Attorney Choi Sung-sung et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

(a) Status of persons involved in the marine accident;

1) A stock company B (hereinafter referred to as “B”) leased 'C, which is a barge for maritime works at 297 gross tonnage (47.06 x width 18.00 x width x 2.75 m in depth) and performed reclamation and wharf expansion works around the Ulsan wharf, and E is the wharf of C.

2) The Plaintiff is the captain of an inshore fishing vessel of 16 gross tonnage (18.32x width 4.75 x 1.29 m in depth).

(b) Occurrence of a marine accident;

1) From around 08:00 on December 10, 2016 to around 17:00, C used for the reclamation work around the Ulsan D wharf and anchored to the outside of the construction section installed in D after the completion of the work. E used a white electric pole, etc. to operate an electric power generator while at anchor and displayed it at anchor. From around 24:00, from around 24:00, C suspended the operation of the power generator on the ground that the sound of power generation may interfere with the operation of the engine, and all-round lights were also replaced.

2) On December 11, 2016, at the D wharf, the Plaintiff left the port to have four seafarers on board, and entered the port to have four seafarers aboard. At the time, the Plaintiff operated a ship under the status of setting the F’s radar detection distance as 3 miles days, and the other seafarers prepared the operation on the fore deck, after having been aware of the work, etc.

3) On the same day, at around 05:50 on the same day, the Plaintiff sought to find out and immediately proceed with C’s stern at a distance of about 10 meters away from the front bank while sailing the F at the speed of 135 degrees and 5 knotss, but eventually, the Plaintiff collisioned C’s stern part as F’s static part (hereinafter “the instant marine accident”).

In the marine accident of this case, F was damaged by 20 cm in length, 1m in height, and C had a small portion of the aft.

(c) Details of adjudication;

1) On September 26, 2017, the Busan Regional Maritime Safety Tribunal (Seoul Maritime Safety Tribunal No. 2017-56) rendered a ruling on September 26, 2017, stating that “this collision is caused by the failure of C to anchor a barge at an inappropriate place on the part of C and to turn on anchor, etc., but the failure of F to turn on the part of F to stop a barge. The plaintiff who is a person involved in a marine accident shall be reprimanded. The plaintiff shall be urged to correct the marine accident E and B, respectively.”

2) However, on June 14, 2018, the Korean Maritime Safety Tribunal, the second instance trial (the Central Maritime Safety Tribunal No. 2018-010), recognized the F's negligence as 55% on the degree of providing cause for the instant marine accident, and C's negligence as 45% on June 14, 2018, and "this collision occurred due to the failure of F, who left the port of D, to discover any barge at anchor due to his negligence in the boundary of D, but the failure of the barge C to indicate the anchored and the prescribed anchorage, etc. among D in which the passage of fishing vessels is large. The plaintiff of the person involved in the marine accident shall be reprimanded. The plaintiff of the person involved in the marine accident shall be urged to correct to E of the person involved in the marine accident (hereinafter referred to as "the instant judgment").

【Reasons for Recognition】 Each entry in the evidence Nos. 1 and 6, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

C was anchored in the route where other vessels frequently navigate in Ulsan D, and C’s fleet E suspended the operation of the power generator on the ground that the operation of the power generator was hindered, and did not perform all the obligation to take measures against collision. As such, the instant marine accident was entirely caused by the negligence on the part of C, and the Plaintiff did not bear any negligence. Nevertheless, the Plaintiff’s disciplinary decision was unlawful to set the rate of providing the Plaintiff’s cause in the instant marine accident at 55%.

3. Relevant statutes;

[Attachment] The entry of the relevant statutes is as follows.

4. Whether the ruling of this case is legitimate

A. Details of the relevant statutes

According to the Maritime Safety Act, a vessel shall at all times proceed at an appropriate speed by all means available in accordance with visual and hearing circumstances and circumstances so as to sufficiently grasp the risks of a collision with another vessel (Article 63), take appropriate and effective action to avoid a collision with another vessel, or at a safe speed so that she can stop at a distance appropriate to the prevailing circumstances and conditions (Article 64(1)), and where visibility is restricted, she shall at a safe speed consistent with the prevailing circumstances and conditions. A power-driven vessel shall also be ready to immediately operate her engine if in restricted visibility (Article 77(2)). In addition, a vessel shall exhibit all all all all lights at and near the vessel at anchor to ascertain the risk of a collision with another vessel (Article 65(1)), and shall exhibit an all all all all all all all-round white lights at or near the vessel’s anchor and one all other lights at a low speed, and shall be exhibited in accordance with Article 65(1)1 of the Maritime Safety Act.

B. Specific determination

1) The following facts and circumstances can be acknowledged in full view of the aforementioned evidence, as well as evidence Nos. 12 and 13, and the purport of the entire pleadings.

① At the time of the instant marine accident, it was difficult to take the place around the vessel prior to sunrise, and there was almost no wind and wave.

② Around two years prior to the occurrence of the instant marine accident, there was an accident of collision with a fishing vessel passing through at anchor, where the barge leased for construction works in B was inappropriate. At the time of the instant marine accident, C was anchored at the outside of the construction area.

③ After the collision between a barge leased by B and a fishing vessel, the captain of a D fishing vessel requested B to leave the barge in D during the wharf construction work, and the Plaintiff also knew that the barge was anchored between C and other vessels near the marine accident location of this case.

④ 부선 C의 선두 E는 이 사건 해양사고가 발생한 지점에 C를 정박하였으나 정박선이 정박중임을 나타내기 위해 하여야 하는 흰색의 전주등 등 등화의 표시를 하지 아니하였다. 다만 C에는 야간에 자동으로 작동되는 적색 섬광등(깜빡이 등) 4개가 거주구역 상부에 설치되어 있었는데, 사고 당시 그 일부가 작동된 것으로는 보이나, 정확히 작동된 등의 개수나 그 밝기 등을 확인할 수 있는 자료는 없다.

5) Meanwhile, the Plaintiff operated the radar installed in F without securing visibility at the time, while setting the 3 miles of the detection distance. Accordingly, the detection distance set as above seems to be difficult to identify obstacles, etc. in the port through the radar.

6. The seafarers on board F have been engaged in the preparation of operations on deck while explaining their work, etc. Therefore, it seems that there is a situation in which it is difficult to keep a vessel out of the ship out of the deck.

7. The Plaintiff, while sailing at a speed of about 5 knots, found C only at the nearest distance of 10 meters while maintaining the boundaries within the steering house, and attempted to take back from the distance, but did not avoid collision.

2) Examining the aforementioned circumstances in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the instant marine accident is determined to have been committed by: (a) while anchoring at an area at night in danger of an accident with a vessel navigating at night; (b) failing to display a light indicating that C is at anchor despite having a duty of care to display a light in accordance with the relevant laws and regulations; and (c) failure to display a light indicating C’s being at anchor; and (b) failure to display a light in compliance with the relevant laws and regulations to ensure that a vessel at anchor is at anchor due to navigation in a port where visibility is not secured due to the Plaintiff’s display; (b) making an appropriate alert by effectively using all possible means, such as radars installed in a vessel or crew’s cooperation; and (c) if a vessel is discovered in the front bank immediately or at a safe speed so that it can stop and stop the vessel so that it might not cause any accident; (d) in violation of the duty of care to keep the vessel from operating along the land and operating the vessel without continuous reduction.

3) In the adjudication of this case, the Korean Maritime Safety Tribunal set the C's negligence on the part of C, such as not using the above improper anchoring location and anchorage, and the ratio of providing the cause of the C's negligence and 55% by taking into account all the plaintiff's negligence and other various circumstances, which caused a collision by neglecting boundaries, as 45%, and it can be accepted by comprehensively reflecting the above concurrent negligence. In addition, according to Article 4 (2) of the Act on the Investigation of and Inquiry into Marine Accidents, the ratio of providing the cause of collision to the ship in navigation is 95%, and the ratio of providing the cause of the ship in navigation is 5%. In the adjudication of this case, the judgment of this case does not constitute 90% of the judgment of the Korean Maritime Safety Tribunal as stated in Article 4 [Attachment Table] of the Guidelines for calculating the ratio of providing the cause of collision to the ship in navigation to calculate the degree of the collision accident in accordance with Article 4 (2) of the Act on the Investigation into and Inquiry into Marine Accidents. The judgment of this case is 200.

Therefore, insofar as the Plaintiff is deemed to have been negligent in performing his duties as seen above, the Plaintiff shall be subject to disciplinary action pursuant to Article 5(2) of the Act on the Investigation of and Inquiry into Marine Accidents, and the judgment of this case where the disposition of the most minor reprimand among disciplinary actions prescribed in the above Act was rendered cannot be deemed to have

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Sung-sung

Judges Doo.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.