2. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant 1 corporation and the remaining claim against the defendant 2 corporation are dismissed, respectively.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, the part 2/5 arising between the Plaintiff and Defendant 2 is borne by the Plaintiff, the remainder is borne by Defendant 2, and the part arising between the Plaintiff and Defendant 1 is borne by the Plaintiff.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The following facts may be acknowledged by comprehensively considering the evidence No. 1-1 through 3, evidence No. 2-1, evidence No. 2, evidence No. 3-1, 2, evidence No. 4, evidence No. 5-1 through 4, evidence No. 5-6, evidence No. 9-1 through 58, evidence No. 1-2, evidence No. 3-1, 2, Eul No. 3-1, 2, and Ga No. 4 and the overall purport of the pleadings.

A. Status of the parties

The Plaintiff, a barge, owned ○○○○○ 1001 [the gross tonnage of 2,67 tons, length of 81.6m, width of 24m, depth of 5.3m, length of 14m, captain Nonparty 14m, and hereinafter “instant vessel”). Defendant 1 Co., Ltd. is a corporation which has been awarded a subcontract of part of the construction works for an international shipbuilding plant, which is a tugboat, (the gross tonnage of 124 tons, length of 25.79m, length of 25.79m, width of 8m, depth of 3.60m, maximum output of 1,40m, maximum output of 3.60m, length of 32.69m, width of 10m, depth of 4.3m, maximum output of 1,60m, etc.) and international 5m (the maximum output of 1,600m). Defendant 2 Co., Ltd. is a specialized maritime construction company.

(b) The construction work of brickd trees, test tidal plants and power plants;

1) During the period from April 2005 to December 2008, the Korea Maritime Research Institute decided to build a test charging plant of 1 meat in the south of Jindo-gun, Jindo-do, Jindo-gun at a relatively high place, and selected Nonparty 9 Co., Ltd. as a contractor. On March 7, 2006, Nonparty 9 Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant construction”). On March 7, 2006, Defendant 2 Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant construction”) subcontracted the “R.C. D. Excavation and C.C. Excavation Co., Ltd.” (hereinafter “instant construction”) to Defendant 2 Co., Ltd. for construction work.

2) The high-sea cooperative, where a test tidal power plant is to be constructed, is located between Nonparty 8 and Jindo-gun in the direction of southwest from the northwest to the southwest. The high-speed of the high-speed water in the southwest of the water is about 3 meters high, but the high-speed of the high-speed water in the southwest of the water system is about 1 hour and about 40 minutes high-speed water and about 2 meters high-level water level generated from the two parts of the water surface of the water surface at the northwest of the water surface of the Namwest and the water surface of the water surface at the parallel of the 10.3 knots (water level) or 11.5 knots (water level).

3) Defendant 2 Co., Ltd.: (a) had an accident using special maritime equipment in order to install a garker in the location of a test steering plant; and (b) around August 2006, when he had engaged in towing and transporting a towing boat near the installation location of a test steering plant using a tugboat, which is a special maritime equipment loaded with a stringr, around August 2006, the towing boat was pushed away from a strong tidal string and the barge obstructed a string (484m in length, 11.7m in width, 20m in height from the sea surface to the upper surface). Accordingly, Defendant 2 Co., Ltd. requested Nonparty 9 Co., Ltd. to install a stacker in advance, and to change the work method by using a string.

C. Charter contract with the plaintiff and defendant 1 corporation

On April 16, 2007, Defendant 2 Co., Ltd. entered into a contract with Defendant 1 Co., Ltd. to pay the user fee of KRW 8,000,000 per day of the towing international 5, which is necessary for the transfer of the instant case. From 20th to 27th day of the same month, Defendant 2 Co., Ltd. entered into a contract with Defendant 1 to charter the fleet international 1 for a period from the 20th day of the same month to the 20th day of the same month, without entering into a separate charter contract, to use the instant vessel for a necessary time without entering into an oral contract. On April 13, 207, Defendant 2 concluded a contract under the following conditions with Nonparty 4 Co., Ltd

○ Transport Section: Braf Port from Jindo-Jag, Jindo-Jags and glars

○ Estimated amount: 30,000,000

○ Conditions: A value-added tax; the burden of the owner of the cargo; the cost of loading and unloading; the cost of loading and unloading; the cost of loading and unloading; the cost of loading and unloading; the cost of loading and unloading at least four days; and the cost of loading and unloading at a rate exceeding 6,00,000 per day; and the cost of loading and unloading (the work of fixing cargo to a vessel)

D. Occurrence of the instant vessel accident

1) The high-speed string, where a power plant for the test of glick trees is to be constructed, is highly likely to cause an accident due to the extreme and high speed of tidal change, and the non-party 9 and the defendant 2 corporation agreed to undertake the construction at the time of the possible refining (the period during which the height of water does not change in the water when lighting, sunshine or inter-scoping). Accordingly, the construction of this case was scheduled to proceed in the order of transporting the kacks at around 16:00 on April 22, 2007, after first transporting the kacks at around 11:0 on the following day.

2) However, prior to the commencement of the work, there was a proposal to change the order of work from Nonparty 10 Co., Ltd., the owner of the sea guard boat, for reasons of work difficulties. Accordingly, at the site office of Nonparty 9 Co., Ltd. around 15:00 on the same day, the Corporation had opened a prior conference at the site office of Nonparty 15:0 on the same day, and the prior conference was held by Nonparty 2 Co., Ltd., the president of Nonparty 3 and 10 Co., Ltd., under the presence of Nonparty 11 at the site office of Nonparty 9 Co., Ltd., Ltd., and the president of Nonparty 12 and Nonparty 13 and 5 at the site office of Nonparty 13 and the captain, Nonparty 2, etc. of Nonparty 13 and International Co., Ltd. 5, the captain of Nonparty 1 and International Co. 1, etc., discussed the method of transport of the sea guard boat lines

3) After completion of a prior conference and on-site inquiry, the work to load the instant vessel with a height of 32 meters, length of 36 meters, width of 16 meters, weight of 790 tons was commenced, and the loading work was completed at around 21:30 on the same day, and the fleet, including international 5, etc. (international 5 and international 1, the instant vessel), took a anchor away from the brick-gun, Jindo-gun, which is a destination for night, and began to move back to the bend of the water in the vicinity of the meltjin-gun, Jindo-gun, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, at around 22:0:0 on the same day and around 22:0 through 22:30 on the same day.

4) The captain of the international 5th before departure from the port, Nonparty 1 suggested to the head of the site office of Defendant 2 Co., Ltd. to postpone departure to the effect that “if the captain of the Defendant 2 Co., Ltd. is at night and is going to work after the lapse of the time of stopping, he goes to the direction near the work site, and the algae goes to the direction of Jindo-do, and thus, it is dangerous that the captain of the Defendant 2 will go to go to the direction of Jindo-do.” However, Nonparty 3 plans to stop departure from the port to “if he will go to go to the operation after being under the back at the 11:0 of the next day, he is scheduled to go to go to the towing-do at the 11th day after the next day, it may proceed as planned to go to go to the next day, and how to change the time of departure from the port.” After that, Nonparty 1 directed the tugboat to leave the port as scheduled.

5) On the same day, a tugboat sailed at a speed of about 4 No. 5 knotss according to the scheduled sea route, and arrived at the sea near the melted water tank at around 23:00 on the same day. Nonparty 1, the fleet, which was incorporated into the water bend direction toward the water bend, was pushed down in the direction of 45 degrees towards the water bend. International 1 combined into the water bend part of the vessel at the right edge of the instant vessel, was trying to approach the water bend in the direction of 45 degrees towards the water bend. However, during that process, the stem part of the instant vessel returned to the port towards the water bend of the water bend, and was pushed down to the water bend of the Jindo-dog by the course of the vessel.

6) Accordingly, Nonparty 1 made efforts to display international and international towing personnel as much as possible so that the direction of the fleet's fore and fluences would go into the steering line. However, even though the influence of algae was too strong, it was pushed away from the direction of the Jindo-gun. Nonparty 1, who was able to make the fleet go about 100 meters away from the direction of the Jindo-gun. Nonparty 1, who instructed Nonparty 14, located on the part of the ship of this case, to anchor in the barge but did not receive the answer, was pushed back in the situation where he did not receive the answer. Ultimately, around 23:13 of the same day, the upper part of the fleet, at 20 meters from the water surface, was faced with the 1st Jindo 1st parallel.

7) Afterwards, international 5 and international 1 of the instant vessel: (a) left the instant vessel after burning the crew of the instant vessel; and (b) the instant vessel separated from the towing vessel was placed in contact with the first Jindo bridge, and (c) around 00:08 of the following day, the instant vessel fell into the sea-bed because the instant vessel fell away from the instant vessel; and (d) during that process, the instant vessel was destroyed (hereinafter “instant accident”).

8) At the time of the instant accident, the weather was 6 to 8m high from the northwest wind to the northwest, and the wave was inside and outside 1m high from the northwest. At the time of the instant accident, the strong windows of at least 5.8 knotss (in the case of creative and pushed water, the currents that flow in the direction to the highest speed when they flow into the northwest side of the 1 Jindo-gun.) from the wall wave to the northwest.

E. Progress after the instant accident occurred

1) The non-party 3 and the non-party 1 got off the ship of this case and felled on the sea and obstructed marine traffic in the vicinity of the ship of this case due to the crime of obstruction of general traffic in the field of occupational negligence, which was sentenced to a fine of KRW 3 million on June 12, 2008. The non-party 3 and the non-party 1 appealed against the above judgment, but the Gwangju District Court dismissed the appeal of the non-party 3 and the non-party 1 on December 10, 2008, and the non-party 3 and the non-party 1 appealed on the part of the non-party 3 and the non-party 1 appealed.

2) On the other hand, on September 4, 2008, the Korean Maritime Safety Tribunal established under the Act on the Investigation of and Inquiry into Marine Accidents (hereinafter “Maritime Safety Tribunal”) decided that “There are fundamental grounds for the construction plan itself in which sufficient review of and preparation against risk factors of the instant accident are insufficient, but it is a serious reason for Defendant 2 Company to not have the departure time to complete the transport of a water-power generation machine by using the water-tank as much as possible, and that it is also a reason for the International 5 Shipmaster to get the captain to cross a emphasizing the ship as a ship manager.” The Korean Maritime Safety Tribunal ordered Nonparty 1 to suspend the business of the 3th mate in January and recommended Defendant 2 to correct the accident.”

2. Determination as to the claim against Defendant 2 Company

(a) Occurrence of liability for damages;

1) According to the above facts, Nonparty 3, the site manager of Defendant 2, along with Nonparty 9 Co., Ltd., a contractor, established a plan for the construction team of this case, supervised the work site, directed and supervised the barge and the tugboat so that maritime transportation work can be conducted safely. In particular, the sea area of this case is high in the risk of accidents due to high tides, and Defendant 2 Co., Ltd. experienced an accident that collision with the Jindo River that the tugboat was pushed away from the strong tidal wave even around August 2006, and thus, it was possible to review the proper departure time, towing method, and landing method of the structure loaded on the barge, and the characteristics of the sea route, etc., of the tugboat, and accept the plan to delay or delay the operation of the tugboat of this case for the following day to the Plaintiff, even if it did not have been ordered to delay the operation of the tugboat before departure from the port.

2) As to this, Defendant 2 did not have the navigational negligence of Nonparty 1, the tugboat captain of Defendant 1 Co., Ltd., but did not have the navigational negligence of Nonparty 1, the tugboat captain of Defendant 1 Co., Ltd., the ship of this case did not have the accident of towing the Jindo Don-don-don-don-don-don-don-don-don-si. In the case of a navigation charter, Defendant 2 Co., Ltd., the charterer,

However, as seen below, a contract concluded between Defendant 2 and Defendant 1 cannot be deemed as a voyage charter. Even if the contract between Defendant 2 and Defendant 1 was a voyage charter, if the shipowner is acknowledged as a cause attributable to the time charterer, not only the shipowner is liable for damages under the Commercial Act, but also the shipowner is liable for the general tort liability under the Civil Act or the employer’s liability (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Da65977, Aug. 22, 2003, etc.). In addition, in addition to the navigation negligence of Nonparty 1, the time charterer may be separately liable for damages arising from the business negligence of Nonparty 3 who ordered departure without safety measures even after the time of the navigation negligence of the non-party 1, which caused the occurrence of the instant accident. Thus, the above assertion by Defendant 2 et al. is without merit.

3) Next, Defendant 2 asserted that, if Nonparty 14, the captain of the instant vessel, who is the Plaintiff’s captain, did anchor in accordance with Nonparty 1’s order, Defendant 2 could prevent the instant accident by pushing the instant vessel’s anchor, but Nonparty 14 did not comply with Nonparty 1’s instructions, it should be taken into account as the Plaintiff’s fault.

However, there is no evidence to prove that Nonparty 14 did not follow the direction after Nonparty 1’s instructions that Nonparty 14 would anchor in a radio, and furthermore, even if Nonparty 14 had anchored according to Nonparty 1’s instructions, considering the distance between the vessel and Jindo bridge at the time, the length of the vessel of this case, the depth of the accident sea area, etc., it appears that the accident of this case could not be prevented, and thus, Defendant 2’s assertion on this part cannot be accepted.

(b) Scope of damages;

(i) Salvage expenses;

If Gap evidence No. 10 and Gap evidence No. 11 show the whole purport of the pleadings, the plaintiff entered into a contract with the non-party No. 4 corporation to tow the ship of this case in the accident place on April 26, 2007 and towing it from Bana to Incheon on April 26, 2007, and paid 20,000,000 won (excluding value-added tax) as a towing fee on the 30th of the same month to the non-party No. 4 corporation.

2) Repair expenses

Comprehensively taking account of the statements and images of evidence Nos. 12-1, 2, 13-1, 14, 15-1 through 7 of evidence Nos. 12-1, 2, 13-2, and 15-1, the Plaintiff entered into a vessel repair contract with the non-party 5 corporation on June 5, 2007 with respect to the removal of damaged parts and hull bottom, waterproof removal work, hull bottom restoration work, design work, painting work, electrical construction work, etc., from June 8, 2007 to August 1, 2007, the Plaintiff paid 50,000 won (excluding value-added tax) at the repair cost of the instant vessel to the non-party 5 corporation, and thus, the Plaintiff did not appear to have any other assertion that the Plaintiff’s aforementioned notice was included in the repair cost of the instant vessel from the non-party 15 corporation to the repair cost of the instant vessel, but the Plaintiff did not appear to have any other assertion that it was included in the repair cost of the Plaintiff 1.

(iii) Business losses;

A) Facts of recognition

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or may be acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the descriptions of Gap evidence 10, Gap evidence 13-1, 2, 16, Gap evidence 18-1, 2, 3, 19, Gap evidence 20-1, 2, Eul evidence 15-1 through 9, Eul evidence 16-1, and 2.

(1) After the instant accident occurred, the Plaintiff performed an emergency repair necessary to navigate the instant vessel to Incheon, by April 27, 2007, in towing the instant vessel to a wooden port, and then requested Defendant 2 Co., Ltd. to deal with the damage of the instant vessel as an insurance policy or to repair the instant vessel. However, Defendant 2 Co., Ltd. refused the Plaintiff’s demand on May 10, 2007, on the ground that the matters relating to the repair of the instant vessel should be resolved by the insurance subscribed to the Plaintiff or claimed against Defendant 1 Co., Ltd. that caused the accident.

(2) Since then, the Plaintiff demanded Defendant 2 to repair the instant vessel, but the said Defendant did not comply with the demand to repair the instant vessel directly.

(3) On May 31, 2007, the instant vessel entered into Incheon port on June 1, 2007 by departing from the wooden port, and entering the port of Incheon port on June 1, 2007. On June 8, 2007, the instant vessel, waiting for a commercial building (a line on a certain device), was repaired by Non-Party 5 Company from June 8, 2007, started to be repaired by Non-Party 5 Company, and completed an inspection for repair and navigation on August 1, 2007.

(4) On a monthly basis, Nonparty 6 Co., Ltd. submitted a written estimate of KRW 90 million (excluding value-added tax), and Nonparty 7 Co., Ltd. submitted a written estimate of KRW 53,000,000,000, to charter a boomed vessel of a size similar to the instant vessel (a vessel designed to meet the height of the port, depending on a high number of sea water) for one month.

(5) Total expenses, such as wages and insurance premiums, etc., paid by the Plaintiff to operate the instant vessel would normally be KRW 239,173 per day.

B) Business loss period

(1) According to the above facts, it is reasonable to view that the period during which the Plaintiff was unable to operate the instant vessel due to the instant accident is 58 days including the period of emergency repair of the instant vessel ( April 27, 2007), the period towing the instant vessel to Incheon for repair (from May 31, 2007 to June 1, 2007) and the period of repair of the instant vessel at the shipbuilding yard (from June 8, 2007 to August 1, 2007).

(2) The plaintiff clearly stated that the defendant 2 corporation could not repair the ship of this case immediately after the accident of this case. Thus, since April 28, 2007, which was after emergency repair, the period from April 28, 2007 to May 10, 2007, Defendant 2 should be included in the operating loss period due to the accident of this case, and the repair of the ship of this case is located in Incheon, where the non-party 5, who received the ship of this case, is located in the large amount of the water. The ship of this case, the ship of this case, in the accident of this case, was fluend by the flood due to the collapse of the storm and the flood of the water so that the sea level of the ship of this case increases, commercial and down, the waiting period of the commercial building of this case (including the waiting period of this case from June 28, 2007 to June 7, 2007) and the waiting period of the ship of this case (including the waiting period of this case).

First, even if Defendant 2 did not clearly respond to the Plaintiff’s request for repair, it cannot be said that there exists a substantial causal relationship with the instant accident, and thus, it cannot be included in the business loss period due to the instant accident, inasmuch as it is not determined that the Plaintiff demanded repair to Defendant 2 and Defendant 2 was liable to repair the instant vessel at the time.

Next, it is insufficient to recognize the fact that there was a need to wait for the repair of the ship of this case only with respect to the health stand, Gap evidence 5-4, Gap evidence 14, Eul evidence 30-1, and Eul evidence 18-1 regarding the waiting period. Rather, according to the statements in Eul or Eul evidence 18-1, the highest water level for each day in Incheon during the waiting period was 84 cm on June 2, 2007, June 3 and 6, 2007; 853 cm on June 5, 2007; 84 cm on June 5, 2007; 80 cm on June 7, 2007; 70 cm on June 8, 2007; 70 cm on June 8, 2007; 70 cm on June 8, 2007; 80 cm on June 27, 2007; 70 cm on July 28, 2007.

C) Determination of operating losses;

(1) The court may determine the amount of damages by taking into account all the relevant indirect facts, such as the relationship between the parties revealed by the result of examination of evidence and the purport of the entire pleading, the background leading up to the occurrence of property damage, the nature of damage, and various circumstances after the occurrence of damage, even though the existence of property damage was proved under the principle of free evaluation of evidence. This legal principle aims at realizing the ideal and function of the damage compensation system that provides the guiding principle for fair and reasonable allocation of damage by reducing the degree of proof and proof in a case where it is difficult to prove the amount of damage due to the nature of the case, and it does not grant a judge a discretionary discretion to calculate the amount of damage. In determining the specific amount of damages by the above method, the court must make every effort to investigate the indirect facts that form the basis for calculating the amount of damage, and determine the amount of damages objectively acceptable by reasonably evaluating the indirect facts that were investigated (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da36165, Nov. 29, 2007).

(2) In light of the following facts: (a) the agreed charterage between the Plaintiff and Defendant 2 is the amount calculated on the premise of a short-term charter for 4 days; (b) the above charterage is not included in the time of moving and returning to the site of the instant construction; (c) the repair period of the instant charterage was 58 days; and (d) it cannot be readily concluded that the aforementioned charterage imports have been fixed during that period; (b) the charterage would be less than the above charterage if the instant vessel is leased for a long period of not less than one month; (c) Nonparty 6 Co., Ltd., 90 million won (excluding value-added tax); (d) Nonparty 7 Co., Ltd., 53 million won (excluding value-added tax); and (e) the amount of business losses incurred during the instant period of repair of the instant vessel on the basis of the price agreed between the Plaintiff and Defendant 2 Co., Ltd., 1000,000 won and the amount of damages incurred by the instant vessel on the basis of 100-day hire and price agreed between the Plaintiff and the instant vessel.

(c) Charterage and cargo rental fees;

Although the Plaintiff chartered the instant vessel to Defendant 2, and issued a tax invoice on the total of KRW 36,00,000 per day and the total of KRW 36,000,000 (excluding value-added tax), the Plaintiff did not receive the said payment does not conflict between the Plaintiff and Defendant 2.

D. Sub-committee

Therefore, Defendant 2 Co., Ltd. is liable to the Plaintiff for damages amounting to KRW 720,00,000 due to the instant accident (i.e., rescue cost of KRW 20,000,000 + business losses + KRW 200,000,000 + total of KRW 36,000,000,000 for the instant vessel’s charterage and delay damages amounting to KRW 756,000,000 for the instant vessel; and as the Plaintiff seeks, the Plaintiff is liable to pay damages at the statutory interest rate of KRW 36,00,000 for the tort from July 23, 2008, which is the date of delivery of a copy of the application for change of the purpose of the claim and the cause of the claim, until June 10, 208, which is the date of delivery of the application for performance obligation; however, Defendant 2 Co., Ltd. is liable to pay damages at the annual interest rate of KRW 45,005,05,04, per annum.

3. Determination as to the claim against Defendant 1 Company

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff is a barge with no self-defense power, and thus, the tugboat's navigation control right at the time of towing is the tugboat's captain, and the tugboat's captain has a duty to sufficiently determine and sail when towing and sailing the barge. However, the non-party 1, the tugboat's captain, in violation of this duty, was under a situation inappropriate for towing due to strong steering, and the instant accident occurred. Thus, the defendant 1 corporation, as the employer of non-party 1, is responsible for compensating the plaintiff for damages caused by the instant accident.

B. Determination

1) Whether a contract for the use of a ship is a vessel lease contract or a voyage charter contract, or a third party with a similar nature, and whether the right to actually direct and supervise the captain and crew of the ship has been granted to the user right, must be determined by specifically examining and determining the purpose and content of the contract, especially the long-term period of use, the height of the user fee, the existence of possession relationship, and other terms and conditions of the lease (see Supreme Court Decision 97Da19090 delivered on February 5, 199). In addition, the shipowner who is liable for damages inflicted on a third party is not only the owner of the ship but also the person who uses the ship for navigation for commercial activities or for profit-making purposes, and the person who owns the ship and does not use the ship for navigation for reasons such as lease is not liable for damages to the above third party (see Supreme Court Decision 70Da847 delivered on March 31, 1975, etc.). Where the lessee uses the ship for commercial activities or for other profit-making purposes, the shipowner is liable for the same duty and duty of the third party.

2) We examine the following circumstances, i.e., (i) Defendant 2 borrowed international Nos. 5 and international Nos. 1 from Defendant 1 corporation to carry out the instant construction work with the captain and crew attached thereto; (ii) international Nos. 5 and 8 million won per day from April 20, 207 to April 27, 2007; and (iii) the captain of the instant fleet was not obliged to take the responsibility of the captain’s duty to command and supervise the captain of the instant vessel at the time of the instant construction; and (iv) the captain of the instant fleet was not obliged to take the responsibility of the captain’s duty to command and supervise the captain of the instant vessel at the time of the instant construction; and (v) the captain of the instant fleet at the time of the instant construction; (v) the captain’s duty to command and supervise the captain of the instant vessel at the time of the instant construction; and (v) the captain’s duty to command and supervise the captain of the instant vessel at around 20:10, 207.

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, the plaintiff's argument against the defendant 1 corporation is without merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant 2 corporation is accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant 1 corporation is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Go Young-tae (Presiding Judge)

Note 1) The tidal power generation is a power generation method that sets up steel structures for the installation of a hydroelectric power generator in the sea area where the tidal current occurs strongly, and sets up a water tank in the inside of the water tank to convert the physical energy due to the flow of current currents into the electric energy by using the hydroelectric power. The Defendant 2 Co., Ltd. was subcontracted the excavated and re-stopping construction part among them.

2) Meanwhile, Article 847 of the Commercial Act amended by Act No. 8582 of Aug. 3, 2007 provides that “ even if a shipowner is obligated to supply a charterer with a ship for the purpose of operating a ship under the control and control of a charterer, if the crew is to operate a ship under the control and control of a charterer, it shall be deemed a bareboat charter for the purpose of operating a ship under the control and control of a charterer, and Article 848 of the Commercial Act provides that “a bareboat charter shall apply mutatis mutandis to a bareboat charter unless contrary to its legal nature.”