(영문) 대전고등법원 2016.9.29.선고 2016누11092 판결

Among the Korean Maritime Safety Tribunal's ruling No. 2016-06 of April 14, 2016, each corrective recommendation part against the plaintiffs shall be revoked.

Reasons

1. Occurrence of marine accidents and details of adjudication;

A. Bar 1) C (hereinafter referred to as "C"), a shipowner tin construction company, and Dub 2) has moved to the Cheong School 3, 2014 with the tugboat's aid to check and maintain equipment, and has moored to the Cheong School 3 on January 26, 2014. At the tugboat's direction, the fleet's captain's order, first, one anchor on the port side (a main anchor on the anchor can be confirmed the location of the anchor connected to the sea if the anchor is moored), and then a anchor line (irerope and 38mm in diameter), approximately 150m in the bottom line, the players and 2m in the port side of the port side of the port side of the port side of the fleet, respectively.

B. The barge E (hereinafter referred to as "E"), with the assistance of the tugboat on January 31, 2014, the shipowner A and the fleet B moved to the Cheong school wall, and then set one anchor (less at anchor) in the center of the stern center, and set anchor lines (38m in diameter) at about 100m, and 2 lines were granted from the fore and on the fore and on the fore of the fore of the stem line to the fore of the stem line, and the vessel owner A and the fore of the vessel B were integrated into the fore of the Cheong school wall line to the fore of the vessel at the fore of January 31, 2014, and then set up one anchor (less at the fore of the vessel’s fore of January 26, 2014) at the fore of the vessel’s fore of 100 malle: 20 malle to the fore of the vessel at the fore of 20 malle.

D. C: (a) on February 7, 2014, in order to prepare for departure at around 09:00, C: (b) he laid the C player mooring line on the port of the fore and left of the fore of the fore of the fore of the fore of the fore of the fore of the fore of the fore of the fore of the fore of the fore of the fore of the fore of the fore of the fore of the fore of the fore of the fore of the fore of the fore of the fore of the fore of the fore of the fore of the fore of the fore of the fore of the fore of the fore of the fore of the fore of the fore of the fore of the fore of the vessel

E. From around 10:30 on February 7, 2014, weather has deteriorated, the collision between C’s right side and E in order to enter the port from Busan Northern Port, and one of the joint burial lines supporting C was in arrival at the site, but C was waiting at the back of C, and G was waiting at a place less than 350 meters away from the preceding day.

F. On February 7, 2014, the above F was called C’s phone, and arrived at the site of Cheongbuan, around 12:00 on February 7, 2014, and even if the sea status was occupied, the F instructed C’s anchor line to put it into D at around 13:45 minutes on the same day, and cut off C’s anchor line as prepared and cut off C’s anchor line.

G. C: (a) around 15:30 on February 7, 2014, at the support of tugboat G, etc., the Cheong School wall was set up, and around 17:00 on the same day, Cheong School wall was set up to two gold-lines near Busan Port Authority, which were located on the northwest of about 0.6 nautical miles from this day.

H. Meanwhile, from February 10, 2014, Plaintiff B, the E two lines, aggravated weather from around 10:30 to February 7, 2014, deemed that Plaintiff B’s weather was not good, and Plaintiff A directed Plaintiff B to reinforce the mooring line in the state of mooring with an inner wall attached thereto, rather than avoiding to another place. Accordingly, Plaintiff B reinforced Plaintiff B’s synthetic resin 10m of 100m in diameter on the fore part of the E players and left the mooring line in the E line and checked the mooring line.

I. On February 10, 2014, from around 10:30 on February 7, 2014, C and E, which began to deteriorate weather, continued to conflict between C’s right side and E’s port side due to the movements of strong wind and storming wave from around 15:30 on the same day, and C and E continued to conflict. Due to the above collision (hereinafter “instant marine accident”), due to the above collision (hereinafter “instant marine accident”), C had damaged the external board and the cost of the wind-line, and E had damaged approximately 30 meters of the length of the wind-line and the wind-line.

(j) On April 14, 2016, the Korean Maritime Safety Tribunal rendered a ruling with the effect that the instant marine accident was caused by neglecting the duty of care while mooring E, but it is also necessary for C to take appropriate safety measures during departure from the port. The Korean Maritime Safety Tribunal recommended D, Plaintiff B, tin Construction Co., Ltd., and Plaintiff, respectively, to correct the instant marine accident (hereinafter referred to as “instant ruling”).

A person shall be appointed.

【No ground for recognition】No evidence Nos. 1 (the same as the evidence No. 1), 2, 3, 2 and 3 Eul (which include each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the ruling of this case is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff B, at the time of anchorage, was anchored with Cheongbuan and Cheongbuan at the time of anchor, so it does not mean a malking. The late departure of C was due to the tugboat G's arrival at the Cheongbuan School on February 7, 2014, and the anchor line was not able to turn, but it was not necessary for C to cut the anchor while departing from a port. Accordingly, the ruling of this case that made each corrective recommendation to the plaintiffs was unlawful on the ground that the collision between C and E was caused by the marine accident of this case due to the plaintiff's error of anchor line and the collision between the two vessels.

B. Determination

In light of the following circumstances, which can be recognized by adding the aforementioned facts and the overall purport of the arguments on evidence, the marine accident of this case can be seen to have occurred by neglecting the duty of care while mooring E, thereby putting the anchor with C’s anchor. Accordingly, the judgment of this case which issued each corrective recommendation to the plaintiffs on this ground is lawful, and the plaintiffs’ assertion on the different premise is rejected.

(1) A barge normally seems to be missing from the Cheong School Walls within 30 minutes.

(E) The plaintiff B, who is the captain, will be 15 minutes only, and 15 minutes only, was stated in the Central Maritime Tribunal's inquiry process, and the plaintiff B, therefore, around 09:00 on February 7, 2014, C, which had already arrived at the foreline of the stem line and had already arrived at the foreline of the foreline of the stem line and the foreline of the foreline of the foreline of the vessel, had no other reason to make the foreline of the vessel 10:30 on the same day, and the foreline of the vessel 15:30 on the same day at the foreline of the vessel (the foreline of the plaintiff C had arrived at the foreline of the vessel 1:5:30 on the same day and the foreline of the vessel 1:30 on the top of the vessel, but the foreline C had already arrived at the foreline of the vessel 1:5 meters from the foreline of the vessel.

2) On January 26, 2014, C arrived at the Cheong school wall, while a player set a anchor on the port side of the stern while mooring with an inner wall, and her anchored approximately 150 meters to anchor. Under such circumstances, E is mooring around January 31, 2014 to ensure that a player faces an inner wall near the west side of C, while mooring for him/her to the inner wall.

앙에 있는 닻 1개를 놓은 후 닻줄 약 100m를 내어 주게 되었는데, 그 과정에서 E가 닿을 잘못 투묘할 경우 두 배의 닻줄이 엉킬 가능성이 충분해 보인다{원고 B도 '이렇게 삐딱하게 있는 것도 아니고, 조금 삐딱하다, 약간 삐딱하다는 그런 식으로' 닻줄이 놓여 있었다고 진술한 바 있다(을 제3호증의 1, 43면)}.

③ At around 09:00, C Dud D was found to have straw the poppy so far as they were strawed in order to make a preparation for departure. It was clearly stated that C was directly confirmed that the anchor line was able to be able to be able to be able to take a measure as soon as the Plaintiff B was left as the strawer and the strawer came to be the strawer, and the Plaintiff B was known. The Plaintiff B also confirmed that the anchor line was able to be able to be able to be able to take a strawer.

(Nos. 3-1, 63, 64). On the other hand, the plaintiff B stated that the plaintiff B was unable to confirm the plaintiff B's return to the plaintiff B's statement that the plaintiff B was missing in order to confirm it as the plaintiff B was on board the strawer's strawer's strawer's strawer's strawer's strawer's strawer's strawer's strawer's strawer's strawer's strawer's strawer's strawer's strawer's strawer's strawer's strawer's strawer's strawer's strawer's strawer's strawer's strawer's strawer's strawer's strawer's strawer's strawer's 2.

④ The Plaintiff appears to have recognized that “C Dud Do has been able to anchored to Plaintiff B.” However, even though C Dud Do does not have a string line, the anchor line has been able to prepare for the situation as of the earlier day, in order to prepare for a bring line, it is difficult to see that the anchor line would have been false on the goldline (E Dud Plaintiff B continued on the spot, and it can be confirmed whether it is too easily string or easily string the anchor line on the land or by reducing the anchor line on its part).

⑤ The name of the funeral boat at the site is not specified until now, and the evidence submitted in the related civil litigation brought by C against the plaintiff was suspected of being credibility. However, if the C had an interview or tightly pushed on the ground that the cause of the marine accident of this case was able to make up for the situation where the C was able to make up for the situation at the time, it would not be deemed that the name of the funeral boat at the site is not specified, even if the name of the funeral boat at the site at the time is not easily submitted, it would not be deemed that the C did not submit a photograph of the poppy, even if the name of the funeral boat at the site at the time is not well known, and the photograph of the poppy was not well presented.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed in entirety as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.