The defendant shall pay 25,200,000 won to the plaintiff Soco Co., Ltd., and 72,047,983 won to the plaintiff Korea Shipping Association, and 5% per annum from July 12, 2008 to January 18, 201, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. The plaintiffs' remaining appeals against the defendant are all dismissed.

3. Of the total litigation costs, 70% shall be borne by the Plaintiffs, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

4. The portion of payment of the amount under paragraph (1) may be provisionally executed.

The following facts may be acknowledged either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the whole purport of the arguments as a result of each fact-finding on the development of the Taesung Sea as follows: Gap's evidence 1 through 4, 9, 12, 13, 15, 18 through 21, 24 through 29, 34 through 38, 41, 43, 44, Eul's evidence 2, 3, 4, 9 through 14 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), non-party 1 and 2's testimony; the testimony of the non-party 1 and 2 of the first instance court; the Korean Maritime Survey Co., Ltd., the head of the South Sea Investigation Office, the head of the South Sea

A. Status, etc. of the parties

(1) The Plaintiff Doco Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Plaintiff Co., Ltd.”) is the owner of Doco 1 (ship number BSR-061, 140 tons, length of 26.67m, length of 26.6m, length of 1) 3.52m; hereinafter “instant vessel”). The Plaintiff Korea Shipping Association (hereinafter “Plaintiff Association”) is a juristic person established for the installation and use of joint use facilities for its members, mutual aid projects in preparation for disasters that occur during its members’ performance, etc., and the Defendant is a juristic person established for the construction, reconstruction, maintenance, repair, dredging, etc. of Busan port facilities, and for the management and operation of ports, such as the expense, security, and cargo management of ports.

(2) On August 28, 2006, the Plaintiff Company and the Plaintiff Union concluded a vessel mutual aid agreement between the Plaintiff Company and the Plaintiff Company assessed the price of the instant vessel as KRW 250,000,000 with respect to the instant vessel in order to compensate for the damages caused by maritime distress, such as sinking and stranding, and concluded a vessel mutual aid agreement between August 28, 2006 to “from August 28, 2006 to August 28, 2007”; and on August 30, 2006, the period of the mutual aid agreement with respect to the instant vessel as “from August 30, 2006 to May 15, 207,” providing the period of the mutual aid agreement as “from August 30, 2006 to May 15, 2007.”

B. Occurrence, etc. of the instant accident

(1) Around 22:20 on December 24, 2006, Nonparty 3, the captain of the instant vessel, was mooring the instant vessel on the Cheongdo-dong, Cheongdo-dong, Busan, which is a mooring facility located in front of the warehouse in the Cheongdo-dong, Cheongdo-gu, Busan (name: OLH-01; 4.3m in the planned water depth; 303.5m in the length; 1,000 tons in the contact capacity; 1,000 tons in the handling capacity and 3m in the handling capacity) and unloaded the instant vessel along with the crew of the instant vessel.

(2) Under its geographical features, the front depth of the Cheongbuan wall was set up at the bottom of the sea area 5.1m through 5.5m from the Cheongbuan wall (hereinafter “instant accident sea area”) from the Cheongbuan wall as shown in the attached sheet (hereinafter “the instant steel structure”). The front depth of the Cheongbuan wall was set at the evis beam beam beam beam, e.g. h., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e.g., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e.,

(3) From 22:20 on December 24, 2006 to 06:13, the surface of the instant vessel and the steel structure of the instant steel structure, which were the front surface of the Cheongbuan District of the instant vessel, have been inspected. Accordingly, the instant vessel was sunken (hereinafter “the instant accident”) due to the flow of sea water into this place, wherein approximately 30cm in diameter occurred between 24 and 25cm at the center of the instant vessel, and the main oil stations on board the instant vessel, which were loaded on the instant vessel, and approximately 150 litress of oil mixtures, which were leaked and contaminated at sea.

(4) The non-party 3, who is the captain of the ship of this case, received a summary order of KRW 3,00,000 from the Busan District Court on May 11, 2007 (Seoul District Court Decision 2007Da18305) and the above summary order became final and conclusive around that time, on the ground that the non-party 4 used the ship of this case in the maritime guard work from December 13, 2006 to December 13, 2006 to the time when the accident of this case occurred, on the ground that he did not obtain approval for the use of harbor facilities from the defendant. The non-party 3, the captain of this case and the non-party 4, who caused the non-party 3 and his employees to commit an illegal act with respect to the plaintiff company's business as above.

(c) Payment, etc. of insurance proceeds;

(1) On January 18, 2007, the Plaintiff Union determined that the instant vessel was entirely damaged and paid to the Plaintiff Company KRW 250,000,000, which is the amount of mutual aid subscription under the said vessel mutual aid agreement, as the hull insurance money.

(2) The Plaintiff Company: (a) performed the salvage and salvage of the instant vessel; and (b) claimed KRW 80,850,000 for the salvage expenses; (c) however, on March 28, 2007, the Plaintiff Company paid KRW 55,640,000 to the Plaintiff Company for the salvage expenses of the instant vessel in accordance with the vessel mutual aid agreement.

(3) On March 28, 2007, the Plaintiff Union paid KRW 1,700,000 for the settlement of damages to all marine special damage adjusting companies.

(4) The Korean Maritime Survey Co., Ltd. received a request from the Plaintiff Union to conduct the verification and ship inspection from December 25, 2006 to December 30 of the same year. The Plaintiff Association paid KRW 2,632,770 to the Korean Maritime Survey Co., Ltd. on April 16, 2007.

(5) On April 27, 2007, the Plaintiff Mutual Aid Association paid KRW 30,287,175 for marine pollution response costs to a single comprehensive environmental company in accordance with the aforementioned agreement on the liability for damages on the owner of the ship.

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. The parties' assertion

(1) The plaintiffs' assertion

The Cheongbuan District is a mooring facility located in the port of Busan, which is a designated port, and the area of the accident of this case falls under the sea area which is not necessary for the safe contact of the vessel on the Cheongbuan District, and thus the Defendant is responsible for the management thereof. Since the accident of this case occurred due to the defect in the management of the Defendant, that is, the Defendant discovered the steel structure of this case on the bottom of the Cheongbuan District and did not remove it, the Defendant is responsible for compensating for the damages suffered by the Plaintiff Company due to the accident of this case, and the Plaintiff Company is liable for paying the insurance money, etc. to the Plaintiff Association.

(2) The defendant's assertion

The instant accident area constitutes underwater water and is responsible for the management thereof to the Minister of Oceans and Fisheries. Even if the instant accident occurred within port facilities, the responsibility for managing the instant accident is the Minister of Oceans and Fisheries at the time of the occurrence of the instant accident, since the instant accident occurred not in the mooring facility, but in the water area located within the Cheong School Walls.

However, even if the responsibility for the management of the defendant is recognized, the captain of the ship of this case has been mooring the ship of this case to the Cheongbugate without the approval of the defendant's use of harbor facilities, and the accident of this case has occurred, so the gross negligence should be set off.

(b) Markets:

(1) Establishment of tort liability (Defendant’s duty of management and breach of duty of care)

A harbor facility is divided into a basic facility, functional facility, support facility, and harbor-friendly facility. The basic facility is subdivided into a water zone facility, an outer facility, an port traffic facility, and an mooring facility. The dual water zone facility means a sea route, anchorage, mooring facility, captain of a vessel, etc. The mooring facility includes an inner wall, water tank, landing bridge, turfin, landing facility, breath, etc. [Article 2 subparag. 6 of the former Harbor Act (wholly amended by Act No. 8379 of Apr. 11, 2007)]. Examining the meaning of the “water zone facility” and “sea mooring facility” in the instant case, the term “sea area facility” means a vessel’s safe navigation and anchorage within a port area and a port area, and a vessel’s smooth mooring and unloading, and the term “ship’s mooring and unloading facility” means a vessel’s mooring and unloading facility, and the term “ship’s mooring and unloading facility” means a vessel’s mooring and unloading facility, and the term “ship and landing facility” means a vessel’s.

According to the former Port Authority Act (amended by Act No. 8043 of Oct. 4, 2006), a water area facility is responsible for the management thereof by the Minister of Oceans and Fisheries until April 4, 2007. From April 5, 2007, a water area facility is transferred the management authority to the defendant, and the defendant is responsible for the management thereof. In the case of the Cheong School Facility, which is the mooring facility, a water area, the defendant invested in and installed, and the defendant is responsible for the management thereof, such as imposing the permission for use and the fee on the defendant).

In this case, the purpose of the Cheongan School Walls, which is a mooring facility, is to safely approach a vessel. Therefore, it is necessary to secure the safe contact of the vessel. The above employed evidence, evidence No. 46, No. 48, and No. 25, and the following circumstances, which can be known in accordance with the results of inquiry into the head of the office of the maritime investigation at the court of the trial and arguments, are 4.3m. The front depth of the Cheongan School Walls is 4.3m. The front depth is 3.4m or 4.9m. The upper depth of the water near the sea area is 5m or 5.5m. The Cheongan School Walls is 6m. The lower court's 5m or 20m away from the Cheongan School Walls, and the 5m or 2m away from the Cheongan School Walls to maintain the vessel's safe contact with the vessel at least 6m in front of the accident.

Furthermore, the defendant, who is responsible for the management and operation of the port of Busan, is responsible for compensating the plaintiff company for damages caused by the accident of this case as the manager of the accident of this case as the accident of this case, and the plaintiff union is responsible for compensating the plaintiff company for damages caused by the accident of this case as a manager of the accident of this case, and the plaintiff union is not liable for compensating the plaintiff company for damages caused by the accident of this case as a result of the accident of this case, and the plaintiff union is not liable for compensating the plaintiff company for damages caused by the accident of this case to the plaintiff company of this case under mutual aid agreement of this case, and the plaintiff union is not liable for compensating the plaintiff company of the damages caused by the accident of this case to the plaintiff company of this case from the accident of this case, the plaintiff company of this case is not liable for compensating the plaintiff company of the damages caused by the accident of this case to the plaintiff company of this case as a result of the accident of this accident of this case, and the plaintiff union is not liable for compensating the plaintiff company of this case and the plaintiff union of this case.

(2) Limitation of liability

However, the following circumstances acknowledged by the aforementioned employed evidence, Gap evidence Nos. 40 and Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 5, and the purport of the whole pleading, i.e., the person who intends to use port facilities, despite obtaining permission from the management agency or delegated the management agency with the operation of port facilities under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree, the ship of this case was moored to Cheong School Walls without obtaining approval for the use of port facilities from the defendant entrusted with the operation of the port facilities, 6 weeks), and ii) the ship mooring at her mooring at her mooring place has to assign an adequate number of workers who can take emergency measures for the safety of the ship at the latest at night, despite the fact that there is no difference between the defendant's vessel's duty of care and the captain's duty of care to avoid the collision between the vessel of this case and the vessel of this case due to the occurrence of a change in the area of the sea of this case which cannot be confirmed to the surface of this case due to natural force, such as weather condition, and thus, the captain's duty of care to avoid the collision between the vessel of this case.

3. Scope of liability for damages

A. The Defendant’s scope of liability against the Plaintiff Company (the amount of damages sustained by the Defendant)

(1) According to Gap evidence Nos. 6-1, Gap evidence Nos. 19-1, Gap evidence Nos. 22, 23, 31, 32, 33, 41, and 42, appraisal results and the purport of the argument of non-party 5 of the first instance trial, the plaintiff company purchased and imported the ship of this case in Japan on September 4, 2006 with the price equivalent to 250,000,000 won. After the accident of this case, before the ship of this case occurred, the amount of net value increase is equivalent to 84,00,000,000 won for the ship of this case; 30,000 won for the ship of this case; 10,000 won for the ship of this case; 30,000 won for the ship of this case; 30,000 won for disposal of the ship of this case; and 10,000 won for the remaining portion of the ship of this case.

(2) Meanwhile, as seen earlier, the Plaintiff Company received 250,000,000 won, which is the insured amount for hull insurance from the Plaintiff Company. Of the vessel damages of the Plaintiff Company 233,90,000,000 won, the amount equivalent to 84,00,000 won, which is the net value increase of the vessel’s ship, is not the amount subject of insurance, but the remainder of 149,90,000 won is the amount subject of insurance. As such, the Plaintiff Company’s amount equivalent to 10,000 won, which is the subject of insurance, within the scope of Defendant’s liability, should be deducted.

(3) Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff Company damages at a rate of 25,200,000 won (i.e., 70,170,000 won - 44,970,000 won) and 20% per annum under the Civil Act from July 12, 2008, which is the day following the day of service of a copy of the complaint of this case sought by the Plaintiff Company after the day of tort, to dispute over the existence and scope of the Defendant’s performance obligation, from July 12, 2008 until January 18, 2011, which is the day of adjudication of the court of first instance, and to pay damages for delay at a rate of 5% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from

B. The Defendant’s scope of liability against the Plaintiff Union

(1) As seen above, the amount of hull insurance money paid by the Plaintiff Union to the Plaintiff Company 250,00,000 won for the shipbuilding expenses of this case, KRW 55,640,00 for all marine special damage adjusting companies, Korea Maritime Affairs and Trade Corporation, KRW 1,700,00 for the appraisal expenses of damages incurred to the Plaintiff Company, KRW 2,632,770 for the verification expenses for causes of accidents, KRW 30,287,175 for marine pollution response expenses, or KRW 11 for the damages incurred by the Plaintiff Company, or KRW 149,90,000 for the vessel damage of this case. Since the amount of KRW 140,00 for the vessel damage of this case was paid to the Plaintiff Company as insurance coverage amount of KRW 12), the scope of the Defendant’s liability for reimbursement against the Plaintiff Company 14,970,000 for the insurance amount of this case, KRW 149,900 for the vessel damage amount of this case x KRW 3070750,7507.7.7

(2) On the other hand, the plaintiff union asserts that the amount of fine is within the scope of the defendant's liability for damages, since the plaintiff company's fine for violation of the Prevention of Marine Pollution Act and the captain's fine of KRW 7,000,000,000 is paid in accordance with the

According to the overall purport of evidence Nos. 26 and 30, the plaintiff union paid a total of KRW 7,00,000 for the plaintiff company and its captain as a fine for violating the Prevention of Marine Pollution Act, etc. on Nov. 9, 2007, in accordance with the above contract for the shipowner and its captain’s liability mutual aid (Article 27 of the Terms and Conditions), but the above fine is deemed a disciplinary punishment imposed individually on the non-party 3 and the plaintiff company corresponding to the respective criminal acts, and the criminal acts cannot be transferred to others. Thus, the above assertion by the plaintiff union is rejected.

In addition, the plaintiff union's assertion that the value-added tax should be added to 10% of the amount of indemnity recognized against the defendant, but it does not accept the above argument of the plaintiff union since there is no legal basis to add the value-added tax on the amount of indemnity or indemnity.

(3) Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay damages for delay at each rate of KRW 72,047,983 (=44,970,000 + KRW 27,077,983) from July 12, 2008, which is the day following the day of service of a copy of the complaint of this case sought by the Plaintiff Union after the payment of insurance money, to the Plaintiff Union subrogated for the Plaintiff Company, for the dispute as to the existence and scope of the Defendant’s duty of performance from July 12, 2008 until January 18, 2011, which is the day of adjudication of the court of first instance, and 5% per annum under the Civil Act until the day of full payment, and 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claim against the defendant of this case is accepted within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as without merit. Since the part against the plaintiffs in the judgment of the court of first instance against each of the above recognized amounts is unfair differently from this conclusion, the plaintiffs' appeal is partially accepted, and each of them is revoked, and the defendant is ordered to pay the above recognized amounts to the plaintiffs, and the remaining appeal against the defendant is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment]

Judges Kim Yong-ho (Presiding Judge)

1) The depth of a vessel means the height from the bottom to deck.

Note 2) The term static is called the cardinal datum level (abre high tide), which is calculated by the result of long-term observation of tide in a specific area, and this cardinal datum level is the highest tide (liver tide) where sea water falls into the largest extent due to tide in a specific area.

Note 3) See the national land maritime fish species (htp:/www.go.go.r/USR/dicsp)

Note 4) See the absence of dispute and the fact-finding results to the Busan Regional Maritime Port Authority

5) According to the result of fact-finding conducted by the court of first instance on the Korea Ship Safety Technology Authority and the Head of Busan Regional Meteorological Administration, it seems that there was no particular problem in the seaworthiness and maritime weather of the instant vessel at the time of the instant accident.

(6) The plaintiffs asserted that the plaintiff was informed of the fact to the defendant while entering the Cheongwon Port Authority in the complaint of this case, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it. Rather, according to the facts that the defendant did not obtain approval for the use of the harbor facilities from December 13, 2006 to the time the accident of this case occurred, and Gap evidence Nos. 40, Eul No. 1 and 3 were informed of the fact that the ship was connected to the Cheongwon Port Authority located near the Cheongwon Port Authority of Busan around December 24, 2006 to the Cheongwon Port Authority of December 22, 2006, and that the plaintiff was informed of the fact that the Cheongwon Port Authority of this case's 300 tons of the Cheongwon Port Authority of this case's Cheongwon Port Authority of this case's Cheongwon Port Authority of this case's Cheongwon Port Authority of this case's Cheongwon Port Authority of this case's Cheongwon Port Authority of this case's 200 days.

Note 7) The difference between the tides around the port of Busan seems to be about 1m (see, e.g., records No. 675).

8) According to the Plaintiff’s assertion, the distance between the vessel and the inner wall is about 7 meters high from the direction of the vessel, about 10 meters high from the port side. In light of the location of the accident area of this case, the location of the steel structure of this case, and the size of the vessel of this case, etc., if the Plaintiff mooring the vessel of this case using the distance between the vessel and the inner wall claimed by the Plaintiff, it would be likely that the accident of this case would not have occurred if the vessel of this case was moored along the outer wall of this case (e.g., mooring along the outer wall, it is difficult to readily conclude that the distance can not be a sufficient distance in preparation for the difference between the tide and the water).

9) In a case where an article is damaged due to a tort, unless there are special circumstances, the amount of damages that can be claimed shall be calculated based on the cost of repair, if repair is possible, on the basis of the exchange value (market price) reduced. Even if the injured party disposed of the damaged article and recovered the amount equivalent to the price of the remaining article, it shall be deemed that the injured party suffered damages as much as the amount calculated by deducting the amount equivalent to the price of the remaining article from the amount equivalent to the market price at the time of the tort at the time of the tort. It shall not be deemed that the injured party suffered damages equivalent to the amount equivalent to the market price at the time of the tort at the time of the tort. However, it shall not be deemed that the injured party obtained a profit equivalent to the amount equivalent to the price of the remaining article (see, e.g.

10) The Plaintiff Company received 250,000,000 won from the Plaintiff Company as the hull insurance proceeds. Of these, 149,90,000 won was subject to insurance, and the remainder of 100,100,000 won was subject to insurance. However, the amount equivalent to the above 100,100,000 won was treated as the total loss of the instant vessel, and the Plaintiff Company already recovered the instant vessel, which is the remainder of the Plaintiff Company, by treating the instant vessel as the total loss, and paid the said KRW 250,00,000 as the insurance proceeds.

11) Since it is reasonable to view that the expenses incurred in the examination of the accident site and the inspection of ship condition are damages that the Plaintiff Company should incur due to the instant accident, the Defendant’s assertion that the expenses incurred in the examination and the settlement of accounts should be excluded from the scope of liability for damages is not accepted.

12) As seen earlier, the Plaintiff Union paid KRW 100,100,000 to the Plaintiff Company as insurance proceeds, but the said amount was already recovered by the Plaintiff Union.