2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

2. The Defendant, on March 2017, made an oral agreement with the Plaintiff to charter the instant vessel from the Plaintiff, who was a friendship-gu, and the fact that the instant vessel was handed over by the Plaintiff during business does not exist between the parties.

Furthermore, in relation to whether the Defendant agreed to bear charterage from the date of delivery of the vessel, ① the instant vessel was considerably old, which was considerably old in 1987, and was at the time of delivery, and was at the time of delivery, at the time of delivery, at the time of delivery, the vessel inspection certificate was in a state in which the Defendant could not operate immediately.

② Even in the case of a chartered vessel, the repair cost to undergo a regular inspection is generally borne by the owner of the vessel. However, in this case, the Defendant was to repair the vessel at his own expense after delivery and to undergo a ship inspection. There is no special reason for the Defendant to pay charterage even during the repair period.

③ The Defendant, while leaving the repair of the instant vessel to the E-ship yard operated by D, was unable to pay the repair cost, was the preservation and repair of the instant vessel. Therefore, the Defendant did not use the instant vessel for its operation at all.

Considering these points, in this case where the charter party was not prepared, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant agreed to pay charterage immediately from the time of delivery of the instant vessel including the above repair period.

3. The plaintiff's claim for conclusion is dismissed as there is no reasonable ground.