2013 Gohap 1029 Action of Demurrer against the Judgment

2013 Du2121(Merger) Lawsuit of Demurrer against Ruling of Circumstances

1. Hexa stropha shing Comping (Hebeti Sirit Speing);

Commonpa ny Limited

2. The International Convention on Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage, 1992;

Commonens, 192)

8. Korea (Jurisdiction: Ministry of Unification);

9. Republic of Korea (competent: Daejeon Regional Employment and Labor Office);

16. Chungcheongnam-do; and

30. Gyeonggi-do;

31. Korea (Jurisdiction: Statistics Korea);

32. Republic of Korea (Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism);

December 10, 2014

February 4, 2015

1. With respect to the case No. 1 of Seosan Branch of Daejeon District Court 2008 Book No. 2008, the above court shall change the amount of each of the relevant circumstances to the corresponding amount stated in the "amount of the changed amount" column of the attached Table 1 for the claims limited by the Defendants (the No. 1 of the limited creditors list: the same as the stated in the No. 1 of the report and the No. 1 of the assessment amount table) among the judgments of the above court on January 14, 2013.

2. Of the costs of lawsuit, the part arising between the plaintiffs and the defendant 31. Korea and the defendant 32. Korea is borne by the above defendants, and the part arising between the plaintiffs and the defendant 8. Korea, defendant 9. Korea, defendant 16. Chungcheongnam-do, and defendant 30. Gyeonggi-do is borne by each party.

Defendant 8. Claim against Defendant 8. Korea, Defendant 9. Republic of Korea, Defendant 16. Chungcheongnam-do, and Defendant 30. In relation to the case of Seosan Branch of Daejeon District Court No. 2008.14, with respect to the case of Seosan Branch of Daejeon District Court, the above court shall change the amount corresponding to each of the relevant circumstances in the column of “the reported amount and the determined amount of the situation of the court ruling of the court holding the responsibility” in attached Table 1 to the limited claim (the No. 1: the No. 500s No. 1: the reported amount and the No. 1 of the ruling No. 1: the same is the same as the stated in the No. 1) of the Defendants’ limited claim.

Defendant 31. The claims against Korea and Defendant 32. It is so ordered as per Disposition.

1. Basic facts

1. The occurrence of the oil pollution accident of this case

① At around 07:06 on December 7, 2007, the oil tanker 146,828 tons of the Samsung Heavy Industries, which was towed by two tugboats at the sea of the 6-day southwestwest-gun, Taenam-gun, Chungcheongnam-do, Southwest-do, and the 6-day coastwise, and the oil tanker 146,848 tons of Hong Kong's shipping at the anchor of Samsung Samsung Samsung 1 (hereinafter "the oil tanker of this case"), and the collision with the oil tanker Nos. 1, 3 and 5 of the oil tanker of this case (hereinafter "the oil tanker of this case"). As a result, the oil tanker of this case was transported to three cargo holds, including approximately 10,900 tons (12,547) of crude oil, which was loaded in the oil tanker of this case, was leaked at sea (hereinafter "the accident of this case").

② On the same day after the occurrence of the instant accident, immediately after approximately 15 hours after the strong wind of Northwest, the outflow oil was pushed down to the coast of the port of the west-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, west-gun, west-gun, west-do, the coast of the port of the west-gun, west-do, the south-west coast, the south-west coast. On the following day, on December 8, 2007, the outflow was flowed over about 18 km from the 4th day after the occurrence of the instant accident, to the coast of the west-gun, west-gun, west-gun, west-gun, west-gun, west-gun, west-gun, west-gun, west-gun, west-gun, west-gun, west-gun, west-gun, west-gun, west-gun, west-gun, west-do, west-do.

2. Participation of government agencies and public officials belonging to local governments in pest control operations;

① On December 11, 2007, the Ministry of the Interior: (a) established a government-level voluntary support plan for preventing damage caused by oil leakage; and (b) notified each government agency and local government of the establishment and implementation of a self-support plan in order to support the spread of damage caused by oil leakage.

② Accordingly, each government agency, including the Ministry of Unification, the Ministry of Labor, the Ministry of Culture and Tourism, the Statistics Korea, the Cheongnam-do Office of Education under the defendant Chungcheongnam-do, the Gyeonggi-do Office of Education under the defendant Gyeonggi-do, etc. have organized volunteer groups with public officials, teachers, students, etc., and participated in pest control measures in the Taean-gun Group

3. Reasons to the objection of this case

A. Commencement of limitation of liability procedure of this case

① Under Article 6 of the former Guarantee of Oil Pollution Damage Compensation (wholly amended by Act No. 9740, May 27, 2009; hereinafter the same shall apply), the Plaintiff, the owner of the oil tanker of this case, filed an application for the initiation of the limitation of liability proceedings with the Daejeon District Court Seosan Branch 2008 Book 1 on January 15, 2008, pursuant to Article 9 of the former Guarantee of Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage (wholly amended by Act No. 9740, May 27, 2009; hereinafter the same shall apply) and Article 9 of the former Act on the Limitation of Liability for Oil Pollution Damage (wholly amended by Act No. 9833, Jan. 15, 2008; hereinafter the same shall apply) to provide compensation for oil pollution damage to the extent insufficient protection under the International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage in 192.

Plaintiff 192 International Fund for Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage (hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiff International Fund”) filed an application for participation in the procedure for limiting liability on February 4, 2008 pursuant to Article 36 of the former Guarantee of Compensation for Oil Pollution Pollution Damage Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiff International Fund”). ③ Upon the Plaintiff Company’s application, the Daejeon District Court rendered a decision to commence the procedure for limiting liability on February 9, 2009, and simultaneously appointed A as a manager.

B. Report on subordinate limitation claims by the Defendants, assessment judgment, etc.

① On the other hand, on June 19, 2008, the Defendant Republic of Korea held the Special Countermeasure Committee on Oil Pollution Accident in Switzerland on the first time to facilitate the prompt payment of compensation to victims, and decided that the State and local governments’ claims shall be subordinate to those of other petitioners pursuant to Article 11 of the Enforcement Decree of the Special Act on the Support for Residents in Damage Caused by Oil Pollution in Switzerland and the Restoration of the Marine Environment, etc., and declared that the 41st executive committee of the Plaintiff International Fund held on June 23, 2008 shall be subordinate to the State and local governments’ claims.

② Accordingly, the Defendants reported each of the corresponding amounts stated in the “reported Amount of Report 1” and “Report on Assessment Amount List” to the limited liability court as subordinate limited claims. ③ On January 1, 2013, the limited liability court tried to assess each of the corresponding amounts as subordinate limited claims in the “determined Amount of Decision on Liability Limitation Court’s Circumstances” as to the reported claims by the Defendants.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, significant facts, and the court's inquiry of liability limitation case appraiser B on October 18, 2013, the whole purport of the pleading as a whole.

Ⅱ. As to the limited claims of the Republic of Korea (Ministry of Unification)

1. Basic facts

A. The Ministry of Unification affiliated with the defendant's volunteer service activities under the Ministry of Unification constituted a volunteer service group consisting of 45 public officials belonging to the Ministry of Unification every day, and participated in eradication activities in the 4th century using the chartered bus 1 unit during the period of four times as of December 13, 2007.

B. Judgment on reporting and assessing limited claims by the defendant

On April 23, 2009, the Defendant reported the total amount of KRW 6,588,000 as stated in the following table as subordinated limitation claim at the expense spent in relation to the above volunteer service activities to the limitation court. On January 14, 2013, the limitation court rendered a judgment on the circumstance that the Defendant’s reported claim is considered as subordinate limitation claim.

A person shall be appointed.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, significant facts, Gap evidence No. 8, Eul evidence No. 8-1 to 20, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. A party's assertion (part of rent for a chartered bus) 1;

A. The plaintiff International Fund's assertion

Whether the expenses of volunteers shall be compensated for or not shall be determined according to whether the expenses incurred appropriately in a specific case.

However, in this case, in light of the fact that a large number of volunteers were unable to assist the prevention and removal work, "identification and clothes, and the place equipped with equipment" led to the classification of volunteers and the allocation of work areas, and that there was no need to carry out the prevention and removal work by mobilization of persons in an area located km away from a number of white kilometers, it is difficult to view that the transportation cost occurred for the section until reaching the above "place equipped with the above status verification and uniforms and equipment" within a reasonable scope.

Therefore, the rent of a chartered bus used to transport public officials of the Ministry of Unification does not correspond to the cost within a reasonable scope, so this part of the rent should be changed to zero won.

B. Defendant’s assertion

Expenses for prevention and removal means expenses reasonably disbursed for prevention and removal measures, and transportation expenses incurred in conducting prevention and removal activities in a pollution area in a long distance shall also be included in the expenses for prevention and removal unless they exceed the scope of reasonable expenditure.

In terms of the cost and expenses, transportation of the number of persons, goods, etc. through bus lease constitutes reasonable and reasonable expenditure in cases where the transportation method of a group through bus lease is economically efficient, and considering the problems such as pest control goods and simplified transportation, etc. Furthermore, since the transportation cost claimed by the Defendant is for the purpose of pest control activities from Seoul Government Office to the pest control area, it is included in the transportation cost from Seoul Government Office to the pest control area, since the transportation cost claimed by the Defendant is for the purpose of pest control activities from Seoul Government Office to the pest control area.

3. Determination

(a) The former Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage Guarantee includes "cost of the pollution response measure" as referred to in Article 2 subparagraph 6 of the former Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage Guarantee, with the definition of "any reasonable measure taken by a party or a third party to prevent or mitigate oil pollution damage after the incident occurred", which includes "cost of the pollution response measure" as referred to in Article 2 subparagraph 4 (j) of the Act.

Here, the cost of the prevention and removal measures can only be claimed within the extent of proximate causal relation with the oil pollution accident. Whether there is reasonableness or not should be determined by comprehensively taking into account the circumstances leading to the prevention and removal measures in question, the contents and period of the prevention and removal measures in question, the nature of the expenses paid, the profits acquired by the person liable to take prevention

B. Regarding the instant case, according to the aforementioned evidence, KRW 1,600,000, total of the rent for the chartered bus reported by the Defendant with limited claims can be recognized as a four-minute rent for each day by a public official belonging to the Ministry of Unification, who works in Seoul, to return back to the 45-minute passenger bus called the Yannam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, and the above rent for the chartered bus is a cost of not being disbursed if the public official belonging to the Ministry of Unification, who works for the Defendant, did not participate in the pest control work.

However, the amount of money equivalent to the rent for the chartered bus spent by the public officials of the Ministry of Unification who belong to the defendant to return to Seoul and Taean shall not be deemed as damage with a proximate causal relation with the accident of this case. The reasons are as follows.

① The public officials belonging to the Ministry of Unification under the Defendant are moving to the long distance in Seoul to voluntarily participate in pest control operations, not in accordance with the statutes or contractual obligations.

② As above, the above public officials did not participate in the pest control work regularly for a certain period, but went back to Seoul again after participating in pest control work once a day.

(3) Although the above public officials are not deemed to have been skilled human resources who participated in pest control operations, they cannot be deemed to have been included in the field conditions compared with local residents.

(1) While residing in a close distance from a pest control site as seen above, it is possible to conduct pest control work by utilizing human resources who can be mobilized clearly and continuously even in the field circumstances, the person who resided in a long distance and has low skilledly falls shall be employed once a day.

There is no economic motive for mobilization with the burden of such traffic cost.

⑤ In other words, the transportation cost of the above nature is the cost of the nature that the public official did not bear the obligation to take preventive measures if the public official did not voluntarily find it at the place of preventive measures as above (such as the cost of purchasing, planting, bathing, etc. of the pest control goods and the cost of using the number of human resources identical to the above public official, but such transportation cost is ordinarily required if the number of human resources equal to the above public official is mobilized. However, the transportation cost is not so.

4. Sub-committee

Therefore, the defendant's subordinate limited claims should be assessed to the sum of KRW 4,988,00 as shown in the following table.

A person shall be appointed.

Part III, Defendant 9. Limited Claims of the Republic of Korea (Jurisdiction: Daejeon Local Employment and Labor Office)

1. Basic facts

A. On December 13, 2007, the former Daejeon Regional Labor Office, under the jurisdiction of the Defendant, mobilized 17 public officials under its jurisdiction in order to support pest control operations, participated in pest control operations at the Yannam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-do National Labor Office.

B. Judgment on reporting and assessing limited claims by the defendant

On April 30, 2009, the Defendant reported the total amount of KRW 1,359,660 as indicated below as subordinated limited claims at the expense incurred in relation to the above volunteer activities at the limitation court. On January 14, 2013, the limitation court rendered a judgment on the circumstance that the Defendant’s reported claims are assessed as subordinate limited claims as indicated below.

A person shall be appointed.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, significant facts, Gap evidence No. 9, Eul evidence No. 9-1 through 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff International Fund's assertion

Whether the expenses of volunteers shall be compensated for or not shall be determined according to whether the expenses incurred appropriately in a specific case.

However, in this case, in view of the fact that most volunteers were unable to help prevent and control action, and that there was a classification and allocation of work areas for volunteers when they came to "place equipped with clothes and equipment", and that there was no need to mobilize persons in an area km away from a number of white km and to carry out control action, it is difficult to view that the transportation cost incurred for the section until reaching the above "place equipped with uniforms and equipment" is within a reasonable scope.

Therefore, inasmuch as the portion of the fare among the withdrawn equipment reported by the Defendant does not fall under the cost within a reasonable scope, this part of the assessment amount should be changed to zero won (the Plaintiff asserted that the full amount of the cost reported by the Defendant cannot be recognized due to lack of evidence, but the Defendant submitted additional evidence in the process of the instant lawsuit, and that there is room for recognizing the remaining items except the above freight).

B. Defendant’s assertion

The Defendant’s expenses incurred by the Defendant shall be reasonably calculated as the expenses incurred in the pest control work, and accordingly, shall be maintained as the damages with proximate causal relation to the instant accident.

3. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the evidence duly admitted as to the purchase cost of the pest control goods, the Daejeon Regional Labor Administration may recognize the purchase of the pest control goods equivalent to KRW 385,660, as indicated below, for a public official’s participation in the pest control work, as stated in the following table, and the above cost of the pest control measures constituted damages for which proximate causal relation with the instant accident is acknowledged.

A person shall be appointed.

B. As to the travel equipment ( travel expenses):

(1) Facts of recognition

In full view of the purport of the entire arguments in the above evidence, the Daejeon Regional Labor Office may recognize the fact that the travel expenses ( = freight + food + daily expenses) equivalent to the total amount of KRW 974,000 as shown in the following table was paid to 17 public officials to participate in the above pest control work.

A person shall be appointed.

(2) Regarding food expenses and daily expenses, first of all, health expenses and daily expenses for food and daily expenses constitute damages for which proximate causal relation with the instant accident is acknowledged as expenses for preventive measures.

(3) The former Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage Guarantee Act provides that "any reasonable measure taken by a party or a third party to prevent or mitigate oil pollution damage after the occurrence of the incident" includes "cost of the pollution damage" in Article 2 subparagraph 4 (b).

Here, the cost of the prevention and removal measures can only be claimed within the extent of proximate causal relation with the oil pollution accident. Whether there is reasonableness should be determined by comprehensively taking into account the background leading to the prevention and removal measures in question, the contents and period of the prevention and removal measures, the expenses paid, the nature of the expenses incurred, and the profits gained by the person responsible for the obligation to take the prevention and removal measures. According to the above findings of recognition, the above freight is paid as transportation expenses in return for the transit between Daejeon and Taean to participate in the prevention and removal work by the above public officials, and if the above public officials did not participate in the prevention and removal work, the freight

However, the amount equivalent to the above fare spent by the public officials belonging to the Daejeon Regional Labor Office to return from Daejeon and Taean cannot be deemed as losses with proximate causal relation to the accident of this case. The reasons are as follows.

① The public officials belonging to the Daejeon Regional Labor Agency under the Defendant moved from Daejeon to the long distance, instead of based on statutes or contractual obligations, to voluntarily participate in pest control operations without compensation.

② As above, the above public officials did not participate in a fixed pest control work for a certain period, but have participated in the pest control work once a day and returned to Daejeon.

(3) Although the above public officials are not deemed to have been skilled human resources who participated in pest control operations, they cannot be deemed to have been included in the field conditions compared with local residents.

④ While residing in a close distance from a pest control site as seen above, it is possible to conduct pest control work by utilizing human resources capable of clearly and continuously mobilized despite the field circumstances, there is no economic motive for mobilization by bearing transportation expenses for one day, while residing in a long distance.

⑤ In other words, the transportation cost of the above nature is the cost of the nature that the above public officials did not bear the obligation to take preventive measures if they did not voluntarily find it at the place of preventive measures as above (such as the cost of purchasing, planting, and daily expenses for the removal goods and the cost of using the number of human resources identical to the above public officials, but such transportation cost is ordinarily required if they are mobilized with the same number of human resources as the above public officials. However, the above transportation cost is not so.

4. Sub-committee

Therefore, regarding the defendant's subordinate limitation claim, the defendant's 1,050,660 won in total as shown below (=385,660 won in purchasing the response goods + food cost of KRW 345,000 + daily cost of KRW 320,000) should be assessed as follows.

A person shall be appointed.

5. As to Defendant 16. As to the limited claim of Chungcheongnam-do

1. Basic facts

A. After the instant accident, the staff and students belonging to the office of education of Chungcheongnam-do and its affiliated agencies under the jurisdiction of the Defendant participated in the eradication work as part of volunteer work in the area of Chungcheongnam-gun, etc. after the instant accident, and the detailed contents and relevant expenses are as shown in the attached Table 2’s statement of reported bonds issued by the Defendant 16.

B. Judgment on reporting and assessing limited claims by the defendant

On April 30, 2009, the Defendant reported the total amount of KRW 2,454,745,330 as indicated below with respect to the above volunteer service activities and various other support activities to the limited liability court, and the limited liability court tried to assess the Defendant’s reported claims amounting to KRW 38,91,830 as listed in the following table.

A person shall be appointed.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, significant facts, Gap evidence No. 16, Eul evidence No. 16-1 through 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The subject matter of the instant judgment or the subject matter of the lawsuit of demurrer against the judgment is whether the custodian, etc. has any claim exceeding the estimated amount of the limited claim (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Da17038, 201Da17045, Jun. 28, 2012; Supreme Court Decision 2011Da17038, 201Da17045, Jun. 28, 2012; Supreme Court Decision 2011Da17045, Jun. 28, 2012; Supreme Court Decision 201Da17045, Jun. 28, 2012; Supreme Court Decision 201Da17045

In this case, the remainder of the claims reported by the Defendant, excluding the cost of subsidizing pest control activities, is not recognized as limited claims in the assessment judgment, and the Defendant did not file a lawsuit of objection against this, while only the Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit of objection against the cost of subsidizing pest control activities recognized in the assessment judgment, the subject matter of the lawsuit in this case is limited to the cost of subsidizing pest control activities.

Therefore, among the claims reported by the defendant, the subject of this Court's adjudication is limited to claims in the assessment court.

It is considered to be limited to the expenses incurred in supporting specified pest control activities, and this is considered as follows.

3. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff International Fund's assertion

The plaintiff International Fund asserts to the following purport that the assessment amount of the defendant's reported claims should be changed to KRW 18,598,870,00,000. The argument by each item is as stated in the column for "non-recognition of the plaintiff's claims for report on the attached Table 2" and 16. (1) As to the expenses related to volunteers incurred after January 2008.

With respect to the instant accident, the Plaintiff International Fund determined that the urgent stage until the end of December 2007, namely, the period during which the persons involved in the pest control operations are unable to strictly observe the technical rationality, and recognized the compensation for the relevant expenses without considering the technical necessity.

However, since January 2008, most of the above urgent steps were installed by the Korea Coast Guard and private pest response companies, and organized pest response work was conducted in most areas. In addition, the part where volunteers were required to work is stored in the water supply system, but the part where volunteers were required to work in the shore was already left at the end of December 2007, which was already completed before the end of December 2007.

Therefore, in principle, the necessity of the work and technical rationality, and the rationality of the cost of the work should be recognized when it comes to the duty of pest control from January 2008. However, it is difficult to recognize the above points only by the materials submitted by the defendant.

(2) As to the transportation cost of volunteers, whether or not the cost of volunteers should be compensated must be determined according to whether the cost occurred appropriately in a specific case.

However, in this case, in view of the fact that most volunteers were unable to assist in pest control operations, and that there was a classification and allocation of work areas for volunteers when they came to "place equipped with identity verification and uniforms and equipment", and that there was no need to mobilize persons in an area that is far away from the number of white kilometers and to carry out pest control operations, it is difficult to view the transportation cost incurred for the section until reaching the "place equipped with equipment" as above within a reasonable scope.

(3) The claims for the report of the Danam Marine Science High School (No. 15 of the above list) are claims that overlap with the claims No. 28.5 of the Center's No. 28.5 submitted by the Boli-si.

(4) As to the gender amount of KRW 600,000 on October 12, 2007, 200 of the Chungcheongnam-do Office of Education (the above detailed list Nos. 50) of Chungcheongnam-do Office of Education (the above list Nos. 50), the gender amount of KRW 600,000 on December 10, 207 does not constitute the expenses for pollution response.

B. Defendant’s assertion

As to the above assertion by the Plaintiff International Fund, the Defendant asserts to the following purport that KRW 38,91,830 of the assessment amount of the Defendant’s reported claims should be authorized as it is. (1) It is apparent that, after January 2008, volunteer-related expenses incurred after 2008 were actively performed by volunteers in the Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, 2008, that the response activities by volunteers were unnecessary and other alternative means were available after January 208. Therefore, the Plaintiff International Fund must prove that there was a need to prove that there was another alternative means.

(2) It is the most reasonable and efficient way to transport the number of volunteers to the scene of damage all at once using large buses on the transportation cost of volunteers. Accordingly, the transportation cost as above constitutes oil pollution damage.

(3) On December 2007, in 196, in 2007, in 2007, the People’s Middle Schools (the above details Nos. 2), the Seoan Women’s Middle Schools (the above details Nos. 18), the Seoan Busan District School (the above details No. 2018), and the Yongsan Elementary Schools (the above details No. 201), volunteer service was provided to the Yongan Elementary Schools (the above details No. 201). Thus, even

(4) The claims reported by the ASEAN Maritime Science High School (No. 15 of the above list) with respect to the ASEAN Maritime Science High School (the above list No. 15) are separate claims that are different from those reported by the ASEAN.

4. Determination

A. As to the cost of pest control activities by volunteers since January 2008

(1) The former Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage Guarantee includes "the cost of pollution response measures and additional loss or damage caused by pollution response measures" under Article 2 subparagraph 4 (b) of the former Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage Act, and Article 2 subparagraph 6 of the former Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage defines "any reasonable measure taken by a party or a third party to prevent or mitigate oil pollution damage after the occurrence of the incident".

Here, the fact that "the person has taken reasonable measures to prevent or mitigate oil pollution damage" falls under the fact that the requirements for the right to claim compensation for damages concerning "expenses of pollution response measures" are met, and the person who claims compensation for damage in the above contents is responsible for proving the above.

In addition, the burden of proof as to the existence of limited claims in a lawsuit of demurrer against a judgment on assessment is in accordance with the principle of allocation of the burden of proof in general civil procedure. Therefore, in cases where the plaintiff asserts that the part acknowledged as limited claims in a judgment on assessment did not constitute the defendant's limited claim, the defendant

(2) According to the evidence submitted by the Defendant, the Defendant’s faculty members and the students’ time and place of the response work, and the degree of expenses incurred in relation to the response work is acknowledged (the specific content is the same as the attached Table 2’s attached Table 16’s attached hereto). Furthermore, the above evidence alone is insufficient to recognize that the response measures taken by the said faculty members and the students as part of the volunteer work after January 2008 are reasonable, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

B. As to the transportation cost of volunteers

(1) The former Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage Guarantee Act defines "measures" as "any reasonable measures taken by a party or a third party to prevent or mitigate oil pollution damage after the occurrence of the incident" as "the cost of the pollution damage" in Article 2 subparagraph 4 (b).

Here, the cost of the prevention and removal measures can only be claimed within the extent of proximate causal relation with the oil pollution accident. Whether there is reasonableness or not should be determined by comprehensively taking into account the circumstances leading to the prevention and removal measures in question, the contents and period of the prevention and removal measures in question, the nature of the expenses paid, the profits acquired by the person liable to take prevention

(2) According to the evidence submitted by the Defendant, traffic expenses asserted by the Defendant can be acknowledged as having been charged to the affiliated organizations of the Office of Education, school staff of various levels, students, etc., of the chartered bus rent mobilized when they return to and from the site between the location of the relevant agencies, etc. and the field of pest control work. Such expenses are expenses of the nature that would not have been paid to the school staff and students, if they did not participate in pest control work.

However, the money equivalent to the above transportation cost cannot be deemed as damage with a proximate causal relation with the accident of this case, and the reasons are as follows.

① The above teachers and staff and students have moved from their place of residence to the scene of pest control work in order to voluntarily participate in pest control work without compensation, not in accordance with Acts and subordinate statutes or contractual obligations.

② The above teachers and staff and students moved to the scene of pest control work in the Taean and returned to their place of residence, not for a fixed period of time, but for a certain period of time after having participated in pest control work once a day. It does not seem that the above teachers and staff and students were skilled human resources who participated in pest control work, and it cannot be deemed that they are included in the field situation compared to the local residents.

④ While residing in a close distance from a pest control site as seen above, it is possible to carry out pest control work by utilizing human resources capable of mobilization clearly and continuously even in the field circumstances, there is no economic motive to mobilize by bearing transportation expenses for a day, even if the human resources living in a more distant place and falling with a higher level of skilledness were to be used once a day.

⑤ In other words, the transportation cost of the above nature is the cost of the nature that the above school personnel and students did not bear the obligation to take prevention and removal measures if they did not voluntarily find it at the prevention and removal site (such as the purchase cost and food cost of the prevention and removal goods), but the above transportation cost is not that of the above, although the above transportation cost is ordinarily required for the mobilization of human resources of the same number as the above school personnel and the students. On the part of the Boan Women's Middle School (No. 2, No. 18, No. 18, Dec. 2, 200), the Seosan School (No. 20, No. 18, No. 200).

① Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in each statement of evidence No. 16-1, evidence No. 16-3-2, evidence No. 16-1, and evidence No. 16-2, it can be acknowledged that the faculty and staff of the YYG participated in pest control operations on December 28, 2007 in the YGYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY 304,00 won paid by the Defendant in connection with the pest control operations. However, the purchase cost of the 300,000 won portion is not for the purpose of the voluntary activity but for the purpose of the Huntory collection activity (the evidence submitted by the Defendant alone is insufficient to acknowledge relevance with the temporary and pest control activities, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it)

② Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the argument in each statement in the evidence No. 16-1-2 and the evidence No. 16-3-12 of the evidence No. 16, the fact that teachers and staff belonging to the Seosan Pungsung school participated in pest control operations on December 22, 2007; and the purchase cost of KRW 414,000 paid by the Defendant for the pest control measures is the expenses incurred in connection with the pest control operations.

③ Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire arguments in each statement of evidence Nos. 16-1-2 and evidence Nos. 16-3-14 of the evidence Nos. 16-2 and 16-14, the fact that teachers and staff belonging to the Yongsan-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-do participated in pest control operations on December 28, 2007, and the purchase cost of KRW 170,000 paid by the Defendant is the expense incurred in relation to the pest control operations.

④ According to each of the above facts, the above expenses paid by the above three schools were expenses for reasonable prevention and removal measures conducted in December 2007, which constitute damages that could have a proximate causal relation with the accident of this case. Thus, this part of the plaintiff International Fund's assertion is without merit.

D. As to the Chungcheongnamnam Marine Science High School (No. 15)

(1) In order to constitute the overlapping report on claims, it must be another case where the claim is filed with the court again, and the fact that the plaintiffs received duplicate claims with the Switzerland Center established for the purpose of dealing with their distribution and compensation affairs does not necessarily constitute a duplicate report as a matter of course by the defendant's limited liability court. Thus, the plaintiff International Fund's argument that the claim of the Center overlaps with the claim of the Center and this part of the claim is rejected.2)

(2) Furthermore, according to the above evidence, the claim excluding the claim incurred on December 16, 2007 from December 17, 2007 to December 28, 2007 can be acknowledged as having a proximate causal relation with the accident of this case, since the oil expenses under subparagraph 1 within the training ship mobilized for pest control operations between December 17, 2007 and December 28, 2007, and the food expenses under subparagraph 1 within Korea, the school bus oil expenses, food expenses, and the purchase expenses for pest control goods conducted on December 18, 2007 by 45 students and 45 students within the training ship mobilized for pest control operations during the training course conducted on December 18, 207, and there is no reasonable causal relation with the accident of this case (the part concerning the bus oil expenses cannot be viewed as losses arising from the accident of this case as seen earlier).

However, according to the above evidence, the part of the oil expense of 1,876,800 won and the food expense of 65,000 won for the passengers on board within Korea and Japan, which occurred from the transportation of the goods from the pest control of the external road at the Han River on December 16, 2007 as of December 16, 200, is insufficient to conclude that it was the expenses disbursed due to the instant accident, in view of the circumstance that, regardless of the transportation of the above pest control goods at the time of Hanhohoho Lake, it appears that it was anticipated to depart from Korea to transport the presidential ballot box for the external year, and there

E. According to the evidence revealed in the above part of the Cheongnam-do Office of Education (No. 50), it can be recognized that the amount of 600,000 won at the Cheongnam-do Office of Education for the purpose of delivering it to the Taean-Gun Office and the Taean Coastal Police Station, which is a name of gold money, and it is difficult to view that there is a proximate causal relation with the instant accident as damages.

5. Sub-committee

Therefore, regarding the defendant's subordinate limitation claims, it is necessary to assess the defendant's subordinate limitation claims in the sum of 21,240,970 won as stated in the "court recognition amount" column in the attached Table 16.

5. As to the Plaintiff’s limited claim in Gyeonggi-do

1. Basic facts

(a) Volunteer activities, etc. of the Gyeonggi-do Office of Education under Defendant;

The Office of Education of Gyeonggi-do and its affiliated agencies under the jurisdiction of the defendant organized volunteer groups with its affiliated teachers and staff, and participated in the response work as part of volunteer work in the area of Chungcheongnam-Gun in Chungcheongnam-do from December 18, 2007 to January 30, 2008, and the specific contents and relevant expenses are as listed in the table below.

A person shall be appointed.

B. Judgment on reporting and examining the Defendant’s limited claims

On April 28, 2010, the Defendant reported a total of KRW 16,55,460 as indicated below with respect to the above volunteer activities, etc. to the limitation court, and on January 14, 2013, the limitation court tried on the circumstance that the Defendant’s reported claims are assessed as subordinate limited claims as indicated below.

A person shall be appointed.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, significant facts, Gap evidence No. 30, Eul evidence No. 30-1 to 20, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. As to the general affairs of the main office

A. The parties' assertion

(1) Plaintiff International Fund’s assertion

Among the total expenses of the main office and the expenditure, the purchase cost of the pest control goods is excessive compared to the number of persons participating in volunteer service, so it is necessary to reduce the quantity corresponding to the number of persons participating in volunteer service and recognize the total amount of KRW 813,260 as limited claims.

(2) The defendant's assertion

All purchased goods have been used in pest control work, and even if small quantities have been reduced in the process of purchasing goods in advance, it is difficult to view that the quantity is excessive, and the total amount of the above expense within a reasonable scope should be recognized as limited claims.

B. Determination

(1) According to the above evidence, the following facts are acknowledged.

① The Office of Education of Gyeonggi-do under the Defendant organized a volunteer group with 40 employees belonging to the main office located in Suwon-si and 40 employees belonging to the second office located in the Gu Office of Government-Si, and participated in pest control work on December 18, 2007 as part of volunteer work at the Yannam-gun, Chungcheongnam-si, Chungcheongnam-do Office of Education.

(2) The office of education of Gyeonggi-do has purchased the same pest control goods as the following table to volunteer service activities of 40 employees under its jurisdiction:

A person shall be appointed.

(3) On the other hand, at the second office of education of Gyeonggi-do, which used volunteer service activities at the same place as the main office, 40 employees of the Gyeonggi-do Office of Education purchased pest control articles as indicated below for volunteer service activities.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

(2) As revealed by the above facts, in light of the fact that the second office, which participated in the pest control work at the same date and at the same place, purchased the quantity of pest control goods corresponding to 40 persons participating in the pest control work, it is difficult to recognize that the main office’s expenses incurred in purchasing the quantity of pest control goods exceeding 40 persons, are reasonable expenses, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

3. As to the general affairs of the second office building

A. The parties' assertion

(1) Plaintiff International Fund’s assertion

Whether the expenses of volunteers shall be compensated for or not shall be determined according to whether the expenses incurred appropriately in a specific case.

However, in this case, in view of the fact that a large number of volunteers were unable to assist the prevention and removal work, and that there was a classification of volunteers and the allocation of work areas for them when they came to be "place equipped with uniforms and equipment", and that there was no need to mobilize persons in an area km away from the number of white kilometers and to carry out the prevention work, it is difficult to view that the transportation cost incurred for the section until reaching the above "place equipped with uniforms and equipment" is within the reasonable scope.

Therefore, since the oil cost of school buses required to transport the employees of the 2nd office building does not correspond to the expenses within a reasonable scope, this part of the circumstances should be changed to 0 won.

(2) The defendant's assertion

The vehicle fuel cost paid to transport volunteers to the area damaged by oil pollution at the convening place is damages caused by the instant accident. Considering the number of persons participating in the pest control work at the second office building of the Gyeonggi-do Office of Education, and the distance of movement, the means of movement and the amount of expenditure are within an appropriate scope. Therefore, the total amount of the oil cost should be recognized as limited bonds

B. Determination

(1) The former Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage Guarantee Act defines "measures" as "all reasonable measures taken by the parties or any third party to prevent or mitigate oil pollution damage after the occurrence of the incident" as "the costs of the pollution damage" under Article 2 subparagraph 4.

Here, the cost of the prevention and removal measures can only be claimed within the extent of proximate causal relation with the oil pollution accident. Whether there is reasonableness or not should be determined by comprehensively taking into account the circumstances leading to the prevention and removal measures in question, the contents and period of the prevention and removal measures in question, the nature of the expenses paid, the profits acquired by the person liable to take prevention

(2) According to the aforementioned evidence, 200,000 won of the oil oil cost of the above school bus can be acknowledged as the oil cost of the above school bus of the government science high school mobilized by 40 employees belonging to the second office building located in the Gu Government-si to return to and from the 2nd office building located in the Gu Government-si. The expenses of such nature as the oil cost of the above public officials would not have been paid if they did not participate in the pest control work.

However, the amount of money equivalent to the above oil cost spent by the public officials belonging to the 2nd office building of the Gyeonggi-do Office of Education under the defendant to return to the Do government and the Do government, cannot be deemed as damages with proximate causal relation with the accident of this case. The reasons are as follows

① The public officials belonging to the second office building of the Gyeonggi-do Office of Education under the Defendant-do Office of Education are moving from the City/Do to the long distance in order to voluntarily participate in pest control work without compensation, not based on statutes or contractual obligations.

② As above, the above public officials did not participate in a fixed pest control work for a certain period, but have participated in the pest control work once a day and returned to Daejeon.

(3) Although the above public officials are not deemed to have been skilled human resources who participated in pest control operations, they cannot be deemed to have been included in the field conditions compared with local residents.

(4) Although it is possible to carry out pest control operations by using human resources capable of clearly and continuously mobilized while residing in a close distance in the field of pest control measures as above, there is no economic motive to mobilize by bearing transportation expenses for a day, even if it is so long as it has resided in a long distance and has a low level of skilledness.

⑤ In other words, the transportation cost of the above nature is the cost of the nature that the public official did not bear the obligation to take pollution response measures if the public official did not voluntarily find it at the scene of pollution response (such as the cost of purchasing the removal goods and the cost of meals, etc. shall be the cost normally required if the public official mobilized human resources of the same number as that of the above public official, but such transportation cost shall not be the same).

4. As to the Gyeonggi-do Office of Education and the Gyeonggi-do Office of Education

A. The parties' assertion

(1) Plaintiff International Fund’s assertion

With respect to the instant accident, the Plaintiff International Fund determined that the urgent stage until the end of December 2007, namely, the period during which the persons involved in the pest control operations are unable to strictly observe the technical rationality, and recognized the compensation for the relevant expenses without considering the technical necessity.

However, since January 2008, most of the above urgent steps were installed by the Korea Coast Guard and private pest control agencies, and organized pest control measures were conducted in most areas. Moreover, the part where volunteers were required to work is left at the bottom of oil, but it was already completed before the end of December 2007.

Therefore, in principle, the necessity of the work and technical rationality, and the rationality of the cost of the work should be recognized when it comes to the duty of pest control from January 2008. However, it is difficult to recognize the above points only by the materials submitted by the defendant.

(2) The defendant's assertion

① It is unreasonable to treat volunteers differently from their response work in December 2007 and their response work in January 2008 without any reasonable ground. ② The Egypan-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, the Suwon District Office of Education employees conducted response work on September 3, 2008, in a region where the pollution was particularly serious to the extent that the resumption of operation would have been achieved on September 3, 2008, and there was no adequate response work even on January 2008. ③ The Egypan-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, the office of education employees conducted response work, and ③ the Egypan-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, the office of education employees conducted the response work requires the response work of volunteers, so the total amount of each of the above expenses should be recognized as limited claims.

B. Determination

(1) The former Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage Guarantee includes "the costs of pollution response measures and additional losses or losses caused by pollution response measures" under Article 2 subparagraph 4 (b) of the former Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage Act, and Article 2 subparagraph 6 of the former Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage defines "any reasonable measures taken by a party or a third party to prevent or mitigate oil pollution damage after the incident occurred."

Here, the fact that "the person has taken reasonable measures to prevent or mitigate oil pollution damage" falls under the fact that the requirements for the right to claim compensation for damages concerning "expenses of pollution response measures" are met, and the person who claims compensation for damage in the above contents is responsible for proving the above.

In addition, the burden of proof as to the existence of limited claims in a lawsuit of demurrer against the judgment of assessment is in accordance with the principle of allocation of burden of proof in general civil procedure. Therefore, in the event that the plaintiff asserts that the part recognized as limited claims in the judgment of assessment did not constitute the defendant's limited claim, the defendant

(2) According to the evidence submitted by the Defendant, it is acknowledged that the employees of the Gyeonggi-do Office of Education, the Gyeonggi-do Office of Education, the employees of the Gyeonggi-do Office of Education, participated in the pest control work, and the extent of expenses incurred in the pest control work. Furthermore, the above evidence alone is insufficient to recognize that the pollution response measures implemented by the employees as part of volunteer work in January 2008 were reasonable, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

5. Sub-committee

Therefore, the defendant's subordinate limitation claims should be assessed in total in KRW 3,722,060 as shown in the following table.

A person shall be appointed.

VI. As to the limited claim of the Republic of Korea (Jurisdiction): Statistics Korea)

1. Basic facts

(a) Volunteer activities, etc. of the Statistics Korea under the defendant;

On December 17, 2007, the Statistics Korea under the defendant purchased 266 bits in total (230 bits for delivery of disaster situation rooms in the Taean-Gun Office, 36 bits for volunteer service activities) on 4,988,830 won in total, and purchased 150 bits on December 18, 2007, 79,200 won in total, 36 public officials of the Statistics Korea affiliated with the Statistics Korea, as part of volunteer service at the Hanan-gun, Taean-gun, Taean-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Yan-gun, 207, and delivered 230 bits to the Taean-Gun Office's disaster situation room as part of volunteer service.

B. Judgment on reporting and examining the Defendant’s limited claims

On May 18, 2012, the Defendant reported a total of KRW 9,868,00 as stated in the following table to the limitation court of liability limitation, with respect to the above volunteer service activities, etc., and on January 14, 2013, the limitation court rendered a judgment on the circumstance that the Defendant’s reported claims are assessed as subordinate limited claims as stated in the following table:

A person shall be appointed.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, significant facts, Gap evidence No. 31, Eul evidence No. 31-1 through 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to whether the period for filing a lawsuit has expired

A. The parties' assertion

(1) Plaintiff International Fund’s assertion

Since the Defendant reported the instant limited claim on May 18, 2012, which was three years after the date on which the damage occurred to the Defendant, on May 18, 2012, the period of filing a lawsuit under Article 11 of the former Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage Guarantee Act was expired.

The assessment amount of the limited claims reported by the defendant must be changed to 0 won.

(2) The defendant's assertion

Since the report of claims by the Defendant, a corporate body, in the Republic of Korea, divided into its affiliated agencies, is only for convenience, the Defendant’s report of claims on the same corporate personality is not subject to the time limit for filing a lawsuit, as long as the Defendant’s Republic of Korea has reported some claims before December 7, 2010 when three years elapsed from the date of the instant accident.

B. Determination

(1) Article 11 of the former Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage Guarantee Act provides that “The right to claim compensation against the owner of a ship under the provisions of Article 4(1) or (2) shall expire when no judicial claim is filed within 3 years from the date of the occurrence of the oil pollution damage.”

Meanwhile, even if a creditor has several claims for damages against the same debtor, so long as the claims for damages are separate claims different from the time when the claims for damages occurred and the cause thereof, they constitute separate subject matter of lawsuit (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Da25865, Sept. 20, 2007). A special case where a creditor has reported only a part of several claims for damages as limited claims.

Unless there are any circumstances, it shall not be deemed that the remaining claims for damages are included in a report or the period for filing a lawsuit is complied with.

(2) On December 20, 2007, when the Defendant’s employees affiliated with the Statistics Korea participate in pest control activities or deliver pest control goods using the aforementioned pest control goods, the damage equivalent to the exchange value of the above pest control goods was caused to the Defendant. The Defendant’s report on the limited claim for damages was submitted on May 18, 2012, which was three years after the date on which the damage occurred.

Therefore, the Defendant’s right to claim damages is deemed to have expired due to the lapse of the period for filing a lawsuit prior to the report of this part of the limited claim, and even if the Defendant Republic reported the right to claim damages separate from this part of the right to claim damages as limited bonds on or before December 7, 2010 after three years have elapsed since the date of the instant accident, it cannot be deemed that the effect of complying with the period for filing a lawsuit on this part of the right to claim damages arises or the period for filing a lawsuit on this part is proceeding.

Therefore, it is necessary to assess the defendant's junior limited claims in 00 won.

I. As to the claims under the jurisdiction of the Republic of Korea (Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism)

1. Basic facts

(a) Volunteer activities, etc. of the Gu Ministry of Culture and Tourism under the defendant;

① During the period from December 12, 2007 to December 21, 2007 after the instant accident, the former Ministry of Culture and Tourism and its affiliated agencies under the Defendant participated in the pest control work as part of volunteer work in the area of Chungcheongnam-Gun, and during the period from December 17, 2007 to December 23, 207, as a department in charge of tourism industry, conducted activities to investigate the actual condition of damage to the tourism industry in the area of Tae-Gun as a department in charge of tourism industry and to investigate the actual condition of damage to the tourism industry in the area of Tae-Gun, and the detailed details and relevant expenses are as listed below.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

② On April 8, 2008, the Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism granted KRW 5,00,000 national subsidies to the National Treasury’s project “the survey related to the Hexan oil oil spill accident” conducted between April 1, 2008 and April 30, 2008 by the Korea Culture and Tourism Institute from April 1, 2008 to in order to estimate damage caused to tourism in the area of Taean Island. ③ In addition, on June 26, 2008, the Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism granted KRW 231,00,000 to the project, which was held by the Korea Tourism Association from the Joan-gun-gun National Tourism Association from June 27, 2008 to June 28, 2008.

B. Judgment on reporting and assessing limited claims by the defendant

On June 15, 2012, the Defendant reported a total of KRW 268,455,980 as indicated below with respect to the above volunteer activities, etc. to the limitation court, and on January 14, 2013, the responsible court rendered a judgment on the circumstance that the Defendant’s reported claim is considered as subordinate limitation claim.

A person shall be appointed.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, significant facts, Gap evidence No. 32, Eul evidence No. 32-1 to 24, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to whether the period for filing a lawsuit has expired

A. The parties' assertion

(1) Plaintiff International Fund’s assertion

Since the Defendant reported the instant limited claim on May 18, 2012, which was three years after the date on which the damage occurred to the Defendant, the above limited claim was filed by the Defendant with limited claims, and the period of filing a lawsuit has expired for three years as stipulated in Article 11 of the former Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage Guarantee Act.

The assessment amount of the limited claims reported by the defendant must be changed to 0 won.

(2) The defendant's assertion

Since the report of claims by the Defendant, a corporate body, in the Republic of Korea, divided into its affiliated agencies, is only for convenience, the Defendant’s report of claims is not subject to the filing period, as long as the Defendant’s Republic of Korea, which has the same corporate personality, has reported some claims before December 7, 2010 when three years elapsed from the date of the instant accident.

B. Determination

(1) Article 11 of the former Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage Guarantee Act provides that “The right to claim compensation against the owner of a ship under the provisions of Article 4(1) or (2) shall expire when no judicial claim is filed within 3 years from the date of the occurrence of the oil pollution damage.”

Meanwhile, even if a creditor has several claims for damages against the same debtor, so long as the claims for damages are separate claims different from the time when the claims for damages occurred and the cause thereof, they constitute separate subject matter of lawsuit (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Da25865, Sept. 20, 2007). A special case where a creditor has reported only a part of several claims for damages as limited claims.

Unless there are any circumstances, it shall not be deemed that the remaining claims for damages are included in a report or the period for filing a lawsuit is complied with.

(2) As to this case's lawsuit period in this case, the health team, the employees belonging to the Gu of the Ministry of Culture and Tourism who participated in pest control activities using the above pest control items, or engaged in investigation into the actual condition of damage to the tourism industry and restoration support activities on December 2007, which were punished, the damage equivalent to the expenses required for each of the pertinent activities, and the organization that received subsidies from the Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism from the defendant as to the time when the project was completed after the execution of the subsidy (not later than April 2008 and June 2008, unless there are special circumstances). The defendant's claim report on each of the above claims for damages was submitted on June 15, 2012, which was three years after the date on which the damage occurred.

Therefore, each of the above claims for damages by the Defendant is deemed to have expired due to the lapse of the period for filing a lawsuit prior to the report of this part of the claims for damages, and even if the Defendant Republic reported a claim for damages separate from this part of the claims for damages with limited claims on or before December 7, 2010 after three years have elapsed since the date of the accident of this case, it cannot be deemed that the effect of complying with the period for filing a lawsuit on this part of the claims for damages or that the period for filing a lawsuit on

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant's subordinate limitation claims should be 0 won.

H, Conclusion

Therefore, since the part of the judgment of this case concerning the defendants' limited claims is all unfair, it is so decided as per Disposition by changing the assessment amount of the defendants' limited claims to the corresponding amount stated in the "Report No. 1" and the "Revised Amount of Assessment No. 1" as stated in the "Report No. 1".

The presiding judge and assistant judge;

Judges Gangseo-Appellee

Judges Lee Sung-hoon

1) The Plaintiffs recognize the Defendant’s limited amount of claims as the same amount as the assessment amount with respect to the remaining items except the rent for chartered buses.

section 1.

2) On the other hand, as seen in relation to the reported claim under this part of this part, the Cheongnam-do (competent: the Cheongnam Maritime Science High School) is the limited creditor list, the sequences.

There are claims of KRW 4,357,600, total amount reported by 116106, and the above claims are within the scope of each practical training ship on December 15, 2007 and January 2, 2008.

expenses incurred in relation to this section are separate claims, the date and time of occurrence of which are different from the reported claim.