선원이나 그 밖의 선박사용인이 운송물의 수령·선적·적부·운송·보관·양륙과 인도에 관하여 주의를 해태하지 아니하였음을 증명하지 아니하면 운송물의 멸실·훼손 또는 연착으로 인한 손해를 배상할 책임이 있다.’고 규정하고, 같은 법 제797조 제1항에서 ‘제794조부터 제796조의 규정에 따른 운송인의 손해배상의 책임은 일정한 금액을 한도로 제한할 수 있다.’고 규정하고 있다. 해상운송은 육상운송과 달리 고유한 위험이 수반되고 손해액도 다액이므로 운송인의 책임을 제한할 필요가 있는 점, 반면 육상운송에 관하여는 상법이 운송인의 배상책임을 제한하는 규정을 두고 있지 않은 점 등에 비추어 보면, 상법 제797조의 책임제한 규정은 ‘해상운송 도중 또는 해상운송과 밀접 불가분하여 사실상 해상운송의 일부로 평가되는 부분’에서 운송물의 멸실·훼손 또는 연착이 발생한 경우에 한하여 적용된다고 봄이 타당하다. [2] 갑 주식회사가 수출화물의 운송을 을 주식회사에 의뢰하자, 을 회사가 인천항에서 부산항까지의 육상운송을 병 주식회사에, 부산항부터의 해상운송을 정 주식회사에 각각 하도급하였고, 이후 병 회사가 육상운송을 무 주식회사에 다시 위탁하였는데, 온도 조절기가 부착된 컨테이너를 이용하여 영상 18도로 수출화물을 운송하라는 갑 회사의 요청을 전달받고도 정 회사의 직원이 컨테이너 보관회사 직원에게 컨테이너 온도를 영하 18도로 설정할 것을 요청하고 무 회사의 직원은 컨테이너 온도를 확인하지 않은 채 육상운송을 하여 수출화물이 부산항 소재 정 회사의 컨테이너 터미널로 운송될 때까지 냉동상태에서 손상을 입는 사고가 발생하자, 수출화물 운송에 관하여 갑 회사와 해상적하보험계약을 체결한 기 보험회사가 갑 회사에 보험금을 지급하고 정 회사 등을 상대로 손해배상을 구한 사안에서, 갑 회사가 을 회사에 의뢰한 수출화물 운송은 육상운송과 해상운송이 이어지는 복합운송에 해당하고, 해상운송인인 정 회사가 수출화물 운송을 위한 컨테이너를 제공하면서 갑 회사의 요청과 달리 온도를 설정한 잘못으로 위 사고가 발생한 것이기는 하나, ① 위 사고는 육상운송을 하는 도중에 발생한 것이어서 ‘해상운송 도중 또는 사실상 해상운송의 일부로 평가되는 부분’에서 운송물이 훼손되었다고 보기 어렵고 그 운송은 무 회사가 담당하였던 점, ② 정 회사가 육상운송에 앞서 컨테이너를 제공한 것을 두고 해상운송인으로서 운송물을 수령하거나 보관하는 행위에 해당한다고 볼 수 없고, 컨테이너의 온도를 잘못 설정한 것이 해상운송에 수반되는 고유한 위험으로서 그로부터 해상운송인을 보호할 필요가 있다고 보기도 어려운 점, ③ 수출화물을 적입한 컨테이너가 정 회사의 컨테이너 터미널로 반입된 이후 장기간 보관과정에서 손해가 확대된 것으로 보이긴 하나 이는 손해배상책임을 제한하는 사유로 참작할 여지가 있을 뿐인 점 등에 비추어 보면, 위 사고로 인한 정 회사의 손해배상책임에 해상운송인의 책임제한에 관한 상법 제797조가 적용된다고 할 수 없는데도, 이와 달리 본 원심판단에 법리오해의 잘못이 있다고 한 사례.
Order
원심판결 중 피고 ◇◇◇ 주식회사에 대한 원고 패소 부분을 파기하고, 이 부분 사건을 서울고등법원에 환송한다. 원고의 피고 △△△쉬핑 주식회사, 주식회사 □□□글로벌에 대한 상고 및 피고 주식회사 □□□글로벌의 상고를 모두 기각한다. 상고비용 중 원고와 피고 △△△쉬핑 주식회사 사이에 생긴 부분은 원고가 부담하고, 원고와 피고 주식회사 □□□글로벌 사이에 생긴 부분은 각자가 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
In the judgment of the court below, the part of the plaintiff's losing judgment against defendant ◇◇◇ Co., Ltd. is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court. The plaintiff's appeals against defendants △△△ Shipping Co., Ltd. and □□□ Global Co., Ltd. and the appeal of defendant □□□ Global Co., Ltd. are all dismissed. Of the appeal costs, the portion arising between the plaintiff and defendant △△△ Shipping Co., Ltd. shall be borne by the plaintiff, and the portion arising between the plaintiff and defendant □□□ Global Co., Ltd. shall be borne by each party.
Provisions referred to
[1] 상법 제795조 제1항, 제797조 / [2] 상법 제682조 제1항, 제795조 제1항, 제797조, 제816조
Read 2026-10-24 · Cross-read 2026-10-24. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.
Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.
Back to the ledger