[손해배상][집24(3)민,259;공1976.12.1.(549) 9463]
Negligence not investigating whether or not the quantity of oil is old at the time of departure and liability for damages under Article 787 of the Commercial Act
Before the commencement of a voyage, if the damaged part of the oil inspection team had already been worn out and thus the shipowner could have discovered and prevented it in advance if he had checked whether or not the cargo was worn out as a considerable caution at the time of departure, but the shipowner could not be exempted from liability for damages under Article 787 of the Commercial Act in the event that the oil oil stored in the tank under the foundation of the window No. 3 is damaged by contamination of the oil due to the difference in and hole near the old part of the oil pipe, while carrying the cargo in advance, and the vessel has carried the strong wind and wind at the right or right or right, without fulfilling the above duty of care.
Attorney Seogsan Industrial Co., Ltd., Counsel for the defendant-appellant
[Defendant-Appellee] Defendant 1 and 3 others
Seoul High Court Decision 76Na95 delivered on April 23, 1976
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.
Judgment on the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2 by Defendant Attorney
According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below recognized that ○○ho Lake was contaminated by the crepan oil caused by the gap or holes caused by the oil tank installed in the middle line of No. 3, which is the ship to which the defendant company belongs, and installed in the middle line of No. 4, the deck, and caused damage to the oil tank installed in the middle line of No. 3, which is the ship to which the defendant company belongs, and caused damage to the oil tank, based on the evidence of the city, the above ○○ho Lake was already worn out before the departure of the port and the above crepan was already worn out, but the above vessel had been carrying the house of this case with the strong wind and wind at the right and right and right of the vessel, and thus, the court below rejected the defendant's failure to perform the duty of due care of the court below as a result of the above investigation or due to the negligence of the defendant's failure to perform the duty of due care at the time of departure from the port because it was found that the above vessel did not have any defect caused by the above.
The court below's decision is legitimate in light of the evidence preparation and the process and contents of fact-finding based on the records, and there is no error in violation of the rules of evidence, and the court below rejected the plaintiff's evidence evidence and the testimony of the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 and the appraisal result of the non-party 3, which correspond to the defendant's defense, and submitted to the non-party 1-4 as evidence No. 1-2. The records are bound, but the list of documentary evidence cannot be deemed as evidence submitted in the first and second instance court, and it cannot be viewed as a legitimate violation of the rules of evidence or a failure of determination. The court below's decision did not err in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence or a failure of duty of care for the defendant's navigation ability as seen above, and the court below's decision cannot be seen as a legitimate error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the defendant's duty of care as to the ship's navigation (the non-party 1 and the non-party 3's assertion that it could not be found any potential defect or defect.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed as without merit. The costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Han-jin (Presiding Justice)