손해배상(기)
1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) paid KRW 4,924,500 to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the amount from January 12, 2018 to February 2, 2018.
A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.
1. On December 28, 2016, around 06:00, the Defendant-owned 72 tons of vessel crew Nos. 2 (hereinafter “Defendant-ship”) toward the two parts of this paragraph (hereinafter “instant accident”) led to the collision between the Plaintiff-owned 32 tons of vessel Non-ship Nos. 1 (hereinafter “Plaintiff-ship”) and the Defendant-owned 72 tons of vessel crew Nos. 2 (hereinafter “Defendant-ship”) leading to the two parts of this paragraph, which had led to a small-sized vessel from grain wharfs.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's statements in subparagraphs 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The parties' assertion
A. At the time of the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Plaintiff’s vessel was sailing along the radar and the frontline while leaving the port without properly operating the light equipment, and the Plaintiff’s vessel was found to be close to the Defendant’s vessel, and immediately, the captain of the Plaintiff’s vessel made efforts to avoid collision with the Defendant’s vessel by warning the Defendant’s vessel by various means, such as the suspension of engine and warning, warning, etc. at the same time.
However, the accident of this case occurred because the defendant's vessel did not take any action to avoid the collision, such as a change or speed, etc.
Therefore, since the accident of this case is entirely based on the negligence of the defendant's ship, the defendant is liable for the damages suffered by the plaintiff due to the accident of this case.
B. At the time of the instant accident, it was difficult for the Defendant to take measures against the Plaintiff’s vessel, such as discovering the Plaintiff’s vessel, giving a warning to the Plaintiff vessel, such as immediately discovering the Plaintiff’s vessel, sounding the Plaintiff’s whistle, and neglecting the knife, and taking the direction before the instant accident.
However, the accident of this case occurred because the plaintiff's vessel discovered the defendant's vessel and did not delay speed and did not change its direction.
Therefore, it is true.