Background
Our client is a freight trucking company. In October 2018 it signed a consignment agreement under which an owner-operator's truck was registered in the company's name (a jiip arrangement). In February 2022 the plate was lost, and without the company's cooperation in obtaining a replacement the operator could not work. The agreement expired in October 2022. The operator sued to confirm that it was still in force, seeking a new plate and KRW 7,500,000 per month in lost income, with alternative claims. The first-instance court granted only part of the alternative claims, and both sides appealed.
What Was at Stake
If the agreement were still alive, the company's exposure would keep growing until a plate was issued. The key issues were whether the agreement had ended and how far damages should run.
How Changchun Helped
Law Firm Changchun represented the company on appeal. The court held that the operator's statutory renewal right under the Trucking Transport Business Act required a request 150 to 60 days before expiry, and no such request was proven. While the company was held responsible for not cooperating, damages were confined to 249 days, from the day after the reissue request to the expiry date. Losses were calculated from three-year average net income and proven fixed costs only, and the company's set-off of KRW 2,460,000 in mutual-aid contributions it had paid was accepted, leaving principal of KRW 43,728,588.
Outcome
In January 2025 the appellate court cut the first-instance award to that amount, dismissed the operator's appeal, and placed 60% of total costs on the operator. In May 2025 the Supreme Court of Korea dismissed the operator's final appeal without a merits review, and the judgment became final.
Even where some liability is found, contesting the end date of a contract and the method of calculating losses can sharply reduce the exposure. (Outcomes depend on the facts of each case.)