Whether a company that is a seafarer dispatch agent is in the position of an employer of a seafarer dispatched;

If the non-party company and crew dispatch agency contract was concluded and the non-party company acts on behalf of the non-party company for the recruitment and delivery of crew members to board the ship of this case, all the rights and responsibilities relating to the navigation of the ship shall belong to the non-party company, which is the owner of the ship, and thus, the crew's employer

Article 756 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff 1 and eight others

The same Shipping Corporation

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1 the amount of 197,383,053 won, 5,000 won to the plaintiff 3,4, and 5,000 won, 2,000,000 won each to the plaintiff 6, and 7 respectively, 50,000 won and 50,000 won each to the plaintiff 8, and 9 respectively from January 31, 1982 to the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case from January 31, 1982 to the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, 5 percent per annum from the next day to the full payment date, and 25 percent per annum.

The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant and a declaration of provisional execution.

1. From June 17, 1981 to June 17, 1981, Plaintiff 1 was on board as the crew of Nos. 2 (Medical Certificate Nos. 7 (accident Report), 5-2 (Investigation Report), 3 (Investigation Report), 4 (Statement Statement), 5 (Medical Certificate), and 4 (Statement Statement) to be duly formed by the testimony of the witness Kim Jong-hwan, and the whole purport of pleadings Nos. 2 (Statement Statement) and 1 (CAR AE 1) (hereinafter referred to as the "ship of this case"), while working as the second class mate on Jan. 30, 1982, Plaintiff 1 was on board the vessel of this case and was on board the vessel of this case, and was on board the vessel of this case on Jan. 30, 1982, 191, 200 tons of a lidr 1,000 tons of a lidr lidr 1,000 lids of the vessel of this case, and was under 100 m.

2. The plaintiffs asserted that when the non-party, who is the defendant's employee who operated the flag of the period No. 4 of this case installed in the vessel of this case, had properly connected the lids of the above vessel of this case, the plaintiff 1 had the duty of care to safely operate the 1st lids of the above 9th 8th lids and to prevent the 1st lids of this case, and even though the plaintiff 1 had the duty of care to safely operate the 4th lids of the above 4th lids, the plaintiff 1 had the duty of care to prevent the 1st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st.

Therefore, as to whether the non-party is the defendant's employee, the non-party company is not believed to be the non-party 5 Eul's 4 and 6-6's statement as if it were consistent with the above defendant's employee, and some testimonys for witnesses are not trusted in light of evidence emitted after Gap's 9-1, 2 through 13-1, and 2's evidence, and there is no other evidence to recognize otherwise. Rather, the non-party 1 company was an agent of the non-party 4-1 and 5's evidence (the name of the crew and its contents), Eul's 6-1 (employment Contract), Eul's 1-1 (Agency Contract), Eul's 2-1 (Evidence Contract), and the non-party 2-1's 8's 3-1 and 8-2's 9's 3-1 and 8-2's 3-1's 3-2's 3-2's 3-1's 3-1's 3's 's 1's 3's 's 's 's '.

According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant company entered into the non-party company's seafarer dispatch agency contract with the non-party company and arranged the recruitment and delivery of crew members to board the ship of this case on behalf of the non-party company, and all rights and responsibilities concerning the navigation of the ship of this case belong to the non-party company, which is the owner of the ship of this case. Thus,

3. Accordingly, the plaintiffs' claim of this case based on the premise that the defendant company is the employer of the non-party is unnecessary to judge the amount of damages. Thus, all of the plaintiffs' claim of this case is dismissed, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Park Young-sik (Presiding Judge)