A. The amount of 1,175,417.24 U.S. dollars 1,175,417.24 and 15% per annum from October 21, 2016 to July 13, 2018; and

B. The amount of 6% per annum from September 20, 2016 to July 13, 2018 and the amount of 15% per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment, which is calculated as US$ 430,770.02 on the Plaintiff Bulp Pulty Lti and the amount of 15% per annum;

sub-payment.

2. Each of the plaintiffs' remaining claims is dismissed.

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

A. The plaintiffs are corporations incorporated under the Liberian law for the purpose of marine transportation, etc. (hereinafter the plaintiffs Komodo et al. et al., "Plaintiff Komodo bee," and the plaintiff Blue Pule Lti, et al., "Plaintiff Blue Pule," and the defendant are bankruptcy administrators of Hanjin Shipping, Co., Ltd., Ltd., Ltd., incorporated under the laws of the Republic of Korea for the purpose of marine transportation, etc. (hereinafter " Hanjin Shipping").

B. On May 16, 201, Plaintiff Comomo entered into a time charter with the Hanjin Shipping, with respect to “Sein California,” the charter period, “12 years from the date of delivery of the vessel,” “2 years from the date of delivery of the vessel,” and “23,890 US dollars” per day (hereinafter “instant 1 contract”), and Plaintiff Bab Pul entered into a time charter with the Hanjin Shipping, with respect to “Sein Scho Lake,” with respect to “12 years from the date of delivery of the vessel,” “23,890 US$,” and each of the above contracts was delivered to Hanjin Shipping (hereinafter “each of the instant contracts”). < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 2030, May 16, 2011>

C. The main contents of each contract of this case relating to this case are as follows.

4. The charterers included in the text will continue to pay charterages in accordance with the agreed rates from the date of delivery of the vessel. This shall also apply to a portion of the vessel per day, and the vessel shall be in good condition as at the time of delivery, and shall be in accordance with the same rate as at the time of delivery, including the Republic of Korea and China, or with the time of the final unloading of the vessel at the port of safety designated by the charterers at the rate of no later than 15 days before re-delivery (hereinafter referred to as "charters"). The charterers will pay the same amount of the vessel's compensation for the vessel at the latest 1/2 months of charterage or for any part of the vessel, and the amount of the vessel's compensation for the same time as at the time of delivery. The vessel's compensation for the same time as at the time of delivery shall be paid at the latest 1/100 of the vessel's compensation for the same time as at the time of delivery. The charterers will be paid at the latest 1/1000 of the vessel's compensation.

D. The Korea Coast Guard received the decision to commence rehabilitation procedures (hereinafter “the decision to commence rehabilitation procedures in this case”), 10:00 Seoul Central District Court Decision 2016 Ma10211 (hereinafter “the decision to commence rehabilitation procedures in this case”), and the Defendant was appointed as the custodian on the same day. The reporting period of rehabilitation claims is from October 11, 2016 to October 25, 2016.

E. The Defendant notified the Plaintiffs that each of the contracts of this case will be terminated as indicated in the following table, and the costs of charterage, telecommunication and corrosion, and the cost of gambling equipment, which occurred from the time the decision to commence the rehabilitation procedure of this case was rendered until the time the notice of termination was given, are as listed in the following table:

5. The sum of the amount per day ($ 10,00) per five separate days ($ 2) after the date and time of the commencement of the rehabilitation procedure for the No. 1 586, May 1, 2016, California No. 10, 2016, Oct. 20, 2016, 09:34 charterage 48.982,890 1,170,178.65, and incidental expenses 29.33 (ju 3) 1725.33, 1725.398.47.97.97.986.97.97.97.98.48.7.97.97.48.97.98.47.197.48.48.64.7.197.48.78.48.4197.48.67.4197.84.197.74.197.

Note 2) Total amount ($2)

Note 3) 29.5833

Note 4) 58.33

Note 5) 19.39861

Note 6) 56.45

Note 7) 50

Note 8) 48.39

F. After the termination of each of the instant contracts, the Defendant re-delivery each of the instant vessels to the Plaintiffs. At the time, the amount of fuel oil remaining in each of the instant vessels and the price calculated by applying the average unit price with mitts and mitts are as listed below.

US$ 288.70 US$ 232,041.60 US$ 38,743.90 US$ 249,785.50 US$ 249,785.50 US$ 254.00 US$ 254.00 US$ 254.50 US$ 254.00 US$ 209,199.00 US$ 93.57,791.70 US$ 249,785.90 for ship fuel oil (HFO) which was 1st ton of fuel oil (HFO)

9) Oil costs

G. On October 24, 2016, Plaintiff Co., Ltd expressed to the Defendant that “Plaintiff Co., Ltd. holds USD 78,502,282.29 as of the present time, such as charterage, damage claim due to nonperformance of the instant contract No. 1, and other cost claims, etc., against the Defendant.” On the same day, Plaintiff Co., Ltd expressed that “Plaintiff Co., Ltd. shall offset USD 249,938.30 against the equivalent amount.” On the same day, Plaintiff Co., Ltd had the Defendant’s claim that was not paid prior to the commencement of rehabilitation procedures, damage claim due to the nonperformance of the instant contract No. 2, and other cost claims, etc., and the Defendant’s above Defendant’s claim and the amount of USD 80,338,03.50,03.50, supra, reached each of the above set-off against each of the above Defendant’s claim and the amount of USD 247,1701.

H. On February 2, 2017, the Hanjin Shipping was declared bankrupt on February 17, 2017 by the Seoul Central District Court (Seoul Central District Court 2017Hahap15), and on the same day, the Defendant was appointed as the bankruptcy trustee.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 12, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination of applicable law

A. The instant case is a case seeking payment of charterage claims, etc. derived from each of the instant contracts against the Defendant, who is a trustee in bankruptcy of a Korean legal entity, and is a foreign element, and the governing law should be determined pursuant to the Private International Act.

B. Where rehabilitation procedures commence with respect to a party who entered into a contract with foreign elements, whether the contract constitutes an executory contract and whether the custodian is entitled to choose the performance, rescission, or termination of the contract, and whether the damage claim arising from the rescission or termination of the contract constitutes rehabilitation claims shall be determined pursuant to the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter “Rehabilitation Act”). However, the issue of the scope of damage compensation arising from the rescission or termination of the contract is an substantive law related to the validity of the contract itself and does not constitute a legal effect prior to bankruptcy, and thus, the governing law of the contract established under the Private International Act applies (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da104526, 104533, May 28, 2015).

C. Whether charterage claims, etc. arising from legal relations based on each of the instant contracts constitute public-interest claims or rehabilitation claims in rehabilitation proceedings, estate claims in bankruptcy proceedings, or bankruptcy claims in bankruptcy proceedings, and their resulting effects shall be subject to the Debtor Rehabilitation Act of the Republic of Korea. Meanwhile, the issue of whether the above claims accrue and the scope thereof does not fall under the substantive law related to the validity of the contract itself, and thus, the governing law of the contract determined under the Private International Act shall apply. Article 25(1) main text of the Private International Act provides that “a contract shall be governed by the law that the parties have chosen explicitly or implicitly.” Since the English law in this case is the governing law, there is no dispute between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant, the English law shall be the governing law for the issue of whether the above claims accrue and the scope thereof.

D. In determining the content and interpreting the meaning of a foreign law applicable to a legal relationship containing foreign elements, the foreign law shall be interpreted and applied in accordance with the meaning and contents of the foreign law actually interpreted and applied in its country of origin, and the judgment of the highest court in its country of origin shall be respected unless there are special circumstances. However, where it is impossible to confirm the contents because the documents on the precedents or the interpretation standards are not submitted sufficiently during the litigation process, the court shall have to confirm the meaning and contents of the law in accordance with the general legal interpretation standards (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Da5130, Jun. 29, 2007, etc.).

3. Determination

A. Judgment on the ground of the plaintiff's claim

1) Claim for charterages, telecommunications and food costs, costs of gambling equipment, etc.

A) Under Article 179 of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act, a public-interest claim is a claim against a debtor recognized to reimburse expenses incurred in carrying out rehabilitation procedures, and is entitled to receive reimbursement from time to time in preference to any rehabilitation claim or any rehabilitation security right, instead of resorting to rehabilitation procedures. Article 179(1)2 of the same Act provides for a public-interest claim regarding the debtor’s business and the management and disposal of the debtor’s property after the commencement of rehabilitation procedures

B) The plaintiffs agreed to use each of the vessels of this case for navigation of which seafarers work on board and equipped with navigation equipment for a certain period of time. Hanjin Shipping concluded each of the contracts of this case with the amount of USD 23,890 per day during the charter period of 15 days to pay charterage amounting to USD 3,250 per annum. Under each of the contracts of this case, the defendant shall pay to the plaintiffs the total sum of USD 3,250 per month (=$ 1,7500 + 1,500 US dollars such as communication and corrosion expenses + fixed-term expenses for distressing equipment). The rehabilitation procedures of Hanjin Shipping were commenced for 7 U.S. dollars from each of the contracts of this case to 47 U.S. dollars, and the defendant's obligation to pay for the remainder of the contract of this case to the plaintiffs 17 U.S. dollars and 40 U.S. dollars for each of the contracts of this case, and the defendant's obligation to pay for the remaining 7 U.S. dollars 17 hours after each of this case termination of the contract of each of this case.

(ii)the amount of estate claims and delay damages;

A) The amount of estate claims

Ultimately, Plaintiff Como also has the obligation to pay the said charterages, incidental costs, and damages for delay as follows to Plaintiff Comomo’s claim for charterages against the Defendant: USD 1,175,417.24; USD 430,770.08, which Plaintiff Bculse held against the Defendant constitutes each estate claim; with respect to the estate claim, the Debtor Rehabilitation Act provides that the trustee in bankruptcy shall pay from time to time without resorting to the bankruptcy procedure; and shall pay the said charterages, incidental costs, and any damages for delay as follows: Plaintiff Cculmo has the obligation to pay the said charterages, incidental costs, and any damages for delay as follows:

(b) damages for delay

(1) The damages for delay are damages for delay of the obligation, which are paid along with the original obligation. As such, the governing law governing the original obligation should be determined by the governing law governing the obligation. As seen earlier, since the governing law governing each of the contracts of this case is the English law, the scope of damages for delay should be determined by the English law. Meanwhile, the relevant laws and regulations of the UK concerning damages for delay are as follows.

Article 35A of the 1981 higher court Act and interest on the amount of compensation (1) in accordance with the rules of the court, the court may apply the simple interest rate to all or part of the amount of the loan or the amount of compensation, regardless of the time of enforcement) in accordance with the rules of the court, with respect to the legal procedure (1) for claiming the amount of the loan or the amount of compensation before the judgment, and the court shall apply to all or part of the amount of the loan or the amount of compensation before the judgment, in accordance with the interest rate prescribed by the rules of the court, or with respect to the interest rate prescribed by the rules of the court, and the following from the date of occurrence of the cause of the claim. (b) With respect to the amount of the judgment, the interest rate for the obligation under the judgment of the 1838 Supreme Court Act and Article 17 of the 1981 higher court Act shall be imposed at the rate of 8% per annum until the day of full payment (not later).

(2) According to the above English laws and regulations, the delayed interest rate from the date on which the cause of the claim occurred to the date on which the judgment is rendered shall be set at the discretion of the court, and in principle, 8% per annum or 15% per annum from the date on which the judgment is rendered; Provided, That in the case of this case, 6% per annum from the day following the day on which the contract of this case is terminated to July 13, 2018, and 15% per annum from the following day to the day of full payment.

C) Sub-determination

Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay 1,175,417.24 U.S. dollars 1,175 and 430,770.02 U.S. dollars 430,770.08 U.S. dollars 430,770.08 on the Plaintiff’s black Qul, and damages for delay from the next day of the termination of the contract of this case 2.

B. Judgment on the defendant's argument

1) Summary of the parties’ assertion

A) The Defendant asserts that the Plaintiffs are obliged to accept fuel oil remaining in each of the instant vessels at the time of re-delivery pursuant to Article 33 of the Annex to each of the instant contracts and pay the price therefor. Thus, the Defendant’s respective fuel oil payment claims against the Plaintiffs that offset or deduct each charterage claim against the Defendant from the amount on an equal basis.

B) As to this, the plaintiffs, ① Article 33 of the Annex to each contract of this case does not apply to a shipbuilding based on which the contract is terminated and the defendant acquires the ownership of the remaining fuel oil in each of the ships of this case. The defendant did not acquire the ownership due to the oil supplier's failure to pay the price for the remaining fuel oil in each of the ships of this case. Thus, the defendant cannot assert the right under Article 33 of the Annex to each of the contract of this case. ③ Even if not, the remaining fuel price should be considered when calculating the plaintiffs' damages amount due to the early termination of each of the contract of this case in accordance with the General Loss Calculation Law under English Law, and the defendant cannot assert it against the plaintiffs. ④ On October 24, 2016, the plaintiffs asserted that the defendant had already extinguished the defendant's automatic claim for the offset against each of the plaintiffs' damage claims against the defendant.

2) Applicable law

A) The Defendant’s automatic claim and passive claim regarding the instant offset occurred under each of the instant contracts in which the English law is the governing law. Offset is one of the grounds for extinguishment of the claim, such as reimbursement and deposit, and is basically an issue of validity of the claim itself, and thus, it is reasonable to determine by the governing law of the claim itself.

B) The English legal set-off system has common law set-off and equitable law set-off (hereinafter “legal set-off”). Of them, the common law set-off relaxation the requirements of set-off compared to the equitable set-off, such as not requiring the relation between both claims, but is interpreted to have the procedural legal nature that can only be exercised as a defense of lawsuit. However, the English common law set-off also has the substantive legal nature in that both claims are extinguished from the equal amount of claims by exercising the right of set-off (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da108764, Jan. 29, 2015).

C) Therefore, in relation to the instant offset, the legal doctrine of the English common law offset shall be deemed to apply. Furthermore, as long as the English common law offset is understood to be a substantive one, the effect of the offset shall enter into force at the time when the declaration of intention of offset is made.

(iii) the existence of automatic claims

A) In order to be effective a set-off under English common law, the requirements such as (i) reciprocality, (ii) pecuniary obligations, (iii) the confirmation of claims, (iv) the arrival of due date, and (v) the absence of grounds for

B) We examine the dispute over the existence of the right to demand fuel oil payment in accordance with the charter contract. Even if the charter contract is terminated, the charterer may claim fuel oil payment in accordance with the charter contract (19.19.1). Article 33 of the Annex to each contract of this case is a provision for the convenience of the ship owner and the charterer’s settlement at the time of delivery and re-delivery of the ship, and Article 33 of the Annex to each contract of this case is a provision for the convenience of the settlement between the ship owner and the charterer. If the occurrence of the right to demand fuel payment in relation to the remaining fuel oil in the ship differs depending on whether the price was paid to the oil supplier, the purport of Article 33 of the Annex to each contract of this case which provides for the convenience of settlement. Thus, even if the Defendant did not pay fuel oil to the oil supplier, the charterer can exercise the right under Article 33 of the Annex to each contract of this case (as alleged by the Plaintiff in this case, even if the legal principle for calculating general damage in English law applies to the Plaintiffs, it cannot affect each of this case’s.

However, rehabilitation creditors may set-off without resorting to rehabilitation procedures within the rehabilitation claim reporting period (see Article 144(1) of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act), and each of the instant set-off notices to each of the Defendant on October 25, 2016, which was the rehabilitation claim reporting period, has reached each of the Defendant on the same day as seen earlier. Accordingly, the Defendant’s allegation that USD 249,785.50 against the Defendant’s Comomomodo was extinguished within the scope of the amount equal to USD 78,502,282.29, which was due to the non-performance of the instant contract No. 1, the Defendant’s automatic charterage’s failure to pay for the Defendant prior to the commencement of rehabilitation procedures, the damage claim against the Defendant’s non-performance of the instant contract No. 246,90.70 is no longer accepted within the scope of the amount equal to the Defendant’s non-performance claim, and thus, the Defendant’s allegation that the Defendant’s non-performance claim was no different within the scope of 3830.

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay 6% per annum from October 21, 2016 to July 13, 2018, which is the day following the termination date of the instant contract under this case, and 15% per annum from October 21, 2016 to July 13, 2018, and to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 430,70.02 U.S. dollars in charterage on the Plaintiff Bloro Pul, and 6% per annum from September 20, 2016 to July 13, 2018, which is the day following the termination date of the instant contract under this case 2, to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum.

4. Conclusion

Since the plaintiffs' claims are reasonable within the scope of the above recognition, they are accepted, and the remaining claims are dismissed as they are without merit.

Judges Park Jong-young (Presiding Judge)

Note 1) Korea’s time is 19:00, but Korea’s time is “GMT (GMT’s global standard time) + 9 hours,” and is marked on the basis of GMT; hereinafter the same shall apply.

Note 2) Total amount = Number of days ¡¿ Amount per day, and number of days per day, and number of days per three or less decimal places.

3) The number of days from September 1, 2016 to September 24:00, 2016; hereinafter the same shall apply in the case of “expenses for gambling equipment.”

Note 4) The monthly cost of communications and food services is calculated by dividing USD 1,750 by 30 September 2016; hereinafter the same shall apply in the case of “Korea-style Rolasc”.

Note 5) The number of days from October 1, 2016 to October 20, 2016 is the number of days from October 1, 2016. The same shall also apply to the cost of gambling equipment.

Note 6) The monthly cost of communications and food services is US$ 1,750 divided into 31 October 2016.

Note 7) The monthly cost of gambling equipment is calculated by dividing USD 1,500 by 30 September 2016. The same shall also apply in the case of “One Jin Loda”

Note 8) The monthly cost of gambling equipment is USD 1,500 divided into 31 October 2016.

Note 9) Oil payments = Balance of fuel oil ¡¿ The unit oil price per ton, and the number of decimal places.

주10) Senior Courts Act 1981 35A Power of Hight Court to award interest on debts and damages. (1) Subject to rules of court, in proceeding(whenever instituted) before the High Court for the recovery of a debt or damages there may be included in any sum for which judgment is given simple interest, at such rate as the court thinks fit or as rules of court may provide, on all or any part of the debt or damages in respect of which judgment is given, or payment is made before judgment, for all or any part of the period between the date when the cause of action arose and- (b) in the case of the sum for which judgment is given, the date of the judgment. Judgments Act 1838 17 Judgment debts to carry interest (1) Every judgment debt shall carry interest at the rate of pounds per centum per annum from…until the same shall be satisfied, Administration of Justice Act 1970 44A Interest on judgment debts expressed in currencies other than sterling (1) Where a judgment is given for a sum expressed in a currency other than sterling and the judgment debt is one to which section 17 of the Judgments Act 1838 applies, the court may order that the interest rate applicable to the debt shall be such rate as the court thinks fit.