1. Of the Korean Maritime Safety Tribunal's ruling on December 27, 2018, the Korean Maritime Safety Tribunal's 4th mate's services against the Plaintiff for two months.

1. Occurrence of marine accidents and details of adjudication;

A. On December 2, 2017, C (the length, 61.27 meters, 14 meters in width, 3 meters in weight, 677 tons) and D (2.83 meters in depth, 2.95 tons in weight) (the length, 7.5 meters in length, 2.6 meters in length, 0.83 meters in weight, and 2.95 tons in weight) which is a fishing vessel, have caused an accident (hereinafter referred to as “accident in this case”) of collision at 0.15 miles (the nautical miles means “nautical miles”, and one nautical miles is 1,852 meters in length; hereinafter the same shall apply) in front of the new base line located in the Sinsan-si, Sinsan-si, Sinsan-si, a vessel.

The plaintiff is the captain of C, and E is the captain of D.

B. On December 27, 2018, the Korean Maritime Safety Tribunal rendered a ruling on December 27, 2018 that the instant accident was caused by C’s failure to perform the boundary while departing from the port and entering the course of D’s course sailing along the waterway, but that D’s failure to take appropriate action for give rise to partial causes (C70%, D30%) and that the instant accident was partially caused by D’s failure to take appropriate action for give rise to two months (the percentage of negligence is C70%, D30%) and that the instant accident was suspended for six months from the date of execution of the ruling, but suspended the execution of the disciplinary action, ordered the Plaintiff to take on-the-job accident prevention education, and recommended E to take corrective measures.

(Central Maritime Court B and hereinafter the above decision on disciplinary action against the plaintiff is referred to as "the ruling of this case"). 【No dispute exists, Gap evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The water area in which the instant accident occurred falls under the “nick channel” and the water area in which the instant accident occurred shall navigate from the left side of the narrow channel pursuant to Article 67 of the Maritime Safety Act. D also navigates from the left side of the channel. In addition, D did not take all the actions to avoid appropriate boundaries (Article 63 of the Maritime Safety Act) or collision (Article 66 of the Maritime Safety Act).

As such, the instant accident occurred as the main cause of D’s negligence.

On the other hand, the plaintiff fully implemented the action to avoid a conflict with the appropriate boundary.

Therefore, the ruling of this case is therefore.