Hanjin Shipping Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Squa, Attorneys Jeong Jin-young et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Samk Line Co., Ltd., a lawsuit taking over by the non-party, the administrator of Samk Line Co., Ltd. (Attorney Lee Jong-chul, Counsel for defendant-appellant

December 29, 2011

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

With respect to the Plaintiff KRW 672,014,228 and KRW 300,00,000 among them, the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff 20% interest per annum from the next day of service of a copy of the complaint of this case; with respect to KRW 372,014,228, the remainder of KRW 372,014,228 interest per annum from the next day of service of a copy of the claim of this case

1. Basic facts

A. Claims against the Plaintiff’s preferred ship company

1) On December 12, 2008, the Plaintiff: (a) each charter contract (hereinafter referred to as “the charter contract in the territory of the Do in the territory of Do in the territory of Do in the territory of Do in the territory of Do in the territory of Do in the territory of Do in the territory of Do in Seoul Special Metropolitan City on August 10, 2007; and (b) each charter contract (hereinafter referred to as “the charter contract in the territory of Do in the territory of Do in the territory of Do in Do in the territory of Do in the territory of Do in the territory of Do in the territory of Do in the territory of Do in

2) In order for a preferred vessel to not pay charterage to the Plaintiff in violation of each of the instant charter contracts, the Plaintiff filed an application for arbitration with the London Maritime Arbitration Committee pursuant to the arbitration clause under each of the instant charter contracts. As a result, the arbitral award was rendered on March 18, 2010 to the Plaintiff for payment of charterage and interest in arrears in USD 97,736.52 to the Plaintiff on March 18, 2010, and the first instance judgment was rendered on March 29, 2010 to the first instance judgment to the Plaintiff on March 29, 2010 (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “each of the instant arbitral award”).

3) On August 20, 2010, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit claiming permission of compulsory execution based on each of the arbitral awards in the instant case against a preferred licensee, and was sentenced to a favorable judgment of the Seoul Central District Court 2010Gahap50347, which became final and conclusive thereafter.

(b) Rehabilitation claims against the defendant of the preferred ship;

1) On February 6, 2009, the Defendant applied for commencement of rehabilitation procedures and received a decision on commencement of rehabilitation procedures on March 6, 2009. On February 5, 2010, the Seoul Central District Court 2009hap24 decided on February 5, 201, and the rehabilitation plan was completed on May 18, 201.

2) Under the above rehabilitation procedure, the preferred vessel reported the hire and damage compensation due to the charter agreement with the Defendant on nine vessels including ○○○○ (MV. ○○), and as a rehabilitation claim, the rehabilitation claim against the Defendant of the instant rehabilitation claim was confirmed on January 5, 2010 as a result of the final claim inspection in the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2009 Preliminary 584, which became final and conclusive on January 5, 2010, that the rehabilitation claim against the Defendant was USD 24,675,89. The above decision became final and conclusive, and was recorded in the list of rehabilitation creditors and the rehabilitation secured creditor list.

3) According to the above Defendant’s rehabilitation plan, where the above unpaid charterage and damages against the Defendant on board ships are finalized as rehabilitation claims, 66% of them shall be the amount of claims to be converted into equity with the Defendant’s shares, and only 34% of the remainder shall be the amount of claims to be paid by the Defendant in cash.

C. The plaintiff's seizure and collection order

1) The Plaintiff: (a) filed an application for provisional attachment against the instant rehabilitation claim with the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2010Kadan1273 on March 12, 2010 (hereinafter “instant rehabilitation claim”); and (b) rendered a provisional attachment decision on the instant rehabilitation claim (hereinafter “provisional attachment”) with the Seoul Central District Court Decision 203,443,559 won as the claim claim; and (c) served the Defendant, a debtor, on March 31, 2010, who is the debtor, with respect to the instant rehabilitation claim, on the grounds that the instant claim is confirmed as a rehabilitation claim regarding the instant claim of 00 KBN 58 KBN, which was reported to the Defendant as the rehabilitation claim; and (d) the original copy of the decision was served on the Defendant, who is the debtor on March 31, 2010.

2) On September 17, 2010, the Plaintiff: (a) based on the executory exemplification of the judgment rendered by Seoul Central District Court 2010TTTT 2010TT 34503; (b) based on the executory exemplification of the judgment rendered by Seoul Central District Court 2010TT 50347, the claim amount of KRW 672,014,228; (c) as to KRW 603,43,559, the instant provisional attachment was transferred to the principal attachment; and (d) as to KRW 68,570,669, the provisional attachment was determined to “the seizure and collection order to transfer the provisional attachment to the principal attachment; and (e) the said order was served on the Defendant on September 30, 2010.

D. Defendant’s declaration of set-off against the Defendant’s preferential election

1) On the other hand, the Defendant concluded each charter contract on △△△ (MV. △△), as well as the charter contract on the above ○○○ (MV. ○○) (MV. ○), △△ △△ △△ △△ △△ (MV. △△△△), and △△ △△. However, in accordance with each of the above arbitration clause, the London Maritime Arbitration Committee rendered an arbitral award stating that the Defendant is liable for the payment of USD 18,891,346.14 in total to the Defendant for the payment of the unpaid charterage and damages to the Defendant as set out below.

In the table (unit: US$ 1,436,72.17,494,640.45 8,931, 431, 412.56 2, 2,187,06.346, 170, 782.938, 357, 789.273, 9388, 602, 602, 34.31, 4,562, 462, 4.31, 14.31, 14.14, 88, 328, 98, 89, 189.14, 14, 14.2, 14.31, 14.14, 15, 328, 189, 346.14

2) The Defendant, with the permission of the court on February 12, 2010, renounced the benefit of time from the amount equivalent to the amount of money to be repaid out of the rehabilitation claim of the preferred merchant boat, and on February 22, 2010, indicated that the Defendant’s automatic claim of the preferred merchant boat was USD 19,713,916.13 with the Defendant’s automatic claim of the aforementioned preferred merchant boat, which offsets the amount of money to the amount of money to be repaid out of the amount of money to be repaid, and on February 17 and 22, 2010, indicated that the above automatic claim of the preferred merchant boat was constituted USD 19,713,916.13, but it also stated that each of the aforementioned automatic claim and the passive claim was not effective.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 16, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The parties' assertion

1) The Plaintiff, as the creditor of the preferred ships, received a seizure and collection order against the Defendant of the preferred ships with the claim amounting to KRW 672,014,228, the Seoul Central District Court 2009 Mahap24, and served on the Defendant as the garnishee. As such, the Defendant asserts that the Defendant, as the collection right holder, should pay the Plaintiff the above KRW 672,014,228 and the delay damages therefrom.

2) ① The rehabilitation claim of this case, which is subject to the Plaintiff’s collection and seizure order, is US$ 24,675,89, which is recognized in the final claim inspection judgment of Seoul Central District Court 209. 4. The Defendant’s claim of this case against US$ 3600,000, which is subject to the Defendant’s claim of USD 486,000, was limited to US$ 5,181,964 regarding the rehabilitation claim of the Defendant, and ② The non-party Shipping Co., Ltd. also received the seizure and collection order of the rehabilitation claim of this case, which is prior to January 14, 201, 201, which is the first 60,000 U.S. vessel’s claim of this case against US$ 486,000,000, which is subject to the Defendant’s claim of this case for the remaining amount of the rehabilitation claim of this case against US$ 966,000,00.

B. Whether the rehabilitation claim of this case includes a claim on vessels other than ○○.

In full view of the purport of the argument in Eul evidence No. 3, the defendant's statement of 209 Ma24 dated February 5, 2010, stating that "the case number 2009.584, the creditor's name right-holder's right-holder's right-holder's right-holder's right-holder's right-holder's right-holder's right-holder's right-holder's right-holder's right-holder's right-holder's right-holder's right-holder's right-holder's right-holder's right-holder's right-holder's right-holder's right-holder's right-holder's right-holder's right-holder's right-holder's right-holder's right-holder's right-holder's right-holder's right-holder's right-holder's right-holder's right-holder's right-holder's right-holder's right-holder's right-holder's right-holder's right-holder's right.

C. Whether res judicata effect of the judgment on the previous suit of this case affects the lawsuit of this case

In full view of each of the statements in Eul evidence Nos. 17 through 20, the facts that the previous suit in this case is a claim for collection of the rehabilitation claim in this case, as in the lawsuit in this case, can be acknowledged. However, the claim amount of the previous suit in this case is KRW 1 billion and the claim amount of the previous suit in this case does not reach USD 8,389,805.32, which is the claim amount that can be collected in money among the rehabilitation claims in this case, as seen below (e) as follows. As such, it is obvious in calculating the facts that the amount of the previous suit in this case does not reach USD 672,014,28, as follows, each of the above lawsuits cannot be deemed to overlap with each other as a partial claim, and there is no evidence to prove that the debtor's prior suit in this case was known of the fact that the debtor's prior suit in this case, and it is difficult

D. Whether there is no claim regarding ○○, among the rehabilitation claims of this case

In full view of the purport of the arguments in Eul evidence No. 13 (Seoul Central District Court Decision 2009Ma5844) and the whole purport of the arguments, the court affirmed the damage claim against the defendant against the defendant on the ground that the defendant's superior owner terminated the charter contract with the defendant on the ground of the defendant's non-performance of obligation, and the defendant's termination of the charter contract with the defendant on February 17, 2009 after the termination of the charter contract with the Pacific Shipping, which is the upper owner, from the upper owner of the defendant on the ground that the defendant's termination of the charter contract with the defendant on the ground of the non-performance of obligation of the defendant, the court affirmed the right to claim damages against the above preferred owner on the ground that the termination of the charter contract with the defendant is no longer able to perform the charter contract with the upper owner. Even at the time of the above final claim inspection judgment, the defendant's rejection of the above argument on the grounds that the evidence submitted by the defendant alone alone is insufficient to vindicate it.

E. The amount of claims that can be collected in money among the rehabilitation claims in this case

The Seoul Central District Court confirmed the rehabilitation claim in this case as US$ 24,675,898 in the final claim inspection judgment at 2009da584, and according to the defendant's rehabilitation plan (the final decision), 66% of the rehabilitation claim in this case is converted into equity investment with the defendant's shares, and only 34% of the remaining 34% is paid in cash. It is clear that the amount of the claim that can be collected in money among the rehabilitation claim in this case is US$ 8,389,805.32 (=24,675,898.00 x 34/100).

F. Whether the rehabilitation claim of this case is extinguished due to the defendant's offset

On February 12, 2010, the Defendant renounced the interest of the time limit for the obligation corresponding to the amount of the rehabilitation claim of this case with the permission of the court, and made an expression of intent to offset the obligation of the Defendant against the amount of the hire and damage compensation claims due to the automatic claim of the Defendant, and reached the Defendant’s above declaration of intent around that time. The decision of the provisional attachment or seizure and collection order of this case was delivered to the Defendant on March 31, 2010 (the delivery date of provisional attachment of this case) and September 30, 2010 (the seizure and collection order of this case), each of which was delivered to the Defendant on September 30, 2010 (the delivery date of provisional attachment of this case), and all of the disputes between the Defendant and the owner and the charterer prior to that of this case regarding USD 38 U.S. dollars in relation to each of the above claims of this case, the Maritime Arbitration Committee agreed to refer the amount of the above 8 U.S. dollars claim of this case to the Defendant’s 184 U.

As to this, the Plaintiff’s governing law of the charter contract for each vessel, including ○○○, which was entered into between the Defendant and the preferred ship, is the English law, so the requirements of set-off under the common law of the United Kingdom to offset claims under each of the above charter contracts shall be satisfied. Since only the unpaid charterage claims among the automatic claims meet the above requirements, the Defendant’s expression of intent of set-off is valid only within the scope of USD 4,562,448.15. However, as long as the rehabilitation procedure against the Defendant was conducted in Korea pursuant to the “the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act” in accordance with the “the principle of the Dosan Law Suspension”, it is possible to set-off the rehabilitation claim of this case with the permission of the court pursuant to Article 131 of the above Act, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

G. Sub-committee

Therefore, the provisional attachment or seizure and collection order of this case for the purpose of non-existent bonds is null and void. Therefore, the first plaintiff's assertion on different premise is without merit without examining the remainder.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Jae-chul (Presiding Judge)