[손해배상(기)][하집1991(1),101]
Whether a seafarer management agency that conducts general management of seafarers is an employer of a seafarer subject to such management.
Where the owner of a ship has a supervisory authority on board the ship, supervises the seafarers, has the power to dismiss the ship, and bears all responsibility, such as paying wages and compensation to the seafarers. On the other hand, the seafarer management agency shall conduct general management for the seafarers by soliciting the seafarers corresponding to the request of the owner of the ship, paying the wages, etc. received from the owner of the ship, and resolving the request and proposal of the seafarers, and in return, receives the fees from the owner of the ship, the seafarer management agency cannot be said to be an employer of the seafarer because it is not in fact or objectively related to the direction and supervision of the seafarers on board the ship.
Article 756 of the Civil Act
Plaintiff 1 and four others
Nagoya Shipping Corporation
1. The plaintiff's claims are all dismissed.
2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.
The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1 the amount of 44,457,321 won, the amount of 2,000,000 won to the plaintiff 3, and 4 each amount of 1,000,000 won to the plaintiff 1, and the amount of 50,000 won to the plaintiff 1, and the amount of 50,000 won per annum from June 6, 1989 to the sentencing day, and 25 percent per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.
The costs of lawsuit shall be assessed against the defendant, and a declaration of provisional execution.
If the statement No. 3 and Non-party 1's testimony without dispute in the formation are gathered with the whole purport of the pleading, it can be recognized that Non-party 2, who is a worker on duty who knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife n
Since Nonparty 2’s employer is the defendant company’s employee, the defendant company asserted that it is liable for all damages suffered by the plaintiffs in their personal relations with the plaintiff 1 and 2 due to the above illegal act. As such, it is insufficient to recognize it only with the testimony of the non-party 2, the non-party 1, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. However, if the non-party 3’s testimony of the witness 1, 2, 3-2, and the testimony of the above witness 3-2, and the above witness’s testimony, it can be seen as a vessel owned by the non-party 2 in Hong Kong, and the defendant concluded the above 9-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-party company’s direction and supervision over the above defendant company.
Thus, all of the plaintiffs' claims shall be dismissed without merit, and the burden of litigation costs shall be decided as per Disposition by applying Articles 89 and 93 of the Civil Procedure Act.
Judges Kim Tae-hun (Presiding Judge)