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

A. The plaintiff is a person who is engaged in coastal cargo transportation business, and 'C' or 'the vessel of this case' or 'the vessel of this case.

The Defendant is the owner of the instant vessel. On May 2, 2016, the Defendant entered into a labor contract with D and verbally to handle the business of the instant vessel as the actual owner of the instant vessel, and on May 3, 2016, the instant vessel was on board the instant vessel as the head of the instant vessel on May 3, 2016. B. In order to operate the instant vessel, four seafarers are required. (c) From May 8, 2015, the instant vessel towed E, a non-power-driven vessel, and repeated the work of loading and unloading sand at the port again upon completion of sand gathering. The Defendant entered the instant vessel’s port on May 30, 2015, into and disembarked at the port of the instant vessel on May 30, 2015. [In the absence of grounds for recognition, entry of evidence No. 5, the purport of the entire pleadings, and the purport of all pleadings.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant entered into a seafarer labor contract with the Plaintiff for one year, and left the Plaintiff without permission on May 30, 2015, notwithstanding the Plaintiff’s detention. Accordingly, the Plaintiff was unable to operate the instant vessel due to the impossibility of operating the instant vessel due to the lack of statutory number of seafarers, resulting in damage by paying charterage of KRW 80 million for one month in order to tow sand gathering line E, thereby leasing and using “F.”

B. The Plaintiff and the Defendant alleged that they were the Defendant’s labor contract by setting up a period of one month as a short-term period of one month, and not so as a

Article 6 of the Rules of Employment of the plaintiff, which applies to the employment contract between the plaintiff and the defendant, provides that he/she shall retire at his/her request without a grace period or restriction.

The defendant left the ship after notifying the plaintiff of his leaving the ship several times, and the defendant cannot be deemed to have failed to perform his obligation under the labor contract.

In addition, the qualification for the chief engineer of the ship of this case, which is in navigation of internal damage, is not lower than that of class VI engineer, so it is possible to easily seek substitute personnel.