A. Whether an adjudication to find the causes of the Marine Accidents Tribunal is subject to administrative litigation (negative)

(b) Cases of mutual recognition of both a pilot and a shipmaster's negligence on pilotage a large oil tanker; and

(c) Where raw milk has been leaked because the hull of the ship is wrecked, and where it is referred to in the Marine Accidents Inquiry Act;

A. In the adjudication of the Central Maritime Accident Inquiry Agency, the adjudication to find the cause cannot be deemed an administrative disposition which is the power of an administrative agency that has the effect of forming or confirming the rights and obligations of the people, which is not an administrative disposition subject to administrative litigation.

B. In pilotage a large oil tanker on a limited waterway, the pilot of the instant case did not prepare a towing boat in advance even though the pilot has a duty of care to properly use the engine, such as making a towing boat to a minimum speed to maintain the course of the boat, and making it possible for the pilot to properly use the engine, and also did so so. In addition, the pilot of the instant case took measures to reduce speed since the pilot entered the waterway by speed of at least 10 knots, but the pilot did not take measures to reduce speed after the speed of the vessel, but the pilot did not inform the pilot of the speed of the speed so that the vessel could not interfere with the operation of the vessel in advance, and even if the pilot could not interfere with shipbuilding in the forced pilotage, the pilot did not inform the pilot of the speed of the speed of the vessel at least 10 knots and the pilot did not take measures to rectify the speed of the vessel at an early stage, and did not inform him/her of the speed and speed of the vessel at least 1.

(c) Where a ship causes damage to facilities, such as neighboring fishing grounds, due to oil damaged or leaked due to negligence of pilots and shipmasters in the course of performing their duties, it shall be deemed to constitute "marine accidents" under the Maritime Accidents and

(a) Articles 5 and 65 of the Marine Accidents Inquiry Act, Article 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act; Article 2(1) of the Pilotage Act; Article 770 of the Commercial Act; Article 5(2) and Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Marine Accidents Inquiry Act;

A. Supreme Court Decision 81Hu4 delivered on January 24, 1984, Supreme Court Decision 76Hu16 delivered on July 26, 197

Plaintiff 1 and one other

Central Maritime Accident Inquiry Board

The Central Maritime Accident Inquiry Agency Decision No. 83-10 on December 5, 1983

The appeal on the inquiry into the cause of the judgment of the court below shall be dismissed, and the appeal on the disciplinary decision shall be dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs' grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Among the rulings of the Central Maritime Inquiry Agency, the adjudication on the cause of a cause cannot be deemed an administrative disposition which is the power of an administrative agency that forms and determines the rights and duties of the people, and thus, it cannot be deemed an administrative disposition which is the object of administrative litigation (see Supreme Court Decision 76Hu16, Jul. 26, 197; Supreme Court Decision 81Hu4, Jan. 24, 1984; Supreme Court Decision 81Hun-Ga4, Jan. 24, 1984). Examining the original adjudication of the plaintiffs' appeal petition and the purport of appeal, each entry in the appellate brief of the plaintiffs, the original adjudication (1) This case occurred due to negligence in the course of the plaintiff 2's operation, which is the appellate court that conducts the excessive shipbuilding from the limited number, and thus, the negligence in the course of performing the duties of the plaintiff 1, who is the authority of the administrative agency that has the effect of establishing and confirming the safety of the vessel, and therefore, it cannot be seen that the above part of the grounds of administrative litigation is dismissed.

2. The remainder (3) and (4) of the adjudication of the court below, which sought revocation of the part in the war, shall be deemed legitimate as it is the so-called disciplinary adjudication. Accordingly, according to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below acknowledged the facts by the evidences of the city, and found that the plaintiff 2, as a pilot, is a large oil tanker at the original time, and therefore, he is obliged to pilot the ship at a limited number of times as stated in its reasoning to properly use the ship at a minimum speed to maintain the course of the ship's navigation, such as making a towing and a thorough navigational boundaries, and making it difficult for the plaintiff 2 to take necessary corrective measures such as speeding and speeding of the ship so that it could not interfere with the safety of the ship at an early speed of 10 knots or more per hour, even if the ship did not have been under the duty of care to properly use the ship, and thus, the court below should have determined that the ship was under the duty of safe navigation of the ship at an early speed of 10 knots or more per hour.

Article 5 (2) of the Marine Accidents Inquiry Act provides that the Tribunal shall punish a ship officer or pilot when the marine accident is deemed to have occurred due to intentional or negligent conduct in the course of performing his duties, and Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the same Act provides that the ship shall be deemed to have been damaged or destroyed, or damaged facilities other than the ship in connection with the operation of the ship. Thus, the court below's decision to the purport that the case where the ship's hull is damaged or damaged to nearby fishing facilities, such as neighboring fishing grounds due to crude oil damaged or leaked due to negligent conduct in the plaintiffs' duties shall be deemed to fall under the above sea accident. Thus, the court below's decision to the same purport is just, and this case's decision to the purport is that the ship's hull does not fall under the above ground for punishment under the Prevention of Marine Pollution Act, since the ship's hull was damaged to the bottom, and part of the ship's bottom was damaged to the bottom at the beginning, or because it did not fall under the ground for punishment under the Prevention of Marine Pollution Act by making it best upon the discharge.

3. Therefore, the appeal against the judgment of the court below on the cause finding of grounds is dismissed, and the appeal against the judgment of the disciplinary action is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs who have lost them. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices

Justices Jeong Tae-tae (Presiding Justice)