2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

3. Paragraph 1 of the judgment of the court of first instance confirms that the maritime lien secured by the defendant's claim as stated in Paragraph 1 of the attached Table concerning the vessel listed in Paragraph 2 of the attached Table does not exist in the defendant.

It is confirmed that the maritime lien secured by the defendant's claim as stated in paragraph (1) of the attached Table No. 2 does not exist in the defendant.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

The reasons why a member should explain the instant case are as follows: (a) the reasons why the decision of the court of first instance was made is the same as the reasons for the decision of the court of first instance, and thus, (b) the same is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420

2. Parts to be dried;

With respect to the procedural issues of the conflict of laws, the law suspension law is an internationally established general principle. Since Article 60 subparagraph 1 of the Private International Law provides that the ownership and mortgage of a ship concerning the sea, maritime lien and other real rights on the ship shall be governed by the law of the country of registry, the establishment of maritime lien, whether a certain claim is secured by a maritime lien, the scope of the objects affected by a maritime lien, the order of priority of a maritime lien shall be governed by the law of the country of registry. However, if such maritime lien is executed in our country, procedures such as the execution method shall be governed by the law of the country of registry.

Therefore, first of all, as to whether the execution period of the maritime lien is a procedural issue such as the execution method of the maritime lien, the maritime lien system is related to the maritime lien system which is difficult to escape easily from the principle of the unique property law of each country, and the method or requirement of exercising the maritime lien is not uniform internationally. In our country, in order to obtain preferential repayment by exercising the maritime lien, there is a method of filing a request for auction by the creditor himself/herself or a demand for distribution in the auction procedure initiated by another creditor. In order to obtain preferential repayment by exercising the maritime lien, the creditor's right to request auction has to dismiss the request for auction with the exclusion period as a requirement for commencing the auction procedure, and it does not have the effect of preferential repayment for the demand for distribution with the exclusion period. In light of the above, the execution period of the maritime lien is related to the execution procedure, and the time of exercising the right to request auction or the right to demand a distribution is subject to the law of suspension of law.

Therefore, in cases where a maritime lien is enforced in Korea, the exercise period shall be governed by the Korean procedural law. Article 786 of the Korean Commercial Code provides that the maritime lien of a ship creditor shall be extinguished if it is not executed within one year from the date on which the claim was created, and that the extension, interruption, or suspension of the above period is not allowed as a exclusion period. Thus, the defendant shall exercise the maritime lien on the ship of this case within one year from the date on which the above claim for fuel oil payment occurred. That is, the date on which the defendant's claim for fuel oil payment occurred, i.e., the date after one year from May 1, 2007 and May 31, 2007 from the date on which the above claim for fuel oil payment became due, and that the above maritime lien has already been applied for auction to the Ulsan District Court before November 18, 2008.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is justified, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed. However, the judgment of the court of first instance is delivered with the assent of all Justices, since it is obvious that the entry of the ship which is the object of the maritime lien was omitted due to mistake, and therefore

[Attachment]

Judges Park Jae-young (Presiding Judge)