[선박인도][하집1993(3),1]
Whether the company can assert that it is the owner of a ship where the company established a company in the form of a foreign country to import an import-prohibited vessel, and so-called convenience.
If Gap et al. imported a ship, the import of which is prohibited by law, and established a company in the form of a foreign country to use it for their maritime companies, and registered the ship under its name with the entry of the so-called convenience, the above ship shall be deemed to be owned by Gap et al., and the above company's assertion as the owner of the ship merely a company in the form of convenience is merely an attempt to achieve the illegal purpose of the import of the ship, and thus, it shall not be permitted under the good faith
Article 2 of the Civil Act, Article 180 of the Customs Act
[Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jong-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellant-appellee)
Lonemanty Mar. 1, 198 S.A.)
Korea
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.
The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 392,517,00 won with 25 percent interest per annum from the day following the day of service of a copy of the complaint of this case to the day of full payment.
1. Basic facts
The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or are recognized by Gap evidence 1-1, Eul evidence 2-1, Eul evidence 2-1, 3-5, Gap evidence 3-1, 3-5, Gap evidence 4-1, 2-1, 7-2, Eul evidence 4-2, Eul evidence 4-2, 6, 7, 9-9 through 24, and Eul evidence 5-1 through 5-3, and non-party 2's testimony in consideration of the whole purport of the pleadings.
A. Nonparty 3, a representative director of Nonparty 1, who was engaged in maritime cargo transport brokerage business under the trade name of Nonparty 2 and (trade name omitted), was introduced from Japan to seek business routes, and was directly operated for his own business. However, under the current law, a general cargo of less than 4,00 tons whose age was ten years ago was less than 10 years, was made by a foreign corporation in the form of a juristic person whose income is impossible, and then purchased a ship under the name of this juristic person and the said Nonparty (hereinafter the Nonparty) decided to introduce it by leasing it.
B. For this purpose, on April 1, 1991, the Nonparty established the Plaintiff Company, the form of which is the company (PAPER COPN) in the Pakistann Bureau, using Nonparty 3, Nonparty 2, and Nonparty 1’s employees Kim Byung-kick-kick-kick-kick-kick-kick-kick-kick-kick-kick-kick-kick-kick-kick-kick-kick-kick-kick-kick-kick-kick-kick-kick-kick-kick-kick-kick-kick-kick-kick-kick-kick-kick-kick-kick-kick-kick-kick-kick-kick-kick-kick-kick-kick-k
C. Among them, the Nonparty also decided to introduce one of the heavy lines in proportion to the cost additionally, and the Nonparty purchased 490 tons of the small and medium-sized cargo line from the Co., Ltd. on September 16, 1991, and registered the name of the vessel with the 490 tons of the small and medium-sized cargo line as the Posing against the Posing against the Posing against the Posing against the Posing against the Posing against the Posing against the Posing against the Posing against the Posing against the Posing against the Pos
D. Meanwhile, the Nonparty determined that it would be favorable for the Nonparty to appoint the representative director of the Plaintiff company as a foreigner after the purchase of the instant vessel, and on September 16, 1991, the Nonparty, both of whom resigned from the position of director, etc. and entered a register of shareholders’ meeting as the Nonparty, a new representative director, was appointed from the position of director, etc., and as the Nonparty, a new representative director
E. Among them, the Nonparty (or the Nonparty Co., Ltd.) established the Plaintiff Co., Ltd., a company in the form of the above, which is unable to conduct import clearance in a normal way, and was sentenced on November 27, 192 to the effect that the Plaintiff Co., Ltd. entered our country to take the instant vessel, and was sentenced to a violation of the Customs Act from the Busan District Court on November 27, 1992, and was sentenced to a judgment of forfeiture of the instant vessel, and the sentence against the Nonparty became final and conclusive (However, the Nonparty Co., Ltd., who was dissatisfied with the above judgment, was acquitted from the Busan High Court on August 12, 1993 on the ground that he did not participate in the act of evasion of customs duties by the Nonparty).
2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment
A. The plaintiff's judgment of confiscation does not have the effect on the person other than the defendant of the case, and since the above ship of this case was owned by the plaintiff who was not the defendant of the case subject to the confiscation judgment, it is a claim for its return, or since the defendant was already unable to sell it by public sale, it is argued that the defendant sought compensation for damages equivalent to the market price at the time of impossibility. The defendant's assertion that since the ship of this case is owned by the non-party who was sentenced to the judgment of confiscation in the form of the plaintiff or the actual forfeiture, the plaintiff, who is merely
B. Therefore, according to the above facts, the non-party who was engaged in the international shipping business shall import used ships, the import of which is prohibited by law, and establish the plaintiff company in a form different from our country, and register them with the name of the country, and register them with the name of the non-party in order to use them for their maritime companies. Thus, the ship of this case is substantially owned by the non-party. Thus, the plaintiff company, which is a company incorporated for convenience and is merely a company incorporated for convenience, is nothing more than for accomplishing the illegal purpose of importing ships the import of which is prohibited by the non-party, and thus, it cannot be permitted under the principle of good faith. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case on the premise that the plaintiff can claim the ownership of the ship of this case is without merit.
3. Conclusion
Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.
Judges Park Jae-dae (Presiding Judge) (Presiding Judge)