According to the records, Cheongjin Marine Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “the instant vessel”) owned the Defendant as the representative director, and nine persons, including the Nonindicted Party, were employed by the said company as the crew of the instant vessel; on September 22, 2006, Dongjin Marine Co., Ltd sold the instant vessel to the said company; on September 30, 2006, the Defendant notified the crew of the instant vessel to the said Nonindicted Party, etc.; on September 30, 2006, the Defendant provided for the procedures of dismissal in a collective agreement concluded between Jjin-M and the said crew; on the ground that the Defendant did not comply with the procedures of dismissal when notifying the above dismissal. However, Article 37(3) of the Seafarers’ Act provides that “If the owner of the instant vessel, except by inheritance or comprehensive succession, the former seafarer labor contract was terminated, and that the new seafarer labor contract was terminated between the new owner and the crew, and that the Defendant should not be deemed to have completed the procedure of dismissal of the instant vessel.”

In the same purport, the lower court’s measure is justifiable in maintaining the first instance judgment that acquitted the facts charged in violation of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act. In so doing, it did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on Article 37(3) of the Seafarers Act and Articles 31(1) and 92 subparag. 1(c) of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act, contrary to what is alleged in

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Hong-hoon (Presiding Justice)