용선료 등
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the following order of payment shall be revoked, and
1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the underlying facts is as stated in Paragraph 1 of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, in addition to the change of “12 million won” to “120 million won” of the third part of the judgment of the court of first instance, since it is identical to the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance.
2. The assertion and judgment
A. 1) The contract on the instant vessel between the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s assertion (hereinafter “instant contract”) is a mixed contract that includes the charter contract on the instant vessel, the delegation contract under which the Plaintiff deals with the Defendant’s departure and towing work on behalf of the Plaintiff at the expense and responsibility of the Defendant, and the agreement to compensate for business losses incurred during the movement period of the instant vessel.
The defendant does not choose a subcontract method due to the cost issue and tried to use the ship of this case by selecting the charter method, and if the charter method is applied, it is necessary to move the ship of this case to the construction site of this case in Korea and use it again to return it to the Republic of Korea at the cost and responsibility of the defendant, the charterer.
Since the Plaintiff bears the expenses incurred in moving the instant vessel on behalf of the Plaintiff, the Defendant’s obligation to pay the above expenses and the Plaintiff’s obligation related to departure and towing does not constitute performance and consideration related to towing. Since the agreement to compensate for business losses incurred during the period of movement of the instant vessel is an undertaking to compensate the Defendant for losses incurred by the movement of the instant vessel for a long time, the obligor risk principle (Article 537 of the Civil Act) premised on bilateral contract is not applicable. Furthermore, in the instant case, there was an agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant to exclude Article 537 of the Civil Act.
B. The Defendant’s assertion that the instant contract was concluded on the instant vessel.