[1] Whether the part of the Korean Maritime Safety Tribunal's ruling on the cause of the marine accident and the part of the Korean Maritime Safety Tribunal's ruling on the dismissal of the Korean Maritime Safety Tribunal's request is subject to the lawsuit for cancellation of the ruling under Article 74 (1) of the Act

[2] The case affirming the ruling of disciplinary action by the Central Maritime Tribunal ordering the captain to suspend his/her business for three months, who caused the failure of operation due to the failure to verify the operation status of the navigational action by neglecting his/her boundaries under drinking and finding the other vessel late later, and caused the failure of operation due to the failure in advance

[1] A lawsuit against a judgment rendered by the Korean Maritime Safety Tribunal under Article 74 (1) of the Act on the Investigation and Inquiry of Marine Accidents shall have the nature of a lawsuit against cancellation of an administrative disposition, and thus, the contents of the judgment subject to a lawsuit shall also have the effect of forming and limiting the rights and obligations of the people, such as the exercise of public authority by an administrative agency. However, the part of the judgment to find the cause of a marine accident which finds the facts of the cause of the marine accident in the judgment shall not be deemed an administrative disposition because it does not have the effect of forming or confirming the rights and obligations of the people in itself, unlike a disciplinary decision or a recommendation ruling on the person involved in the marine accident, and therefore, it shall not be the subject of a lawsuit against cancellation under the above legal provisions. Further, the lawsuit against cancellation of the judgment shall not be the subject of a lawsuit against cancellation of the judgment by the Korean Maritime Safety Tribunal itself, and it shall not be subject to

[2] The case affirming the ruling of disciplinary action by the Central Maritime Tribunal ordering the captain to suspend his/her business for three months by taking into account all the circumstances, such as negligence and damage to other ships, etc., which led to the failure of operation at the time of the accident, which led to the failure of operation at the time of the accident, although the captain caused the harmful accident due to the failure of operation at the time of the accident, and caused the failure of operation at the time of the accident.

[1] Articles 5, 58, and 74 of the former Marine Accidents Inquiry Act (amended by Act No. 5809 of Feb. 5, 199); Articles 2 and 19 of the Administrative Litigation Act / [2] Articles 5 and 74 of the former Marine Accidents Inquiry Act (amended by Act No. 5809 of Feb. 5, 199); Articles 2 and 19 of the Administrative Litigation Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 91Hu10 delivered on December 10, 1991 (Gong1992, 526), Supreme Court Decision 92Hu55 delivered on June 11, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 2032), Supreme Court Decision 93Hu182 delivered on June 24, 1994 (Gong1994Ha, 210), Supreme Court Decision 93Hu137 delivered on February 28, 1995 (Gong195Sang, 1492)

Plaintiff

The Director of the Central Maritime Safety Tribunal (before changing the name: the Director of Central Maritime Safety Tribunal)

The Korean Maritime Safety Tribunal Ruling No. 98-22 of the Central Maritime Safety Tribunal on December 28, 1998

Among the lawsuits of this case, the part demanding the cancellation of the causes of the marine accident of the Korean Maritime Safety Tribunal No. 98-22 of Dec. 28, 1998 and the part demanding the cancellation of the causes of the marine accident of this case shall be dismissed, respectively. The remaining claims of the plaintiff shall be dismissed. The costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff

1. The occurrence of the marine accident of this case and the details of adjudication;

At least 04:45 on March 28, 1998, the instant vessel, which is a vessel transporting wastes under the gross tonnage of 82.95t, loaded approximately 1,100 tons of wastes, and sailed at a waste dumping place on the high seas after departing from the port of the US-U.S. in the US-U.S. Y. Do, 05:20 on the same day, the instant vessel, which is a vessel transporting wastes under the gross tonnage of 82.95t, was in collision with another vessel, which is a vessel with the gross tonnage of 12t on the 2math of the north-do 2000 northwest-do, and caused two seafarers to injure the instant vessel, which requires four weeks and two weeks of treatment (hereinafter referred to as the “the instant sea”).

At the time of the accident, the Plaintiff, as the captain of the instant vessel, was on board with six seafarers and was on duty on the port. Nonparty 1, as the captain of the other vessel, was on board with two seafarers and returned to a military port.

On December 28 of the same year, with respect to the marine accident of this case, the Central Maritime Safety Tribunal (the Central Maritime Safety Tribunal before the amendment: the collision occurred when the vessel of this case neglected the boundaries on the sea route and finds the other party late later, and the other party's course was withdrawn from the operation of the steering gear during the nearest distance. However, the other party's side does not actively take action to avoid collision and take action to avoid collision. The other party's 3rd mate's service is suspended for 2 months. The court rendered a ruling of this case that "the other party's 3rd mate's service is reprimanded."

The above facts do not conflict between the parties, or are recognized by each of the records of the written ruling adopted and investigated in the pleading of this case, the statement of the plaintiff's preparation and the report on navigation, the inquiry report of September 3, 1998 by the Incheon District Obstruction Inquiry Agency, and the inquiry report of the investigator of the Incheon District Obstruction Inquiry Agency with Nonparty 1.

2. Judgment on the cancellation of the adjudication to find the cause and the rejection of the investigator’s request

A lawsuit against a judgment rendered by the Korean Maritime Safety Tribunal under Article 74 (1) of the Act on the Investigation of and Inquiry into Marine Accidents has the nature of a lawsuit against cancellation of an administrative disposition, and thus, the contents of the judgment subject to a lawsuit should also have the effect of forming and limiting the rights and obligations of the people, such as the exercise of public authority by an administrative agency. In order to find the factual basis of the cause of a marine accident in the judgment, unlike a disciplinary decision or a recommendation decision on the person involved in the marine accident, it cannot be deemed an administrative disposition because it does not have the effect of forming or confirming the rights and obligations of the people, and thus, it cannot be the subject of a lawsuit against cancellation of a judgment under the above legal provision (see Supreme Court Decision 93Do137, Feb. 28

In addition, the above lawsuit seeking the rejection of the investigator's claim is not subject to the Korean Maritime Safety Tribunal's ruling itself but subject to the Korean Maritime Safety Tribunal's ruling. Thus, it is not subject to the Korean Maritime Safety Tribunal's ruling's ruling.

Therefore, the part that seeks the cancellation of the cause of the marine accident of this case among the rulings of this case and the part that seeks the dismissal of the involved investigator's claims shall be deemed unlawful as a revocation suit filed with respect to matters not subject to the revocation suit.

3. Judgment on whether a disciplinary decision is lawful

A. As to the defendant's assertion that the part of the disciplinary decision of this case (hereinafter "the disciplinary decision of this case") is lawful, the plaintiff was sailing along the right side of the sea route while thoroughly taking the private boundary at the time of the marine accident of this case. However, although the other ship navigating the sea route of the open port of this case but it is difficult to discover such navigation by lighting light on deck while navigating the navigation route of the other ship, it is difficult for the other ship to find the navigation, etc., and the captain, non-party 1, etc. of this case entered the ship from the right side of the ship of this case from the right side of the ship of this case to prevent the course of the ship of this case by entering the ship of this case from the right side of the port side of the ship of this case, while Non-party 1, etc. neglected to take the private boundary of the ship of this case, the disciplinary decision of this case was rejected by recognizing the fact of

B. According to the evidence adopted by the court of first instance, the plaintiff was at least 02:30 on the date of the accident, and the plaintiff was at least 10,000,000 on the 1st 5th 2nd 1st 1st 2nd 8th 1st 2nd 8th 2nd 8th 2nd 1st 9th 2nd 1st 9th 2nd 9th 1st 9th 1st 2nd 9th 1st 9th 2nd 9th 1st 2nd 9th 2nd 1st 9th 2nd 9th 1st 9th 1st 2nd 2nd 9th 1st 2nd 2nd 9th 1st 2nd 2nd 9th 1st 2nd 3th 9th 2nd 1st 2nd 3th 2nd 9th 2nd 1st 2nd 3th 2nd 9th 2nd 3th 3rd 2nd 3rd 3

Therefore, even if there was no problem between correction and the operation of the rash of the vessel of this case at the time of the accident, the plaintiff tried to find out the other vessel coming from the front of the course and immediately withdraw the give-way navigation by neglecting the boundaries, but the situation of its operation was not verified in advance, so the plaintiff caused the accident of this case due to negligence that did not avoid the safe port at the time of the accident, which caused the failure of operation at the time of the accident. Thus, there is no error of finding any error in the facts of the disciplinary ruling of this case to the same purport. In addition, considering all the above negligence of the plaintiff and all the circumstances such as the damage of the other vessel, it cannot be said that the disciplinary ruling of this case ordering the suspension of business for three months against the plaintiff is too harsh to the plaintiff, and thus, the claim for revocation of the disciplinary action of this case based on the argument against this cannot be accepted.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, among the lawsuits in this case, the part that seeks to revoke the cause of the judgment in this case and the part that seeks to dismiss the claim of an investigator involved in the case, shall be dismissed, and the remaining claim for revocation of the disciplinary ruling shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the losing party, as so decided by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)