(a) Relationship between a shipowner and seafarers, etc., in cases where a remuneration agreement has been made to distribute a catch to a certain ratio;

B. Relationship between a seafarer’s right to accident compensation and a claim for damages due to illegal acts under the Civil Act

(c) Application of Article 750 (1) and (2) of the Commercial Act;

A. Even if there was an agreement between the vessel owner and seafarers to distribute the catch at a certain ratio (which is so far as the agreement was made, it is only a method for which the vessel owner and crew members agreed to pay the catch at a certain ratio, and if the vessel owner had the authority to employ and dismiss the vessel, it would be deemed that there exists an employer-employee relationship.

B. Since the claim for accident compensation under the Seafarers Act and the claim for damages due to illegal acts under the Civil Act are related to an agreement, as long as the court decides the claim for damages due to illegal acts, it does not affect the judgment even if it did not determine the relation with the claim for

(c) The provisions on the limit of liability of the shipowner provided for in Article 750(1) and (2) of the Commercial Act concerning the limit of liability of the shipowner provided for in paragraph (3) of the same Article do not apply when the victim is the master, seaman or other employee of the ship, and therefore the shipowner shall be liable for unlimited liability to the victim.

A. Article 756(b) of the Civil Act; Article 750 of the Seafarers Act; Articles 85 and 94(c) of the Seafarers Act; Article 750 of the Commercial Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 81Da29,30 delivered on October 27, 1981. Supreme Court Decision 70Da2294 delivered on March 30, 1971

Plaintiff 1 and one other

Defendant Kim Jong-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Gwangju High Court Decision 86Na123 delivered on August 29, 1986

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The defendant's attorney's grounds of appeal are examined.

1. For an employer-related relationship:

In theory, 60% of the remainder after deducting fishing expenses, etc. from the sales proceeds of fish from the Defendant’s possession while boarding a river-net fishing vessel between the Defendant and the crew members including Plaintiff 1, and 40% of the remainder after deducting fishing expenses, etc. from the sales proceeds of fish from the Defendant’s possession was a vessel-based profit, and the remuneration agreement was made based on the so-called universal system with the remuneration of the crew of the crew. Thus, this is a contract

However, the agreement between the shipowner and seafarers to distribute the catch at a certain ratio is merely a method of making a fee agreement, and therefore, it cannot be said that there is no employment relationship between the Defendant and the Nonparty. The right to employ and dismiss the captain and crew exists between the Defendant, who is the owner of the vessel, and therefore, the employer relationship exists (see Supreme Court Decision 81Da29, 30, Oct. 27, 1981). The argument is groundless.

2. As to the relation to the seafarer law's claim for accident compensation:

In theory, although the defendant bears the duty of accident compensation on the part of the plaintiff 1, it is not liable for tort liability as an employer, and the court below did not make a judgment on it.

However, since the court below decided that the claim for accident compensation under the seafarer law and the claim for damages due to illegal acts under the civil law are in a relationship of agreement, and as long as the plaintiff 1 did not judge the relationship with the claim for damages under the seafarer law, it does not affect the judgment. The arguments are groundless.

3. With respect to the application of the provisions on the shipowner’s limited liability:

In theory, the defendant's liability for damages, the shipowner, is 67 tons of the ship involved in the accident, so it should be held liable within the range of 150,000 metric tons per ton by the provisions of Articles 746, 747 and 750 of the Commercial Code.

However, since the provision on the limit of liability of the shipowner under the provisions of Article 750 (1) and (2) of the Commercial Act does not apply to the case where the victim is the captain, seaman or other employee under the above provisions of paragraph (3) of the same Article, the defendant who is the owner of the ship is liable for unlimited liability to the plaintiff 1 (see Supreme Court Decision 70Da2294 delivered on March 30, 1971). We are groundless.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)