Main Issues

Whether a barge incapable of navigation is a ship to be registered.

Summary of Judgment

In a case where a ship is used for navigation for commercial activities or for other profit-making purposes under Article 740 of the Commercial Act in view of economic usage and utility value, it is reasonable to regard it as a small-type ship with a gross tonnage of less than 20 tons as a small-type ship or a ship driving on the street under Articles 741 and 745 of the Commercial Act, so long as its economic utility value is at least eight million won as it is offered to the above commercial activities even if it has no fighting ability, and its economic utility value is at least eight million won, and has been publicly announced as a ship, it shall not be excluded from the ship to be registered.

[Reference Provisions]

Articles 6 and 20 of the Ship Act, Article 5 of the Ship's Techniques

Reference Cases

73Da142 and 143 delivered on May 30, 1973 (Supreme Court Decision 10452 delivered on May 30, 197, Supreme Court Decision 21Du37 delivered on July 21, 200, Decision 178(8)711 delivered on Registration of Real Estate Act, Article 6(1)1862 of the Ship Act

Plaintiff, counterclaim Defendant and appellant

Plaintiff

Defendant, Counterclaim Plaintiff and Appellant

Jeju Bank, Inc.

Judgment of the lower court

Busan District Court (71 Gohap1311, 1625)

Text

The appeal is dismissed.

Purport of claim

The defendant will implement the registration procedure for cancellation of the establishment registration of a nearby mortgage contract, which was based on the registration received on April 4, 1967 by Busan District Court No. 174, Apr. 4, 1967, as to the barge for the purpose of attachment registration to the plaintiff.

Purport of appeal

The judgment of the court below is revoked and the purport of the claim.

Reasons

The Plaintiff’s legal representative asserts that the barge listed in the attached list of this issue is not a vessel which shall be registered under the Ship Act and the Ship’s Techniques. The Defendant’s legal representative actively contests this issue. Thus, the Plaintiff’s legal representative is a vessel with no dispute over the establishment thereof, Gap’s Nos. 1, 2 (written registry of each vessel), Gap’s No. 3-2 (Case No. 1, 3 (Supplementar Contract) and 4 (Settlement Protocol) as a result of on-site inspection at the lower court’s pleadings, and this barge is a vessel’s total tonnage of 297.91 tons, 238.3 tons, 1940, 1940, and 200 if it was installed at least 70,000,000 won, and it is recognized that the above barge was a vessel with no real value of 10,000 won and no more than 1,60,000 won for navigation of the above vessel under the name of the Plaintiff’s legal representative.