Law Firm Gail, Attorney Park Ga-sik

[Defendant-Appellant]

Attorney Noh Jeong-seok et al., Counsel for defendant

2. (Appointed Party) The party to the lawsuit in the network B, D2 (In 45 years, Credit)

3. D3.

4. D4 (Credit for 62 Years, Women)

5. (Appointed Party) D5 (71years and South Korea);

6. D6 stock companies;

7. D7

8. D8

9. D9 (Life in 32 Years, Women)

10. D10 (58 years old, female, 10)

11. Stock company D11

12.D12

13.D13

14. D14 Trade Union;

15. D15 Stock Companies;

16. D16 Shipping Corporation;

August 21, 2008 (Defendant 1, 2, 4, 5, 12, 13, 14, 16)

2. The Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant D1 Bank, Defendant D2, Defendant D4, Defendant D5, Defendant D12, D13, D14 Trade Union, and D16 Shipping Co., Ltd. is all dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, the part arising between the Plaintiff and Defendant D3, Defendant D6, D7, D7, D8, D9, D10, D11, and D15, among the costs of lawsuit, shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the part arising between the Plaintiff and the remaining Defendants shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. The Plaintiff completed the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage in the Plaintiff’s name (hereinafter referred to as “registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage”) with respect to the vessels listed in the attached ship list No. 3 X fishery owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as “instant vessel”) as the Busan District Court No. 1494 on July 7, 2005, with the maximum debt amount of KRW 300 million, in order to secure the claim amount of KRW 255 million leased to X fishery Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “X fishery”).

B. However, around 08:30 on July 7, 2005 (on July 6, 2005, around 23:30) the vessel of this case (the captain) went into the engine of the vessel, and the vessel of this case started to come into the port on the following day after the rapid 08:35 (on July 6, 2005, around 208:40 on July 6, 2005) and Africa (Guinea), approximately 40-day Cuines (on the north 10:30 minutes, around 15:30 on the west 10:5:0 on the west Sea (on the east 10:30 minutes, around 15:0 on the west 19:50 on the 19:50 on the 1960 on the 208:5 on the 1960 on the 1960 on the 25:50 on the 1960 on the 200 on the 1.

C. On March 18, 2005, X-F entered into a vessel insurance contract (from March 23, 2005 to March 23, 2006) with the S Fire Insurance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “S Fire Insurance Co., Ltd.”) (hereinafter “S Fire Insurance”) and the vessel insurance contract with respect to the instant vessel (from March 23, 2005 to March 23, 2006), and S Fire Insurance decided to pay the insurance money by treating the instant vessel as the instant vessel was actually destroyed by the sinking of the vessel as above.

D. On September 28, 2005, S Fire Insurance deposited insurance money KRW 775,432,920 (hereinafter “the instant insurance money”) with Busan District Court No. 6572 in 2005, as the creditors of X fishery seized or provisionally seize the claim for insurance money against X fishery S Fire Insurance (hereinafter “the instant insurance claim”).

E. Meanwhile, in order to exercise the subrogation right as the mortgagee of the instant vessel, the Plaintiff applied for a seizure and collection order as to the amount equivalent to the amount of the instant insurance claim out of the instant insurance claim on July 27, 2005. The said order was served on August 1, 2008.

F. On February 12, 2007, in the distribution procedure of this court No. 2005Ma3672 as to the instant deposit, the court prepared a distribution schedule stating that each of the items in the table distribution column as below should be distributed to the Defendants (hereinafter “the instant distribution schedule”) and did not distribute to the Plaintiff on the ground that the establishment registration of the instant establishment was completed after the sinking of the instant vessel (the following indication of the creditors was indicated in the distribution schedule, and Defendant D3 was distributed to the designated parties in the said distribution procedure, and C succeeded to the designated parties in the said distribution procedure, who died on August 14, 2005 and died on August 14, 2005, and C succeeded by the designated parties in the list of 2 (Omission) of the designated parties in attached Form 2 (Omission).

A person shall be appointed.

G. Accordingly, the Plaintiff made a statement of objection against the dividend amount of the Defendants in the above distribution procedure, and filed a lawsuit of demurrer against the distribution of this case on February 16, 2007.

H. The deceased on September 3, 2007, during the instant lawsuit, the deceased on September 3, 2007, and the deceased’s heir (appointed party) took over the status of the suit’s heir, such as Plaintiff (appointed party) D2 and Nonparty 1’s name (Omission).

【Reasons for Recognition】

2. The judgment on the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant D3, D6, D7, D8, D9, D10, D11, and D15

As to the plaintiff's assertion that the above defendants should be paid dividends in preference to the above defendants who are general creditors since they are the right to collateral security against the ship of this case as the grounds of claim against the above defendants, the defendant D3 has led to confession, and the remaining defendants are deemed to have led to confession under Article 150 (3) of the

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion against the above defendants is justified.

3. Determination as to the plaintiff's remaining Defendants' claims

A. The plaintiff's assertion

① The sinking of a ship refers to the condition of the sinking of the ship under the surface of the water, and there is no evidence to deem the sinking of the ship of this case prior to the receipt of the registration of the establishment of the establishment of the neighboring mortgage of this case. ② Even if the ship of this case was sunken prior to the receipt of the registration of the establishment of the establishment of the neighboring mortgage of this case, the establishment of the establishment of the neighboring ship of this case is still valid since the ship of

Therefore, since the Plaintiff, who is the mortgagee of the instant vessel, was entitled to dividends prior to the Defendants, who are general creditors, the said distribution schedule should be revised as stated in the purport of the claim.

B. Determination

The vessel of this case, at around 08:30 on July 7, 2005, 2000, when the sea water coming into the vessel and the engine operation was suspended for 20 minutes, and the sea water 40-50 meters high, started to sit below the sea level as seen earlier. Barring special circumstances, it is confirmed that the vessel of this case, the weight of which reaches 218 tons above the above 218 tons, has been sunkd completely below the sea level, and it is difficult to view that the value of the sunken vessel of this case exceeds the expenses necessary for human life, and it is difficult to view that there was no possibility for the vessel of this case at the time of the completion of the pleading of this case, since the vessel of this case had been sunken as above, it shall be deemed that there was no possibility for the vessel of salvaging at the time of the sinking of this case. Thus, the vessel of this case, as seen above, has lost its value as the vessel of this case.

However, according to Eul evidence 1-1, the application for the registration of the establishment of a mortgage of this case can be recognized as being received at the court around July 13, 2005, which was 4 hours after the sinking of the ship of this case, on July 7, 2005, after the lapse of 4 hours after the sinking of the ship of this case. Thus, the above registration is null and void after the destruction of the ship. Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion premised on the validity of the above registration

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claims against the defendant D3, D6, D7, D8, D9, D10, D11, and D15 are accepted in entirety, and the remaining claims against the defendants are dismissed on the grounds that they are without merit.

Judges fixed-term

Judges Jong-ho