In a case where the State exercised its right to indemnity against Byung et al., the chairperson of the corporation Eul, who operated the Sewol ferry in accordance with Article 42 (2) of the Special Act on Remedy for Damage Caused by the April 16 Sewol Ferry Disaster and Support Therefor, pursuant to Article 42 (2) of the same Act, the case holding that Eul bears its duty to compensate the victims due to the sinking of the Sewol Ferry as joint tortfeasor under Article 401-2 of the Commercial Act, Article 760 and Article 750 of the Civil Act, as joint tortfeasors of the Civil Act, and Eul's heir et al. succeeded to the above obligation to compensate for damages, since Byung et al. is "a person who caused the sinking of the Sewol Ferry Disaster" and "a person who provided the cause for the sinking of the April 16 Sewol Ferry Disaster" under Article 42 (2) of the Special Act on Remedy for Damage Caused by the April 16 Sewol Ferry Disaster,

Pursuant to the "Special Act on Relief and Support for Damage Caused by the April 16 Sewol Ferry Disaster" (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), the State is a matter of exercising the right to indemnity against Eul, the chairperson of Gap corporation operating the Sewol ferry, who is the heir of Eul corporation operating the Sewol ferry, pursuant to Article 42 (2) of the Act on the Support for Damage Caused by the Sewol Ferry Disaster.

In light of the language and text of Article 6(1) and Article 42(2) of the Act on Assistance to the Rescue and Relief of Sewol Ferrys and the systematic relevance with the provisions for damages, harmony with the entire legal system, etc., it should be interpreted that “any person who caused the sinking of the Sewol Ferrys” is not “any person related to the sinking of the Sewol Ferrys” but “any person who bears the duty of compensation pursuant to the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, such as the Civil Act, on the ground that there is proximate causal relation between the sinking of the Sewol Ferrys and the sinking of the Sewol Ferrys” and “the person who provides the victims with the duty of care for the prevention of the sinking of the Sewol Ferrys and the duty of care for the prevention of the sinking of the Sewol Ferrys” as well as “the person who provides the captain with the duty of care for the prevention of the sinking of the Sewol Ferrys and the duty of care for the prevention of the Sewol Ferrys and the duty of care for the prevention of the disaster.”

Articles 10, 34(2) and (6), 36(3), 5, 6(1), 18, and 42(2) of the Special Act on Remedies, etc. for Damage Caused by the April 16 Sewol Ferry Disaster; Articles 210, 389(3), 401, and 401-2 of the Commercial Act; Articles 750, 756, and 760 of the Civil Act; Article 2(1) of the State Compensation Act; Article 66(3) and (6) of the Framework Act on the Management of Disasters and Safety; Article 2 of the former Framework Act on Disaster and Safety (Amended by Act No. 12844, Nov. 19, 2014); Article 4, 13(1), and (3) of the Disaster Relief Act; Article 4 of the former Marine Transportation Act (Amended by Act No. 12841, Apr. 12, 2014>

Republic of Korea (Government Law Firm Corporation, Attorneys Han Han-hun et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1 and six others (Law Firm Spah et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

November 15, 2019

1. The plaintiff's lawsuit against GHI is dismissed in relation to the plaintiff's debtor's debtor's debtor's debtor's debtor's transferee of the non-party 1's lawsuit.

2. The Plaintiff, Defendant 1, Defendant 1, Defendant 2, Defendant 2, Defendant 57, 150,328, Defendant 3, and Defendant 3, Defendant 57,251,694,639, and each of them shall pay 5% per annum from November 29, 2018 to January 10, 2020, and 12% per annum from the following day to the date of full payment.

3. The Plaintiff’s respective claims against Defendant 4, Defendant A2, and Defendant 7, and all remaining claims against Defendant 1, Defendant 2, and Defendant 3 are dismissed.

4. Of the costs of lawsuit, the part arising between the Plaintiff and the Defendant 4, the Defendant Company AB Holdings, the administrator of the Defendant Rehabilitation Obligor Company AB who is the administrator of Nonparty 1’s lawsuit taking over the lawsuit (GHI), and the Defendant 7, among the part arising between the Plaintiff and the Defendant 1, Defendant 2, and Defendant 3, the Plaintiff bears 70% of the part arising between the Plaintiff and the Defendant 1, Defendant 2, and Defendant 3, respectively.

5. Paragraph 2 can be provisionally executed.

The Plaintiff shall jointly and severally pay the amount of KRW 187,813,476,185 and the amount of KRW 15% per annum from September 1, 2015 to the delivery date of a copy of the complaint in this case from September 1, 2015 to the delivery date of the copy of the complaint in this case, and the amount of KRW 46,953,369,046 and its amount of KRW 15% per annum from September 1, 2015 to the delivery date of the copy of the complaint in this case. Defendant 7 shall jointly and severally with the above Defendants to the above Defendants to the delivery date of a copy of the complaint in this case from September 1, 2015 to the delivery date of the copy of the complaint in this case, and the amount of KRW 5% per annum from the next day to the payment date.

Ⅰ. Facts of recognition

1. Establishment and operation of clean marine transportation;

A. The Cheongwon Shipping Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Cheongwon Shipping”) is a company established on February 24, 199 for the purpose of marine passenger and cargo transport business. The major shareholders of Cheongcheon Shipping are Defendant Rehabilitation Debtor Co., Ltd., the managers of Dawon Shipping Co., Ltd. (GHI) (GHI) (formerly changed: 39.4%) (hereinafter “former Termination”), Nonparty 2 Notes 1) (1.6%) (1.6%) (hereinafter “Defendant Dowon Holdings”), Defendant 17.1%) (hereinafter “7.1%) and major shareholders of the Defendantcheon Shipping are 18.4% (group name), Defendant 18.21(GHI) (formerly changed; hereinafter “Defendant 39.4%”), Defendant 45% (former) and 19.2% (former’s affiliated companies, 42.81%) and 19.3% (former Media Co., Ltd., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant 14.25%) and Defendant 41.5% (former.25%).

B. The Cheongbu Shipping held five passenger ships as of 2013, Mana, (name 1 omitted), (name 2 omitted), (name 3 omitted), and (name 3 omitted), and (name 32 billion won in sales in 2013.

C. The Cheongd Shipping constituted the planning and management team, maritime team, logistics team, passenger business team, and Jeju regional headquarters, Han River regional headquarters, Han River Business Headquarters, and business office under the control of the president Nonparty 3, the representative director, Nonparty 2, the executive director, and the following. Nonparty 5 of the logistics team leader, Nonparty 6 of the logistics team leader, the deputy head of the logistics team took charge of the affairs of attracting cargo or loading cargo to the ship along with the loading company, and Nonparty 7 of the maritime affairs team leader and Nonparty 8 of the maritime affairs team leader took charge of the affairs of recruitment of ship personnel, safety education, etc., the entry into and departure from the ship, and the affairs of safe operation of the ship.

2. Introduction, expansion, remodeling, etc. of the Sewol ferry;

(a) the introduction of subparagraph (a) above;

In 199, the government decided that other shipping companies enter the above service route by inserting the Haba (6,322t, 1989) from Incheon to Jeju 199, and that other shipping companies will enter the above service route in order to replace the Kaba passenger ship at the time when the age of the Obae is different from that of the 1999, the government decided that the Kaba passenger ship will be put into the above service route.

on March 15, 201, 201 with Japan (name 1 omitted), concluded a sales contract for the purchase of Boan-Ann-do (dried in 6,586t, 1994) that had been operating in Japan coast with Japan, and on October 8, 2012, imported the said ship on October 22, 2012, and registered the name of the ship to the Incheon Regional Maritime Port Office as the name of the ship, to the name of the ship to the "Saun-gu, Incheon Metropolitan City", and to the port of registry to the " Incheon Metropolitan City."

(b) Extension, renovation, etc. of the Sewol ferry;

1) In order to increase the passenger room and cargo loading space in the Sewol ferry from October 2012 to February 2013, Cheongju Shipping removed the part of the line (three stories) in the Sejong-gun, Co., Ltd., Ltd. (C. C.CHIPBLINDING CODDDD) from the third floor in the Sejong-gun, and made the space extended by 2.8m in the line (4 stories), 5.6m in the deck, 1.6m in the ceiling (1.6m in the ceiling) into two floors, the lower floor was changed into the passenger room, the upper floor was changed into the passenger room, and the removal and extension work was carried out by Defendant 2, such as the removal of the line (vehicle entry) 40t in the on-site light of the players, etc.

2) As a result of the calculation of the completion restoration 4th week after the extension/renovation work in the Sewol ferry, the gross tonnage in the Sewol ferry is calculated as follows: (a) the gross tonnage in the Sewol ferry is 239t increase; (b) the gross weight in the light weight in the light weight in the light weight in the light of 187t increase; and (c) the weight in the weight in the weight in the light of 116 persons on board; and (d) the weight in the weight in the aggregate 51cm. Therefore, in order to implement safety navigation while maintaining stability while maintaining stability by lowering the weight in the Sewol ferry, it is inevitable to reduce the existing load in the aggregate to increase 1,448t, and instead, to increase the horizontal figure in the aggregate of 1,077t cargo, the Minister of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries has obtained approval from the Korean fleet 7).

In addition, the weight of 30t (lap 40t, close 10t) was added to the on-site of the player at the time of removal of the car lamps, or the 30t weight was not reduced on the port side, which led to the deepening of the left and right imbalance, so that the restoration has a significant impact.

3) After completing the extension and remodeling construction of the Sewol ferry as above, the Cheongbu Shipping commenced the operation of the Sewol ferry from Incheon to Jeju on March 14, 2013 after obtaining authorization from the Incheon Regional Maritime Port Authority to revise the maritime passenger transport business plan.

3. The condition at the time of departure from the port;

(a) The volume of cargo loaded and loaded-in quantity;

1) A shipowner shall maintain the restitution of a ship and submit data concerning the restitution of the ship and obtain approval from the Minister of Oceans and Fisheries (State 8).

According to the data of restitution approved by the Minister of Oceans and Fisheries, it is necessary to load 6,825t total tonnage (i.e., 6,586t + 239t) goods weight tonnage of the Sewol ferry, which can be loaded as much as possible, is 3,794t and 1,077t total weight of the cargo which can be loaded while maintaining restitution. Thus, in order to load 1,077t cargo with a maximum of 1,077t load load line while maintaining 6.264m of the load line, it is necessary to load 1,694.8t, fuel oil, 560.9t, and 290.9t of sea water.

However, since the expenses, such as the oil price per paragraph (1) of the Sewol ferry route from the Incheon to the Jeju Island Line, approximately KRW 60 million were required, Nonparty 2, Nonparty 4, Nonparty 7, and Nonparty 8 additionally installed 785 cargoing (D-Ring) which is a cargo loading device, such as a vehicle in the Sejong Line, from February 2013 to March 2014, in order to escape the enemy from being loaded with the greatest number of cargo.

Nonparty 2 urged Nonparty 4, Nonparty 7, Nonparty 5, and Nonparty 8, etc. to incur a large volume of cargo, and Nonparty 5 demanded Nonparty 6, Nonparty 6, and Nonparty 6 demanded Nonparty 9 to load a large number of cargo from the site leader of the Korea Shipping Co., Ltd., Ltd., which was in charge of loading and anchoringing the cargo of the Cheongdon Shipping (hereinafter “Dadon”).

2) A shipowner shall prepare his/her own guidelines for loading and anchoring of cargo, which determine the method of loading and anchoring of cargo prior to loading or anchoring of cargo on a vessel; and shall obtain approval from the Minister of Oceans and Fisheries; and shall comply with the approved guidelines for loading and anchoring of cargo in cases of loading vehicles and cargo; and shall take necessary safety measures as prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries; and shall comply with the authorized vehicle loading and unloading level when loading a vehicle on a Kapeta vessel; and shall also follow the approved vehicle loading level when loading a vehicle on a Kapeta vessel. In addition, containers loaded on a vessel and used for transporting cargo shall be type approval, verification, and safety

According to the Regulations on Operation and Management of the Sewol Ferry approved by the Minister of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, the Sewol ferry may load only the "10 feet container" and according to the vehicle loading level and cargo landing level attached to the above Operation and Management Regulations, ① up to 54 vehicles shall load at Choke decks, but at the time of vertical loading, the container shall load a longer part of the container with a locker installed on the floor, the front and rear part of the container shall be installed with a locker, the locker shall be fixed to the bottom of the container, the front and rear part of the container shall be fixed to the bottom of the container, and in the case of the second part, the 2nd part of the container shall be fixed in the same manner as in the case of the first part of the container, the 2nd part of the container loaded at a horizontal level shall be connected to the 1st part of the container, and the vehicle shall be connected to the first half and rear part of the cargo to the 4th part of the container, and the vehicle shall be connected to the first and rear part of the container.

However, it was impossible to load a large volume of cargo due to the increase in the space where the cargo is to be loaded, as prescribed by the regulations, Nonparty 5 instructed Nonparty 6 to the effect that “a large number of cargo is loaded with a space to the maximum extent,” and Nonparty 6 demanded Nonparty 9 to the effect that “a container to load a large number of cargo is cut off only by combining two parts of a container with a large number of cargo.”

On April 15, 2014, Non-Party 9 loaded a container on the Scam 15 a week of 8 feet size different from that approved on April 15, 2014. At the upper end of Ccambroke deck, a locker (container) was installed in conformity with the container of 10 feet size, so that the container of 8 feet size could only be fixed. However, the container of 8 feet size could be stored on the floor, which did not meet the container locking equipment and size installed on the floor, was stuffed in a way that would put the upper end into general proton, and the container was loaded on the Dcam (1st floor) cargo partitions and Eck ( underground) cargo partitions without the locking device installed, and then stuffed only in a way that puts the upper part into general proton.

3) As a result, on April 15, 2014, the Sewol ferry was loaded only 761.2t, fuel oil 150.6t, and 259t, which reduced a total of 1,375.8t, including flat 93.6t, fuel oil 410.2t, fuel oil 150.6t, and clean 259t, and on Choc (2nd floor), 45 container containers and general cargo, etc. on the Choc (2nd floor) deck, 30 vehicles and 70 vehicles in Choc (2nd floor), 28 truck, 1 truck, 29 truck 1, 37 cargo loaded in Dhoc (1st floor), 17 cargo loaded in Dhoc (2nd floor), and 24 vehicles, 29 vehicles, 327 cargo loaded in Dhoc (1st floor), 15 cargo loaded in general cargo space, 17 cargo loaded in cargo space, 27 1, 37 cargo loaded and 25.7 cargo spaces.7

(b) Status of education and training of seafarers;

According to the Regulations on Operation Management of Cheongd Marine Transportation, safety management officers shall establish and implement an education plan for ship-related employees at least once a quarter, and the captain shall establish and implement an education plan for ship personnel based on the education plan of the person in charge of safety management, and conduct emergency training in preparation for emergencies at once every ten days, and the “marine life safety training and response training” shall be conducted every ten days, and the “marine life safety training and response training” shall be conducted every six days, and the “marine life safety training and response training” shall be conducted every six months, the outline of action in the event of life accidents, three months, and the “training against oil outflow” shall be conducted every month.

However, the captain of the Sewol ferry, Nonparty 10, Nonparty 116, and Nonparty 17, did not conduct safety education and marine accident training for ordinary seafarers. In response to the joint inspection around February 2014, the captain of the Sewol ferry performed only once the “fire extinguishing and emergency training”, which was one of the “marine life safety training and emergency training.” In addition, Nonparty 7 and Nonparty 8, who was the safety manager of the Sewol ferry, did not properly manage and supervise it.

(c) Failure to conduct the safety inspection before departure;

The captain and the head of an agency of a passenger ship shall conduct a safety inspection prior to departure, including cargo loading conditions, etc., and the captain shall prepare a safety inspection report on the passenger ship prior to departure (hereinafter referred to as "safety inspection report prior to departure") and obtain written confirmation from the operation manager.

An operations manager shall perform the duties of “verification of whether cargo loaded exceeds the limit of cargo,” “Guidance on the safe operation of passenger ships, and verification of the status of implementation of the operation management rules of the operators of coastal passenger transportation services,” etc., and shall be faithful to his duties and guidance for safe operation.

In addition, the operator shall confirm the details of the safety inspection report prepared and submitted by the captain before departure from the port, conduct safety inspection of the passenger ship before departure from the port, and record and maintain the core contents of the safety inspection report after departure from the port, such as information provision, inspection details, and cadastral guidance. If there is any defect as a result of the inspection, the operator shall leave the port after corrective measures are taken.

The captain of the Sewol ferry, Nonparty 10, and Nonparty 11 delegated Nonparty 12, a three-class mate, to Nonparty 12 without checking the usual cargo loading status, etc., and Nonparty 12, without checking the cargo loading status, etc., indicated in the safety inspection report form prior to departure to the port as “whoho-ho,” and submitted it to Nonparty 13 on April 15, 201 after indicating the vessel’s hull status, engine status, communications status, cargo loading status, vessel draft status, etc. under the safety inspection report form prior to departure.

At a wharf, Nonparty 13 confirmed only the load draft line indicated on the hull, signed a safety inspection report prior to departure without verifying the type, weight, loading, and fixed-age of cargo, etc., and returned it to Nonparty 12, thereby leaving the port.

4. Departure from the port of Sewol ferry; and

On April 15, 2014, around 18:30 on April 15, 2014, it was scheduled to depart from Jeju-do, but on the same day, the date of entry into force of the corrective caution report due to the opening of a dog at around 17:35 on the same day, delay in departure from Jeju-do. On the same day, the corrective caution report was cancelled at around 20:35 on the same day, and at around 21:00 on the same day, a total of 476 students, etc. of ○ High School who will go on board

5. The uniform of Sewol ferry.

At around 08:48 on April 16, 2014, when Non-party 14, who had been on duty and had been on duty at the sea near 1.8 Emb., Jindo-gun, Jindo-gun, Jindo-gun, for the first time on duty, had maintained approximately 140∑ in the course of course under the supervision of Non-Party 12, and had attempted to 145∑ in the direction of 145∑ in the direction of 145∑.

In the process, as described in paragraph (a) of the above 3-A, unrefilled cargo was rapidly cut to the left side of the ship, and the restoration power was lost to the port side, and approximately 30·49:13 on April 16, 2014, the cargo was moved to the right side of the ship at around 08:52:01 on April 16, 201, and around 08:49:13 on April 16, 2014, at sea and around 125.96492 on April 16, 201, while the cargo was sentenced to the original sentence to the right side of the ship at around 08:52:01 above 34.160717 and around 125:9608 on around 1208.

Detailedly 09: 09:4°35·02 around 09: 02: 52.9∑ 52.9∑, 09: 54·36: 54°4: around 09:44: around 09:44: 09: 09:4: 54.9∑, 09: 09:4: 09:4: 52: 55.3∑, 09:4: 09: 26: 5.4.4; 09: 09: 27.4: 08: 38.4: 07: 09: 07.45: 03: 03: 62: 09: 47.4: 07: 45: 03: 61.2; 09: 61.27: 47: 47; 69: 429: 429: 446: 7: 7: 29446: 7: 294444.26:44444:44444:44444.24

6. Non-execution of measures to rescue passengers by the captain and crew of the Sewol ferry, and escape of the ship.

On April 16, 2014, the Sewol ferry turned over to the right side of the ship, and moved to the direction of the ship, and around 08:52 on April 16, 2014, the captain, non-party 10 and the crew (non-party 15, non-party 16, non-party 2, non-party 17, non-party 18, and non-party 19) who was in the ship's room (the first mate, non-party 15, non-party 16, the second mate, non-party 17, and the non-party 18, and the non-party 15 requested the Jeju Marine Transportation Control Center to rescue the situation of the pilot who was in the non-party 12 and the non-party 14 to ascertain the accident situation.

At around 08:58 on the same day, Nonparty 10 instructed passengers to broadcast “to wait in the ship by suffering life jackets” to Nonparty 17, and immediately thereafter, Nonparty 20 started the waiting broadcast on board the Sewol ferry.

세월호가 전도 직후 이미 좌현으로 약 30° 정도 기울고, 선수 갑판에 있던 컨테이너 등의 화물들이 좌현으로 쏠려 무너져 내리는 상황이었으므로 소외 10과 선원들은 평소 복원력이 나빴던 세월호가 곧 전복되어 침몰될 수 있다고 예상할 수 있었다. 또한 소외 10과 선원들은 같은 날 09:13경, 09:21경, 09:23경 진도 연안해상교통관제센터(이하 ‘진도 VTS’라 한다) 및 진도 VTS의 구조요청을 받고 세월호 부근을 항해 중이던 (선박명 4 생략)호와 교신을 하면서 경비정과 인근 선박들이 구조를 위해 오고 있다는 사실을 알게 되었고, 승객들의 퇴선을 유도해 줄 것을 요청받았다.

However, the non-party 10 and the crew did not take any measures to rescue the passengers, such as the evacuation order and the escape order of passengers, and the escape order, and let the non-party 21 and the non-party 20 continue to have the waiting broadcast on board, and did not respond to the communications from the Jindo VTS after around 09:37.

On the other hand, the head of the Sewol ferry 22 and the crew members of the engine (the non-party 23, the non-party 24, the non-party 25, the non-party 26, the non-party 27, and the non-party 28) from 09:06 to 3rd in the corridor in order to rescue the passengers, waiting for only the rescue of the life jackets by gathering the life jackets on the third floor. At around 09:38, the old life jackets of the maritime police was approaching the Sewol ferry. After leaving the Sewol ferry as they were left, the non-party 22 and the crew members of the engine (the non-party 23, the non-party 25, the non-party 26, the non-party 27 and the non-party 2

At around 09:39, the non-party 10 and the crew, who were on the pilothouse, immediately left the ship, and 123 passengers on the Maritime Police at around 09:46, were on board the Sewol Ferry.

7. Response and rescue failure of the maritime police;

(a) The mobilization and arrival of 123 households;

The Sinpo Coast Police Station, from April 14, 2014 to April 5, 2014, had 123 households, a small coast guard of 100t level, integrated the inland sea area and the Jindo Coast 3 areas.

On April 14, 2014, at around 09:00 on April 14, 2014, Nonparty 29, the president of the 123 family, departing from the port of 123 12 passengers and 12 passengers and 3 passengers (in the case of 9 passengers and 3 passengers) on board the port of 4-day navigation, and performed their duties such as maritime expenses, etc. on April 16, 2014 at around 08:57 on April 16, 2014.

On April 16, 2014, Nonparty 30 reported the accident to 08:54 on April 16, 2014, and 119 received a report to the situation room of the Mapo Sea Police Station. Nonparty 31 issued a dispatch order to 123 on two occasions at around 08:57 and around 08:58 on the same day, and 123 others were dispatched to the scene of the Sewol ferry accident.

123 At around 09:16, when the Maritime Police Agency was moving to the scene of the accident, Nonparty 29 was notified that he was designated as a field commander (OSC and On-On-On-On-On-On-On-On-On-Houseman) based on the Maritime Search and Rescue Manual of the Korea Coast Guard, and around 09:18, he was provided with information that the number of passengers aboard the Sewol ferry in the Sewol Ferry reaches approximately 450.30.

B. Failure to take relief measures, such as failure to take the measures to induce the escape of Nonparty 29, at the 123 regular stop.

At around 09:30, Nonparty 29, who was designated as a field commander, arrived at the sea in front of the accident site, and confirmed the situation of the Sewol ferry directly in the on-site. Since the passengers waiting for rescue did not appear anywhere such as the on-site deck, as well as the sea, most passengers up to about 450 persons were in the on-site. In addition, Nonparty 29 recognized that the on-site of the Sewol ferry is likely to collapse, and that if the passengers were absent the ship, it would result in the following circumstances.

123: (1) Nonparty 29 did not seek communications with the captain or crew of the vessel when the captain or crew of the vessel was able to get passengers to move to an emergency shelter, such as the deck as soon as possible by the captain or crew of the vessel. (2) Although the captain or crew of the vessel was able to approach the vessel near the Sewol 123, the captain or crew of the vessel and used broadcasting equipment, such as large-scale microphones and duphonephonephones, etc., which were equipped within 123 hours, to get the passengers waiting to the deck on the deck, the captain or crew of the vessel was not able to get the passengers to move to the deck. (3) Although the captain or crew of the vessel was 123, the captain or crew of the vessel was 3:0 on the following day:3:0 on the 19th anniversary of the date on which the captain or crew of the vessel was able to get the passengers to move to the deck, 123:00 out of the vessel, 3:000 out of the vessel.

8. The sinking of the Sewol ferry;

The Sewol ferry was 09:34 on April 16, 2016, and 52.2∑ 52.2 thereafter, the Sewol ferry 10:10 on around 10:10, around 77.9∑ 10:17, around 10:17, and 108.1∑ 10:31 on around 10:31, and was sunken (hereinafter “instant accident”).

In the instant accident, 304 passengers (including 9 missing persons) were killed from among the passengers in the Sewol ferry (including 22 missing persons), and the rest passengers suffered injuries in the course of escape, such as the strawing water in the course of escape.

9. Finality of related criminal judgments;

(a) a criminal judgment on cargo officers and employees ordered to take place;

1) Criminal judgment against the captain, the non-party 10 and the crew

On May 15, 2014, Nonparty 10 and seafarers were indicted for murder, etc. with the Gwangju District Court (Seoul District Court 2014Gohap180, 384), the appellate court (Seoul High Court 2014No490), and the appellate court (Supreme Court 2015Do6809) on November 12, 2015.

The name and position of Nonparty 10’s captain, attempted murder, burial of a ship by occupational negligence, violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes by 15th mates, violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes by Occupational Negligence, 12 years and 3 years to 17 second mates’ death and death by occupational negligence, 7 years to 7 years to 3rd mates’ death and death by abandonment, 5 years to 14, 5 years and 6 years to 16 years to 16th mates’ death and death by abandonment, 18 to 2 years to 3 years, 2 years to 19 to 2, 2 years to 2 years to 3 years, 2 years to 3 years to 3 years, 17 years to 16 years to 3 years to 3 years, 2 years to 3 years to 26 years to 10, 231 to 26 years to 3 years to 13, 213 death or death from abandonment.

The summary of the above final judgment is as follows: “The non-party 10 and the non-party 15, caused the sinking of the Sewol ferry in which 476 passengers, etc., including the passengers, due to the occupational negligence, such as the reduction of horizontal water, the maximum loading of cargo exceeding the load capacity, the non-party 10, and the non-party 10 caused the death or injury of the passengers by failing to take necessary measures for the rescue of passengers (the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, 24). The non-party 10 caused the death or injury of the passengers by failing to take necessary measures for the rescue of passengers (the non-party 10 and the non-party 10, the non-party 10 was buried in the sea due to the occupational negligence of the Sewol ferry 139, the non-party 39, the non-party 39, and the non-party 36, the non-party 23, the non-party 10, the non-party 10,

2) Criminal judgment against the representative director, non-party 2, and officers and employees

On May 26, 2014, executives and employees, including Nonparty 2, etc., who were the representative director of the Cheongju Shipping, were indicted for occupational injury, etc. in the Gwangju District Court (Seoul District Court 2014Dahap197, 209, 211, 447), the appellate court (Seoul High Court 2014No509), and the appellate court (Supreme Court 2015Do703) decided as follows on October 29, 2015.

The name of the principal crime, which is recognized as the name of the table in the main sentence, is the death by occupational negligence, the injury by occupational negligence, the burial of ships by occupational negligence, the death by occupational negligence, the death by occupational negligence, the death by occupational negligence, the death by occupational negligence, the death by occupational negligence, the death by occupational negligence, the death by occupational negligence, the death by occupational negligence, the death by occupational negligence, the death of ships by occupational negligence, the death by occupational negligence, the death by occupational negligence, the death by occupational negligence, the death by occupational negligence, the death of ships by occupational negligence, the death by occupational negligence, the death by occupational negligence, the death by occupational negligence, the death by occupational negligence, the death by occupational negligence, the burial of ships by occupational negligence, the imprisonment of 6 years and the fine of 2 million won, the death by occupational negligence, the death by occupational negligence, the death by occupational negligence, the death by occupational negligence and the death by fine of 2 million won for 3 years and 2 million won for the violation of the Ship Safety Act, the death by occupational negligence, the death by 1.

The summary of the crime in the above final judgment is that “Nonindicted 2, Nonindicted 4, Nonindicted 7, Nonindicted 5, Nonindicted 6, and Nonindicted 8, as described in the above 3-A(A) are less parallel numbers as stated in the above 3-A. On the other hand, cargo is less loaded more than the restoration standard and do not maintain restitution (Violation of the Ship Safety Act). As mentioned above, the ordinary number of cargo is less than that of the cargo and 476 passengers, etc. were sunken due to the occupational negligence, etc. of which there are 476 passengers, etc. (the crime of burying a ship by occupational negligence), and the above occupational negligence, the captain of Nonindicted 7 and Nonindicted 8 of the above 11 did not conduct safety education and training as stipulated in the above safety education and marine accident training for the crew of the Pyeongtaek 1, and did not conduct rescue measures against the crew, etc., and did not take rescue measures against the crew, etc., thereby causing the death or injury of the passengers by occupational negligence (the death or injury of the passengers by occupational negligence).

(b) A criminal judgment against a person related to the Korea Fair Transport;

1) On May 26, 2014, Nonparty 33 and Nonparty 9, the head of the field team, were indicted for the death or injury by occupational negligence, injury by occupational negligence, and burial of ships by occupational negligence in the Gwangju District Court (Seoul District Court Decision 2014Gohap197, 209, 211, 447), the appellate court (Seoul High Court 2014No509), and the final appeal (Supreme Court Decision 2015Do703) on October 29, 2015, the judgment of the appellate court became final and conclusive, and the following judgment became final and conclusive.

The name of major crimes, who are recognized as the name position of the table in the main sentence, shall be acquitted by Nonparty 1, Nonparty 33 chief - the second Nonparty 9 chief of the field team, the death by occupational negligence, the death by occupational negligence, the death by occupational negligence, the imprisonment without labor for ships by occupational

2) The summary of the crime of the above final judgment is that "the non-party 9, according to the criteria for the structure and equipment of the old carpet ship, the method of loading and loading of the cargo, the vehicle loading and cargo landing equipment attached to the operation management rules for the Sewol ferry, the (name 5 omitted), the inside guide of the Round Round, and the (name 25 omitted), etc., of the main guidance for the main ship operation (name 5 omitted), the sinking of the Sewol ferry due to the occupational negligence that does not spaw off the cargo (the burial of the ship by occupational negligence), and the death or injury of passengers (the death by occupational negligence, the injury

(c) Criminal judgments against the persons involved in the Korea Shipping Association;

1) On May 26, 2014, Nonparty 13 was indicted for death by occupational negligence, injury by occupational negligence, and burial of ships by occupational negligence in the Gwangju District Court (Seoul District Court Decision 2014Dahap197, 209, 211, and 447), the appellate court (Supreme Court Decision 2014No509), the appellate court (Supreme Court Decision 2015Do7703), the appellate court (Supreme Court Decision 2015Do703), the appellate court (Supreme Court Decision 2015No525), and the second instance (Supreme Court Decision 2016Do1417), and the second instance court (Supreme Court Decision 2016Do1417).

2) The summary of the crime of the above final judgment is that “Nonindicted 13, without properly checking whether or not the cargo was loaded in excess of the cargo before departure from the port of the Sewol ferry, the cargo was sunken by occupational negligence (the burial of the ship by occupational negligence), and the death or injury of passengers (the death by occupational negligence, the injury by occupational negligence).”

D. A criminal judgment against the non-party 29 at the court below 123.

1) On October 6, 2014, Nonparty 29 was indicted for occupational death, occupational injury, etc. in the Gwangju District Court (Seoul District Court 2014Dahap4366), the appellate court (Seoul High Court 2015No177), and the appellate court (Supreme Court 2015Do1610), and the final appeal (Supreme Court 2015Do11610) on November 27, 2015.

2) On April 16, 2014, the summary of the above final judgment was as follows: (a) around 09:30 on the first day before the accident scene, most passengers were still waiting to get out of the sea; (b) the Sewol ferry was likely to get out of the sea to get out of the sea; and (c) the passengers were able to get out of the sea to get out of the sea to get out of the sea to get out of the sea. (d) Even if the passengers were able to get out of the sea to get out of the sea to get out of the sea to get out of the sea to get out of the sea to get out of the sea to get out of the sea to get out of the sea to get out of the sea to get out of the sea, the crew did not have to get out of the sea to get out of the sea to get out of the sea to get out of the sea to get out of the sea to get out of the sea to get out of the sea to get out of the sea to get out of the sea to get out from the sea.

E. Criminal judgment against the Defendants

1) On August 12, 2014, Defendant 7 was convicted of two years of imprisonment on September 24, 2015, following the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement), occupational embezzlement (Seoul District Court 2014No517), the appellate court (Seoul High Court 2014No3607), and the final appeal (Supreme Court 2015Do8319).

B) The summary of the facts constituting the offense against Cheongsung Shipping during the above final judgment is that “Defendant 7 embezzled KRW 3,540,621,933, which was paid from Cheongsung Shipping, in collusion with the deceased Nonparty 3 and Defendant 4, in total, from January 31, 2005 to December 31, 2013, and embezzled KRW 3,540,621,933 as trademark right fees.”

2) Criminal judgment against Defendant 2

A) On June 26, 2017, Defendant 2 was indicted to the Incheon District Court for violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation) (Seoul District Court 2017Dahap371), the appellate court (Seoul High Court 2017No3681), and the final appeal (Supreme Court 2018Do9385) on August 30, 2018, Defendant 2 was finally convicted of four years of imprisonment and additional collection and KRW 1,940,00,000.

B) The summary of the crime of the above final and conclusive judgment is as follows: (a) in collusion with Nonparty 34, who is the representative director of Down Co., Ltd., Co., Ltd., the Defendant 2 paid KRW 2,480,000,000 in total from June 9, 2011 to December 10, 2013, to the sand design he/she holds as the representative director as design consulting fee; (b) in breach of trust by having the sand design pay KRW 620,000 in total from June 15, 201 to November 27, 2013; and (c) in breach of trust by having the sand design pay KRW 620,00,000 in total to Defendant 1 as management consulting fee; and (d) from June 9, 2011 to December 12, 2013, the sand design paid KRW 21,300,00 in breach of trust by having the individual company name (a company name).

3) Criminal judgment against Defendant 4

A) On December 11, 2014, Defendant 4 was indicted of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement), violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation), violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation) (Seoul District Court 2014Gohap907), the appellate court (Seoul High Court 2015No592), and the appellate court (Supreme Court 2015Do1034) on October 15, 2015 (Supreme Court 2015Do1034).

B) The summary of the criminal facts against Cheongwon Shipping in collusion with the deceased Non-Party 3, Defendant 1, and Defendant 7 on the final judgment was embezzled by having the Cheongwon Holdings pay the sum of KRW 325,00,000 from October 1, 2008 to February 27, 2014 to the defendant ASEAN under the name of management consulting fee. In collusion with the deceased Non-Party 3, Defendant 1, and Non-Party 2 on April 30, 2012, Cheongwon Shipping purchased KRW 110,00,000 of the deceased Non-Party 3’s photograph, and acquired KRW 8,00,000 of the deceased Non-Party 3’s photograph, and made the deceased Non-Party 3’s photographic work’s total domestic sales company (name 3 omitted) to the sum of KRW 325,00,505,90,00.

10. Death, inheritance, etc. of the deceased Nonparty 3;

On October 7, 2014, the deceased non-party 3 was accepted. The deceased non-party 3’s inheritor was the non-party 35, his child, Defendant 7, Defendant 1, Defendant 2, and Defendant 3. Of them, Non-party 35, Defendant 7 reported the renunciation of inheritance to the Daegu Family Court on October 24, 2014, and reported the renunciation of inheritance on February 13, 2015.

11. Establishment and implementation of a special Act on Remedy for Damage and Support, etc. for the April 16 Sewol ferry disaster;

On January 28, 2015, the Special Act on Relief and Support for the April 16 Sewol Ferry Disaster (hereinafter “The Act on the Support for Damage Caused by Sewol Ferry”) was enacted to commemorate persons who have made a sacrifice due to the sinking of the Sewol Ferry on January 28, 2015 and to promptly remedy for damage to persons, etc. who have suffered physical, mental or economic damage, and was enforced from March 29, 2015. The parts related to the instant case in the Act on the Support for Damage Caused by the Sewol Ferry are as shown in attached Table 1.

12. Plaintiff's request for reimbursement, etc.;

A. As of December 31, 2017, the Plaintiff executed KRW 447,031,745,468 as of December 31, 2017, and was scheduled to execute KRW 15,436,766,80.

B. On November 19, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a claim for reimbursement against Nonparty 10, Nonparty 15, Nonparty 17, Nonparty 12, Nonparty 14, Nonparty 16, Nonparty 18, Nonparty 19, Nonparty 22, Nonparty 26, Nonparty 23, Nonparty 27, Nonparty 25, Nonparty 24, Nonparty 28, Nonparty 28, Nonparty 4, Nonparty 7, Nonparty 5, Nonparty 6, Nonparty 8, Nonparty 11, and Chungcheong Shipping with the Seoul Central District Court No. 2015Ga572682, December 31, 2015, Nonparty 33, and Nonparty 9 were joined in the above case (hereinafter referred to as the Seoul Central District Court’s 2015Ga58296). The Plaintiff joined the lawsuit against Nonparty 3’s Intervenor and the Korea Shipping Association joined the lawsuit.

C. On December 18, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Defendants 1, 2, 3, and 4, Defendant 4, and Defendant Awon Holdings, as Seoul Central District Court 2015Gahap5799, and on May 9, 2016, against Defendant 7, as Seoul Central District Court 2016Gahap526204, for the instant claim for reimbursement.

[Basis] Facts without dispute, Gap's statements (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Gap's statements (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Gap's statements (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul's statements (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the whole purport of the pleadings

Ⅱ Summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion 29)

1. The occurrence of the instant accident

The instant accident occurred due to the illegal expansion and remodeling in the Sewol ferry, the reduction of the amount of ordinary water, the load of cargo, the load of bad faith, and the sudden transformation in dangerous waterways, etc., and the damage was expanded by the captain, the non-party 10, and the crew, leaving the site without any rescue measures for passengers after the occurrence of the accident.

2. Claims for reimbursement under Article 42 (2) of the Support for the Damage Caused by Sewol Ferry Act;

A. Claims against Defendant 7, Defendant 1, Defendant 2, and Defendant 3

1) The deceased non-party 3's inheritance responsibility

A) The responsibility of the deceased Nonparty 3

(1) Liability of the person who ordered the execution of business under Article 401-2 of the Commercial Act

The deceased non-party 3, as the president of the overall management of the subsidiaries of the defendant Leewon Holdings and (group name omitted), exercised the authority to appoint and dismiss executives of each affiliate including Cheongwon Shipping, and instructed each affiliate including Cheongwon Shipping to conduct its business by using his influence. The deceased non-party 3 finally decided to introduce the three-month, extend and rebuild the three-month, and ordered the establishment of a photograph exhibition room in the process of the extension and remodeling of the three-month. The deceased non-party 3 reported to the purport that the non-party 2 of the Cheong Shipping representative director of the Cheongwon Shipping, whose restoration becomes worse after the extension and remodeling of the three-month, reported to the effect that “I would sell one of the five-months and the three-months, and will spawn of the Cheongwon Shipping,” and the deceased non-party 3 continued to operate in the state of the problem of restitution of the Sewol ferry.

Furthermore, the deceased non-party 3, like the executive officers and employees of the Cheongdo Shipping, had a duty of care to safely maintain and manage the Sewol ferry and to take measures necessary for safe sailing. Nevertheless, the deceased non-party 3 violated the above duty of care and did not confirm the matters concerning safe navigation, such as restitution issues following the expansion and reconstruction of the Sewol ferry, the overfluence of cargo, and the poor breakdown, and did not take necessary measures therefor. The accident of this case occurred as a result of the violation of the above duty of care.

Therefore, the deceased non-party 3 is jointly and severally liable for damages to the third party who suffered from the accident of this case with the executive officers and employees of the sub-party 2 and other sub-party 3 as an executive instruction under Article 401-2 of the Commercial Code.

(2) Joint tort liability under Article 760 of the Civil Act

The deceased non-party 3 instructed the expansion and reconstruction of the Sewol ferry, which aggravated the restitution of the Sewol ferry, and ordered to continue operating the Sewol ferry which lacks restitution. Therefore, the deceased non-party 3 is jointly and severally liable with the executive officers and employees of the sub-party 2, etc. of the sub-party 3, who were the joint tortfeasor under Article 760 (1) of the Civil Act or the sub-party 2, and the sub-party 3 is jointly liable for damages to the third party who suffered from the accident in this case.

(3) The employer's liability under Article 756 of the Civil Act

The deceased non-party 3 appointed the non-party 2 as the representative director of the shipping, and the non-party 2, under the direction and supervision of the deceased non-party 3, has introduced, expanded, and reconstructed the Sewol ferry according to the intention of the deceased non-party 3, and continued to operate the Sewol ferry which lacks restitution. Accordingly, the deceased non-party 3, as the user of the non-party 2, is liable to compensate for the damage to the third party who suffered from the accident of this case in accordance with Article 756 of the Civil Act.

(4) The theory of lawsuit

As above, the deceased Nonparty 3 is responsible for business performance instructions, joint tort liability, and employer liability with respect to the instant accident. The deceased Nonparty 3 falls under “a person who caused the sinking accident” under Article 42(2) of the Sewol Ferry Damage Support Act. Therefore, the deceased Nonparty 3 is liable to pay to the Plaintiff 421,380,369,889 won (=the enforcement amount of KRW 413,82,276,859 + the estimated execution amount of KRW 7,58,093,000 + the estimated execution amount of KRW 7,58,093,030) and damages for delay. The Plaintiff is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages incurred until August 31, 2015.

B) Inheritance of Defendants 7, 1, 2, and 3

Defendant 7, Defendant 1, Defendant 2, and Defendant 3 jointly inherited the deceased Nonparty 3 as the deceased Nonparty 3’s children. Accordingly, Defendant 1, Defendant 2, and Defendant 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 187,813,476,185 due to the performance of the duty of reimbursement under Article 42(2) of the Sewol Ferry Damage Support Act, and damages for delay thereof, as well as the amount of KRW 31) 46,953,369,046 (i.e., KRW 187,813,476,185 x 1/45 x 1/4) and damages for delay.

2) Defendant 1, Defendant 2, and Defendant 3’s executive instruction 32)’s liability

Defendant 7, Defendant 1, Defendant 2, and Defendant 3 are the shareholders of the deceased Nonparty 3, who are the shareholders of the UAB Holdings. The Defendants constituted a control group with the deceased Nonparty 3, and provided the basis and grounds for the deceased Nonparty 3’s order for execution of duties to the Cheong Shipping.

Defendant 1: (a) was a person who was, in fact, considered the deceased Nonparty 3’s vehicle and the deceased Nonparty 3’s successor; (b) planned, established, and substantially controlled the Defendant ASEAN Holdings, which is a holding company of its affiliate companies; and (c) caused affiliate companies, including Cheong Shipping, to enter into a formal management consulting agreement with Defendant ASEAN Holdings; and (d) paid consulting fees to Defendant ASEAN Holdings.

Defendant 2 received money from Cheongd Shipping under the name of design consulting through sand alle design he manages, and had an adverse impact on the financial status of Cheongd Shipping, and had been in charge of the interior and design of photograph display rooms, guest rooms, etc. during the process of increasing and remodeling the Sewol ferry.

Furthermore, in collusion with the deceased non-party 3, the Defendants aggravated the finances of the Cheongd Marine Transport caused by embezzlement, breach of trust, etc., and the Cheongd Marine Transport conducted illegal expansion or reconstruction in order to avoid the enemy, employed the aged and unqualified seafarers, or engaged in freight excess and fraudulent gambling. Therefore, the Defendants’ embezzlement and breach of trust are the most important and fundamental causes of the instant accident.

Therefore, the Defendants, as an executive instruction under Article 401-2 of the Commercial Act, are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff 421,380,369,889 won as the amount of indemnity under Article 42(2) of the Sewol Ferry Damage Support Act with the rest of the Defendants, and the Plaintiff is jointly and severally liable to pay damages for delay. Of them, the Plaintiff seeks payment of KRW 187,813,476,185 paid by August 31, 2015 and damages for delay.

B. The assertion against Defendant 4

The defendant 4 was the representative director of the defendant Leewon Holdings Holdings, and was the person who instructed each affiliate, including Cheongwon Shipping, to perform its duties by directly designing the complicated governance structure of (group name omitted) and exercising overall control over overall management.

Defendant 4, in collusion with the deceased non-party 3, aggravated the finances of the shipping caused by embezzlement and breach of trust, and the Cheongbu Shipping has to extend or rebuild the illegal act in order to avoid the enemy, to employ the aged and incapable seafarers, or to carry out cargo storage and improper gambling. Thus, Defendant 4’s embezzlement and breach of trust are the most important and fundamental causes of the instant accident.

Therefore, Defendant 4, as an executive instruction under Article 401-2 of the Commercial Act, is jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff 421,380,369,889 won as the indemnity amount under Article 42(2) of the Sewol Ferry Damage Support Act with the remaining Defendants, and the Plaintiff is jointly and severally liable to pay damages for delay. Of them, the Plaintiff seeks payment of KRW 187,813,476,185 paid by August 31, 2015 and damages for delay.

C. The assertion as to Defendant AB Holdings and Defendant AB termination

Defendant AB Holdings is a holding company (group name omitted) holding 42.81% of the shares of Defendant ABB termination, holding 39.4% of the shares of Defendant BB termination, and exercising its influence on Cheongban Shipping.

The Defendants were additionally added in forming the control relationship leading to Defendant 1, Defendant 2, Defendant 3, and Defendant 4’s marine transportation. Through this, the Defendants played an important role in giving orders for the performance of duties to Cheong Shipping that led to Defendant 1, Defendant 2, Defendant 3, and Defendant 4.

Therefore, the Defendants, as an executive instruction under Article 401-2 of the Commercial Act, are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff 421,380,369,889 won as the amount of indemnity under Article 42(2) of the Sewol Ferry Damage Support Act with the rest of the Defendants, and the Plaintiff is jointly and severally liable to pay damages for delay. Of them, the Plaintiff seeks payment of KRW 187,813,476,185 paid by August 31, 2015 and damages for delay.

3. Claiming the right of subrogation under Article 18 of the Support for Damage Caused by Sewol Ferry Act;

As seen earlier, Defendant 7, Defendant 1, Defendant 2, and Defendant 3 inherited the deceased Nonparty 3’s executive instruction’s liability, joint tort liability, and employer’s liability regarding the instant accident. As such, Defendant 1, Defendant 2, Defendant 3, Defendant 4, Defendant 4, and Defendant 6 are liable for the instant accident directly directeder. As such, the third party who suffered the instant accident is liable for damages therefrom.

The Plaintiff paid KRW 110,245,964,723 in total with compensation, etc. to the victims of the instant accident by December 31, 2017, as indicated in the attached Table 3’s “Total Book”. The Plaintiff, upon obtaining consent from the victims pursuant to Article 18 of the Sewol Ferry Damage Support Act and Article 480(1) of the Civil Act, vicariously exercises the right to claim compensation against the Defendants of the victims.

Therefore, pursuant to Article 18 of the Sewol Ferry Damage Support Act and Article 480 of the Civil Act, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the Plaintiff the total sum of the damages and compensation paid by the Plaintiff to the Plaintiff and the damages incurred therefrom.

Ⅲ Judgment on the main defense of the defendant's termination

1. Summary of the defense

On July 14, 2014, at the Changwon District Court Decision 2014 Ma1056, the Plaintiff’s claim on the termination of Defendant constitutes rehabilitation claims prior to the commencement of rehabilitation procedures. However, given that the Plaintiff did not report the above claim as rehabilitation claims and obtained the rehabilitation plan approval on December 29, 2015, the Defendant was exempted from liability for the above claim pursuant to the main sentence of Article 251(3) of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter “Bankruptcy Act”). Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s lawsuit on the termination of Defendant is unlawful.

2. Determination on the claim for reimbursement under Article 42(2) of the Damage Support Act

A. Rehabilitation claims under Article 118 subparag. 1 of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act refer to a claim on property arising from a cause arising prior to the commencement of rehabilitation procedures, such as expression of intent, etc., and even if the contents of the claim are not specifically determined, if the principal cause of the claim was preserved prior to the commencement of rehabilitation procedures (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Da109388, Apr. 23, 2015, etc.). Liability for damages arising from joint tort is established at the time when a tort was committed, barring any special circumstance, the right to indemnity between the joint tortfeasor is deemed to have been the principal cause of the tort. Accordingly, even if there was no repayment or other joint exemption due to withdrawal until the commencement of rehabilitation procedures, the claim for indemnity between the joint tortfeasor constitutes a rehabilitation claim.

Meanwhile, no lawsuit may be brought immediately after the commencement of rehabilitation procedures without waiting for the entry in the list of rehabilitation claims or the result of the examination of claims. Since a joint tortfeasor who is a rehabilitation claim may not participate in the rehabilitation procedures regarding the total amount of claims held at the time the right to claim reimbursement commences, he/she may participate in the rehabilitation procedures by claiming for reimbursement, etc. even before the right to claim reimbursement begins, within the reporting period (Articles 126(3) and 148(1) of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act). If a person fails to file a report within the reporting period on his/her claim for reimbursement due to any cause not attributable to his/her liability, he/she may file a subsequent report on his/her claim for reimbursement within the fixed period for rehabilitation procedures by not later than 1 month after the date on which the right to claim reimbursement is reported (hereinafter “the assembly of related persons”) or by not later than 2 months after the date on which the right to claim reimbursement can be reported after the commencement of rehabilitation procedures by means of a subsequent resolution under Article 240 of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act (hereinafter “decision”).

B. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the evidence evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 as follows: (a) Defendant, upon filing an application for rehabilitation with the Changwon District Court on June 20, 2014; (b) decided to commence rehabilitation procedures on July 14, 2014; and (c) decided to commence rehabilitation procedures on December 29, 2015; and (d) it is recognized that the Plaintiff failed to report the claim for indemnity within the reporting period of rehabilitation claims under the above rehabilitation procedures, there is no dispute between the parties.

However, the Plaintiff constitutes a cause provider of the instant accident, and the exercise of the right to indemnity under Article 42(2) of the Sewol Ferry Damage Support Act also applies the legal doctrine on the right to indemnity among the joint tortfeasors as follows. Therefore, it is reasonable to view the Plaintiff’s right to indemnity against the termination of the Defendant as a rehabilitation claim under Article 118 subparag. 1 of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act, because the Plaintiff’s right to indemnity had a major cause prior to the commencement of rehabilitation procedures

Thus, it is inappropriate to seek a direct performance of the claim for reimbursement against the defendant's termination, aside from the fact that the plaintiff could not expect the plaintiff to participate in the rehabilitation procedure within the reporting period set by the rehabilitation court, by claiming a subsequent completion of the rehabilitation claim.

3. Determination as to subrogation claims under Article 18 of the Support for Damage Caused by Sewol Ferry Act

Inasmuch as the contents of the right to indemnity and the right to subrogation are different from the original, maturity, interest, and delay damages, even if a rehabilitation creditor fails to report his/her right to indemnity as a rehabilitation claim and is exempted from liability for the right to indemnity pursuant to the main sentence of Article 251 of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act, the rehabilitation creditor is unable to compel the performance of his/her right to reimbursement to the debtor, and the right to indemnity remains as it is. As such, a rehabilitation creditor does not affect the exercise of the creditor’s right to subrogation by subrogation of the creditor through the obligee’s subrogation under the provisions of Articles 481 and 482(1) of the Civil Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Da214970, Nov. 12, 2015). As such, if any claim is transferred to the repayment person without losing its identity, whether the claim acquired by the repayment person constitutes a rehabilitation claim

As seen earlier, the fact that Defendant 1 decided to commence rehabilitation procedures on July 14, 2014, and that Defendant 2 obtained the rehabilitation plan approval order on December 29, 2015 is as follows. Even if the victims of the instant accident were to have the damage claim arising from the instant accident against Defendant 1, the said damage claim constitutes a rehabilitation claim, and the Plaintiff cannot seek performance of the direct repayment claim against Defendant 1, as it constitutes a rehabilitation claim.

4. Sub-committee

Therefore, since the plaintiff's lawsuit against the termination of the defendant is unlawful, the main defense against the termination of the defendant is justified.

IV. Determination as to the assertion of the right to indemnity under Article 42(2) of the Sewol Ferry Damage Support Act

1. Determination as to whether a cause provider is a cause provider and the occurrence of the right to indemnity

A. The meaning of a person who caused the sinking of the Sewol ferry

As a matter of principle, since the law is a universal norm with the same binding force against many and unspecified persons, it shall be interpreted in such a way as to clarify the standard meaning of the law and allow it to be objectively reasonable, and as much as possible, it shall not be prejudicial to legal stability by maintaining consistency acceptable by maintaining consistency. In addition, since positive law is established in mind in various cases that occur in society reality, it is necessary to interpret that the law has a concrete feasibility so that it can be the most reasonable solution appropriate for specific matters in applying the law in a variety of cases that occur in society reality. In short, the goal of statutory interpretation is to faithfully interpret the meaning of the language used in the law to the extent that it does not undermine legal stability. Furthermore, the legislative intent and purpose of the law should be faithfully interpreted as a principle, and further, it shall be in line with the legislative intent and purpose of the law, history, harmony with the entire legal order, and relationship with other Acts and subordinate statutes, and thus, it shall conform to the request of statutory interpretation as seen earlier. In addition, if there is no need to interpret or limit the meaning of the law as a specific provision in question.

Article 6 (1) of the Act on the Support for Damage Caused by the Sewol Ferry (hereinafter referred to as "the Compensation") provides that "the compensation shall be any of the following subparagraphs," and Article 6 (1) of the same Act provides that "the compensation shall be the amount equivalent to the compensation by subrogation to a person who suffers damage on the premise that the State shall exercise on the part of a person other than the State who is obligated to pay the compensation for damage under subparagraph 1, such as the Civil Act, the State Compensation Act, etc., for the damage caused by the April 16 Sewol ferry disaster (including the damage caused by oil pollution and cargo), and Article 18 of the same Act provides that "the State shall subrogate the applicant's right to claim damages to a person other than the State within the extent of the amount paid to the applicant according to the decision to pay the compensation under Article 12 and the temporary payment decision under Article 17," and Article 42 (2) of the same Act provides that "the State, etc. may exercise the right to claim compensation to a person who caused the disaster during the process of recovery from the Sewol disaster."

In full view of the language and text of the above provisions, the systematic relationship with the provisions for compensation for damages under the Civil Act or relevant statutes, harmony with the entire legal system, etc., even if considering the legislative intent and legislative progress of the Act on the Support for the Damage of the Sewol Ferry that requires the State to compensate for the damage without being in a formal position if a substantial cause was provided to the staff of the Sewol ferry, the meaning of “a person who caused the sinking accident of the Sewol Ferry” that the State can exercise the right to indemnity should be interpreted as not “any person related to the sinking accident of the Sewol Ferry” but “a person who bears the obligation to compensate for damage to the victims because there is a proximate causal relationship between the act and the result of the sinking of the Sewol Ferry Disaster.”

Therefore, this paper examines whether the deceased non-party 3 and the Defendants are liable to compensate for the instant accident in accordance with the relevant statutes, such as the Civil Act.

B. Determination as to claims against Defendant 7, Defendant 1, Defendant 2, and Defendant 3

1) Determination as to the power of attorney of Defendant 1, Defendant 2, and Defendant 3

A) Summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion

On January 10, 2017, Defendant 1, Defendant 2, and Defendant 3 submitted a letter of delegation of a lawsuit with limited liability to Defendant 1, Defendant 2, and Defendant 3. However, the said letter of delegation of a lawsuit was sealed only by the gate in the name of the Defendants, Defendant 1, and Defendant 3 did not return to Korea since they escaped from the country after the instant accident occurred, and Defendant 2 was repatriated from France to Korea on June 7, 2017, when five months elapsed since the date on which the letter of delegation of the lawsuit was submitted, it cannot be deemed that the power of attorney of the limited liability law firm (LLC) was proved.

B) Determination

The existence of the attorney's power of representation is an ex officio matter of the court. In the event that the power of representation is a private document, whether the court orders the certification of the power of representation belongs to the discretion of the court (see Supreme Court Decisions 77Da2139 delivered on February 14, 1978; 97Ma1574 delivered on September 22, 197).

In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in evidence Nos. 2, 3, and 4, Defendant 1, Defendant 2, and Defendant 3 delegated the power of attorney to a forum with limited liability law firm (LLC). Thus, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit.

2) Determination on the deceased Nonparty 3’s inheritance liability

A) Determination on the responsibility of the deceased Nonparty 3

(1) Relevant legal principles

The liability for damages under Articles 399, 414, 401, and 415 of the Commercial Act, and Articles 750 and 760 of the Civil Act, due to a director or auditor’s violation of the statutes, the articles of incorporation, or a neglect of duties, are recognized only as having proximate causal relation with such violation. Thus, even if a director or auditor committed a violation of the statutes, articles of incorporation, or a neglect of duties in the course of performing his/her duties, if there is no proximate causal relation between the loss caused as a result, the liability for damages by the director or auditor is not established (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da71048, Jun. 16, 2006, etc.).

The existence of a proximate causal relationship is insufficient solely with the existence of a natural or factual causal relationship, and there is an ideological or legal causal relationship (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Da15363, Jun. 10, 2010). In determining the existence of a proximate causal relationship, the following should be comprehensively taken into account: (a) the purpose and legal interest of Acts and subordinate statutes and other behavioral norms imposing a duty of care, as well as the probability of occurrence of a result; (b) the form of a harmful act; (c) the nature of a gains from infringement; and (d) the degree of damage (see Supreme Court Decision 2016Da237264, Dec.

(2) Determination on the responsibility of an ordering person for the execution of duties under Article 401-2 of the Commercial Act

(A) Determination as to whether the deceased non-party 3 ordered the execution of duties

In full view of the above-mentioned facts, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments and the following facts, the deceased non-party 3's status and influence in the shipping, and specific business execution instructions related to the Sewol ferry, etc., the deceased non-party 3 constitutes "a person who instructs directors to conduct business by using his influence over the company" under Article 401-2 (1) 1 of the Commercial Act.

(i) the status and influence of the sea by the deceased non-party 3

① Major shareholders of Defendant Awon Holdings, an affiliate holding company of Cheongwon Holdings, are Defendant 7 (19.34%), Defendant 1 (19.34%) Defendant 2 (2.57%) and Defendant 3 (2.57%) who are the deceased Nonparty 3’s children. The major shareholders of Cheongwon Holdings Holdings (42.81%) and (18.21%) were multi-market companies (1.21%) affiliated companies of Defendant Ariwon Holdings (42.81%) and (11.01%) were 5%) district (5.25%) , the representative director of the company (4.22%) , the representative director of the company (39.4%) and the representative director of the Cheongwon Shipping, who was in fact in the management of the Cheongwon Shipping, and were in fact in the management of the Cheongwon Shipping, and were in fact in the 31.6% interest of Nonparty 163).

② The deceased Nonparty 3 was named as the president in Cheong Shipping, and was named as the employee number 1 in the Cheong Shipping’s personnel list, and as the president in the emergency contact network. The deceased Nonparty 3 received monthly benefits from Young Shipping established on February 24, 1999. The deceased Nonparty 3 received KRW 190 million through KRW 15 million every month in 2013 (including bonuses) and the advisory fees of KRW 2.5 million each month in 200 million. The deceased Nonparty 3 received benefits paid as the president of Cheong Shipping’s Cheong Shipping’s Cheong Shipping’s 190 million and KRW 370 million in 200,000 (including bonuses) more than the salary of Nonparty 2, the representative director, who was the president of Cheong Shipping’s Cheong Shipping’s Cheong Shipping’s 200,000 won (the salary of KRW 370,000,000,000,00).

③ From January 31, 2005 to December 31, 2013, Defendant 7’s personal business operator (name 4 omitted) paid KRW 3,540,621,933 as trademark right fees to Defendant 7’s personal business operator (name 4 omitted). From October 1, 2008 to February 27, 2014, Defendant 7: (a) paid KRW 325,00,000 to Defendant 8 his photograph on April 30, 201; (b) purchased KRW 110,000,000 for Defendant 7’s personal business operator’s personal business operator; (c) acquired KRW 3,540,621,93 as trademark right fees; and (d) obtained 30,000,000 from January 19, 201 to December 25, 2012; and (d) obtained an aggravated punishment of Defendant 40,500, domestic business operator’s criminal act of embezzlement.

(ii) the deceased non-party 3's performance of duties related to the Sewol ferry;

① The deceased Nonparty 3 approved the plan of Nonparty 2 by the shipping representative, which read, “other shipping companies shall prevent them from entering the Incheon or Jeju sea route, and at the time when the age of the Obama is different from that of the Obama, to substitute the Obaea.”

② The deceased Nonparty 3 approved Nonparty 2’s plan to extend and rebuild the Sewol ferry in order to increase the passenger capacity and cargo loading space, and instructed Nonparty 2 to establish a photographic exhibition room.

③ 세월호를 추가로 운항하면서 비용에 비하여 운임 수입이 크게 증가하지 않자 소외 2를 비롯한 청해진해운의 간부 사원들은 2013. 11. 18. 기획관리팀에서 작성한 ‘인천~제주 항로 선박운영 구조조정안’에 기하여 세월호의 매각 방안을 포함한 인천~제주 항로의 향후 운영방안에 대하여 논의하였고, 소외 2는 2014. 1.경 망 소외 3에게 “오하마나호나 세월호 중 하나를 팔고 화객선을 하나 샀으면 좋겠다.”라고 보고했다. 이에 소외 3은 “먼저 선령이 25년을 초과하는 오하마나호를 매각하라.”라고 지시했다.

④ Defendant 1, Defendant 2, and Defendant 3 asserted to the effect that “the deceased non-party 3 did not instruct the continuous operation of the Sewol Ferry No. 3.” The fact that the criminal judgment finalized on the same factual basis is a flexible evidence, barring any special circumstance where it is deemed difficult to adopt a criminal judgment in light of other evidence submitted in the civil trial, it cannot be acknowledged that the facts opposed to this, unless there are any special circumstances that make it difficult to adopt a criminal judgment in light of other evidence submitted in the civil trial. Furthermore, in a case where the judgment of conviction was made after the civil judgment became final and conclusive after it was revealed that it was a litigation fraud, the court should respect the existence and content of the criminal judgment, and accept the facts recognized as consistent with the truth and credibility compared to the facts recognized in the civil trial (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 93Da29051, Jan. 28, 1994).

(B) Determination on the violation of the statutes and articles of incorporation of the deceased non-party 3

The plaintiff asserts to the effect that the accident of this case occurred due to the illegal instruction of the deceased non-party 3, such as the introduction of the Sewol ferry, the extension, remodeling, and continuous operation of the Sewol ferry, which lack restitution.

First of all, the fact that the introduction of the Sewol ferry was approved by the Health Team and the deceased non-party 3 as to the introduction of the Sewol ferry is as seen earlier, but the evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone is insufficient to deem that there is a proximate causal link between the introduction of the Sewol ferry and the accident of this case.

Next, I examine the instructions for the extension and remodeling of the Sewol ferry. The fact that the deceased non-party 3 approved the plan for the extension and remodeling of the Sewol ferry, and the fact that the deceased non-party 3 instructed to establish one of his photographic exhibition rooms during the extension and remodeling as mentioned above. However, the evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone is insufficient to view the deceased non-party 3's act as violating the statutes and the articles of incorporation.

Finally, we examine the sale of the Orama and the order to continue operation of the Orama to the effect that, upon receiving a report from Nonparty 2, the deceased Nonparty 3 submitted by the deceased Nonparty 2 to the effect that, “the sale of the Oramaama and the Orama Ba, which exceeds 25 years first,” it is not enough to deem the above order to be in violation of the statutes and the articles of incorporation.

(C) Determination as to the neglect of duty by the deceased Nonparty 3

(i) Relevant legal principles

The representative director, as a member of the board of directors, has the authority to monitor the overall performance of duties of directors in charge of affairs, including other representative directors. Thus, even if the performance of duties by other representative directors or directors in charge of affairs was neglected due to bad faith or gross negligence despite the reason for suspecting illegality, it cannot be exempted from liability for damages suffered by a third party. The detailed contents of such duty of monitoring can be considerably different depending on the size, organization, type of business, regulation of Acts and subordinate statutes, business situation, and financial status of the company. Thus, even if it is inevitable for the joint representative director and directors in charge of affairs to exclusively deal with their own professional fields according to internal division of duties in a large-scale company, such circumstance alone cannot be exempted from other directors’ duty of monitoring the performance of duties. In light of the fact that the duty of care to construct reasonable information and reporting systems and internal control systems and to properly operate them is given to individual directors constituting the board of directors, even if such system was established, if it did not know at all or it intentionally, thereby failing to know other 20 directors’ or directors’ liability for breach of duty (see the above 160.

Directors, as a member of the board of directors, are not limited to expressing their intent on the agenda presented to the board of directors, and have a duty to comprehensively monitor the performance of duties by directors in charge of other affairs as well as the duties in charge, and such duty cannot be avoided by being a non-standing director. Thus, a director of a stock company, as long as he/she did not actually perform his/her duties by ratification of the resolution of the board of directors ex post facto without attending the board of directors (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da51471, Dec. 11, 2008).

(ii) Violation of the duty of surveillance by the deceased Nonparty 3

First, we examine whether the deceased non-party 3 bears the duty of surveillance.

As seen above, it is reasonable to view that the deceased non-party 3 bears the duty to monitor and supervise whether the executive officers and employees of the Cheongju Shipping, who were the executive officers of the Cheongju Shipping, as the executive officers of the Cheongju Shipping, are lawful and safe operating of the Cheongju Shipping, with the authority to appoint and dismiss the representative director of the Cheongju Shipping and to decide the management of the Cheongju Shipping, and to give instructions on the introduction of the Cheongho Lake, the extension and reconstruction, the sale of the Haho Mara and the continuous operation of the Hahoho Lake, the deceased non-party 3 is called the chairman of the Cheongho Shipping, and receive considerable benefits and advisory fees, etc. from the time of establishment of the company.

Next, we examine whether the deceased non-party 3 violated the duty of surveillance.

Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances, the facts acknowledged earlier, and the overall purport of the arguments as seen earlier, it is reasonable to view that the officers and employees of the Cheongd Shipping have been negligent in monitoring and supervising the officers and employees of the Cheongd Shipping, even though they were able to know the long-term, organized illegal acts or inappropriate performance of duties of the officers and employees of the Cheongd Shipping, and were negligent in monitoring and supervising the instant accidents caused by the failure to continuously or organized surveillance as above, for a long period from January 7, 2013 to April 14, 2014.

① Nonparty 2 and Nonparty 4 received reports on the cargo business records from Nonparty 5 of the logistics team leader every day. Nonparty 2 discussed the results of each team (head of each team) at a weekly conference held by the head of each team on a Saturday. The logistics team reported the “on-site performance and plan” related to the existing cargo business records, customer accounts accounts, and attracting customers, and reported the next target performance to Nonparty 2, etc., and Nonparty 2 checked and urged sales.

② From October 2012 to February 2013, it was approved by the Minister of Oceans and Fisheries as being able to load only the cargo of 1,077t in total due to the weight-oriented 51cm in the Sewol ferry. On March 14, 2013, Cheongd Shipping began the operation of the Sewol ferry on the Sewol ferry route from Incheon to Jeju with the revision of the maritime passenger transport service plan from the Incheon Regional Maritime Port Authority, and operated the cargo of 3,524t while loading the cargo of 3,524t, which considerably exceeds the restitution standards approved from March 15, 2013, and even when loading the cargo of 5,222t on December 27, 2013.

③ The Cheongd Shipping did not obtain approval from the Minister of Oceans and Fisheries, and demanded that the Cheongd Shipping manufacture a container with a size of 8 feet that cannot be properly fixed to the locker in the Sewol ferry, and used it for the loading of cargo in the Sewol ferry. The Cheongd Shipping used a method of gambling that does not fit the relevant provisions in order to load a large amount of cargo in the Sewol ferry, or used it for the loading of cargo in the Sewol ferry. If the distance of cargo is wide, Cheongd Shipping used a method of dismantling the existing meat to reduce the distance of cargo, and neglected loading of cargo in the Dak and Esck without a locker installed.

Furthermore, cargo loading scheme or crowdfunding franchise is required in order to be carried out in accordance with the relevant provisions, and the cargo has been received and loaded up immediately before departure from port, so it seems that the cargo loading scheme or crowdfunding franchise was impossible due to business practice.

④ Until January 7, 2013, April 14, 2014, Cheongdon Shipping: (a) loaded cargo at least 180 times as above; and (b) left the Sejong Sea and Hadon Sea (the Sewol ferry, vessel, appearance, size, etc. were rarely so as to be called as “dunes nesn”) in a state of bad gambling.

⑤ On November 18, 2013, the executive officers and employees of the Cheongcheon-do Shipping were well aware of the fact that there was a problem in the restitution of the Sewol ferry. The Cheongcheon-do Shipping discussed the sale of the Sewol ferry for the Sewol ferry, etc., which was prepared by the planning and management team, on November 18, 2013. The above restructuring proposal stated, “The Sewol ferry is likely to cause an excessive time for the relevant agencies at the time of loading cargo, such as the ship’s restitution due to the problem of vessel restitution, and ............, due to the bad name of the hull, the expense of the fleet will be additionally expected to occur.”

④ On November 29, 2013, the Sewol ferry was operating to the Jeju Island after loading the 117 passengers, 150 vehicles, and 776t of freight, and the ship was operating to the Jeju Island. At around 08:20 on the following day, there was an accident that caused damage to the wall, liquor, and bulk freight shipped to the Dow due to the influence of the wave on the sea near Jeju Island, while the ship was operating to the Jeju Island. The cargo reported the accident to Nonparty 2.

In addition, at around 18:30 on January 20, 2014, the Sewol ferry tried to depart from the port of Incheon, but it was impossible to depart from the port because of the maximum wind speed of 18 to 21m/s wind pressure. However, at the later time, the passenger could not depart from the port of a wharf by using tugboat. However, at the end of consultations on the passage of the sea, the cargo driver's license was obtained at around 22:30 at the end of consultations on the passage of the sea, and around 23:0 at around 15:0, at around 30:30 after using a tugboat at around 30 minutes. Accordingly, the Jeju Shipping Head Office, at around 23:30. Accordingly, it was difficult to prepare a port of Jeju Shipping on January 20 through 21st, and report the change of the area of the cargo at the port of the vessel's head office as the result of the change of the vessel's weight structure.

Furthermore, the captain, Nonparty 11 asked the operator of the Sewol ferry to “a request the operator to load the cargo as prescribed by the regulations,” and even after the completion of the Sewol ferry conference on February 2014, the captain of the Sewol ferry Nonparty 8 recommended that “the operator of the Sewol ferry team take measures because of the fact that there are a large number of cargo,” the captain of the Sewol ferry Nonparty 8.

Nevertheless, the Cheongbu Shipping did not take any particular measures to resolve cargo congestion and defective breakdown for a long time. Rather, Nonparty 4, on April 14, 2014, before the accident of this case occurred, ordered the operator of the Haara to take a departure control from Nonparty 37 on the ground that the Maara Lake exceeded the load line, which was the framework for the occurrence of the accident of this case, the operator was subject to the departure control from Nonparty 37, while taking a bath to Nonparty 40, who was the captain of the Haara Lake, to force the captain of the Haara to depart from the port of the Haara.

7) The captain, Nonparty 10, and Nonparty 11 of the Sewol ferry did not conduct safety education and marine accident training for ordinary seafarers; and Nonparty 7 and Nonparty 8 did not properly control and supervise whether safety education and training were conducted.

(3) Determination as to joint tort liability under Article 760 of the Civil Act

As seen earlier, the deceased non-party 3 violated the duty of care to monitor and supervise the execution of duties by the executive officers and employees of the Cheong-do Shipping as the president of the Cheong-do Shipping. Such negligence was the cause of the instant accident, and it was objectively related to the illegal or inappropriate performance of duties by the executive officers and employees of the Cheong-do Shipping.

Therefore, the deceased non-party 3 is liable to compensate for damages caused by the instant accident in collaboration with the marine transport officers and employees ordered pursuant to Articles 760(1) and 750 of the Civil Act.

(4) Determination on the employer’s liability under Article 756 of the Civil Act

Even if the representative director of the company directs and supervises the employee in the course of performing his business affairs, he shall be deemed as the representative director's qualification, and shall not be deemed as a supervisor of business affairs in lieu of the above company's independent character separate from the above company (see Supreme Court Decision 72Da2488 delivered on February 13, 1973).

In light of the above legal principles, as seen earlier, the deceased non-party 3 was in the position of monitoring and supervising the non-party 2 as the representative director of the Cheongd Shipping as the chairman of the Cheongd Marine Transportation. Thus, even if the deceased non-party 3 directed and supervised the non-party 2, it is deemed that it was limited to the qualification of the chairman of the Cheongd Marine Transportation, and it does not seem to have been in a separate position from the Cheongd Marine Transportation Chairman. Accordingly, the part of the plaintiff's assertion on a different premise is without merit

(5) Sub-committee

The deceased non-party 3 is liable to compensate for the damages caused by the accident of this case jointly with the person who ordered the execution of duties under Article 401-2 of the Commercial Act, and the executive officers and employees of the government as joint tortfeasor under Article 760 of the Civil Act.

B) Determination as to Defendant 7’s renunciation of inheritance

(1) Summary of the parties’ assertion

(A) Summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion

On July 22, 2014, the chief of the relevant police station opened an emergency dog on July 22, 2014, and announced that “NA, fingerprints, and belongings of the dead body found in Macheon City was confirmed to be the deceased Nonparty 3.” On July 23, 2014, Nonparty 41, who provided an officetel to the Defendant 7, who was under flight, was in the presence of Defendant 7, was found to be the said officetel and Nonparty 42, saying, the Defendant 7 and Nonparty 42 stated that “the change of the personal body of Nonparty 3 in the news was discovered, but it is not the chairman of Nonparty 3 in view of various circumstances when the internal decision was made.”

Therefore, regardless of whether Defendant 7 believed the deceased Nonparty 3’s death, Defendant 7 was aware of the deceased Nonparty 3’s death on July 23, 2014, and Defendant 7 filed a report on the renunciation of inheritance with the Daegu Family Court on October 24, 2014 after three months from that date, and thus, Defendant 7’s report on renunciation of inheritance is deemed to have lapsed and null and void.

(B) Summary of Defendant 7’s assertion

Defendant 7 was arrested on July 25, 2014, and became aware of the deceased Nonparty 3’s death from an investigator. Defendant 7 filed a report of renunciation of inheritance with the Daegu Family Court on October 24, 2014, which was within three months from that time, and thus, Defendant 7’s report of renunciation of inheritance is valid as complying with the period. Accordingly, Defendant 7 did not inherit the deceased Nonparty 3.

(2) Facts of recognition

In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings, the following facts are recognized in the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 3, 12, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 15.

① Upon occurrence of the instant accident, the Prosecutor’s Office: (a) taken measures to prohibit the departure of the deceased Nonparty 3 from April 17, 2014 to April 19; (b) organized a special investigation team on April 20, 2014; and (c) commenced an investigation, such as the actual owner of the Sewol ferry. Defendant 7 was occupied by Nonparty 41’s officetels, who is his/her father and Nonparty 43 (one-day “one-day”) and Nonparty 42, who is his/her father and Nonparty 43 (one-day “one-day”) at his/her own home on April 21, 2014.

② On April 23, 2014, the prosecution seized and seized the deceased Nonparty 3, Defendant 7, and Defendant 1’s home, the jointopy meeting (name omitted), and the eusung (name omitted), etc. The deceased Nonparty 3 was sent from the office of Nonparty 44 to the office of Nonparty 45 until April 24, 2014, and from May 3, 2014, to the non-party 46, a non-party 46 et al., a non-indicted 46 et al., a non-indicted 46 et al., prior to the prosecution’s search and seizure.

③ Following the escape of the deceased Nonparty 3, the police and the prosecution attempted to arrest the deceased Nonparty 3 by organizing a force force for arrest. On May 21, 2014, the prosecution mobilized 70 investigators, and searched the inside of the (the name omitted), but did not arrest the deceased Nonparty 3. On May 25, 2014, the police and the prosecution did not arrest the deceased Nonparty 3, who was hiding Nonparty 46 by searching the letter of call from around 21:30 on May 25, 2014.

④ The prosecutor and the police mobilized 6,00 persons on June 11, 2014, and again searched the inside (name omitted), but did not arrest the deceased Nonparty 3.

⑤ On July 22, 2014, the chief of the relevant police station opened a press dog on July 2, 2014 to the effect that “the change was discovered in the field of a stop located near the YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY

6) The media, etc. pointed out the corruption status, height, physical characteristics, oil products discovered in the vicinity of a changer body, time and place of discovery of a changer body, etc., and raised doubt as to whether a changer body is in compliance with Nonparty 3 of the deceased. On July 24, 2014, some of the National Assembly members disclosed the recorded tapes and records containing a community resident’s statement to the effect that the time of discovery of a changer body was prior to the occurrence of the instant accident, thereby spreading suspicions surrounding the deceased Nonparty 3’s death.

7. The National Institute of Scientific Investigation (Seoul Branch) accepted a dead body and conducted autopsy and DNAA tests, and the Director of the National Institute of Scientific Investigation (the Director of the National Institute of Scientific Investigation) confirmed that the deceased body and the deceased were the same person through DNA tests, etc. on July 25, 2014, but announced that the deceased body and the deceased were the same person, but the exact cause was not revealed. Defendant 7 was arrested in the officetels on the same day.

④ On October 7, 2014, the deceased non-party 3 was accepted, and on October 24, 2014, Defendant 7 and non-party 35 reported the renunciation of inheritance to the Daegu Family Court on October 24, 2014, and on February 13, 2015, the above renunciation of inheritance was accepted.

(3) Determination

An inheritor may waive his/her inheritance within three months from the date of becoming aware of the commencement of the inheritance (Article 1019(1) of the Civil Act). The "date on which an inheritor becomes aware of the commencement of the inheritance" refers to the date on which he/she becomes aware of the occurrence of the cause of the commencement of the inheritance and thereby becomes an inheritor (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Da43681, Jul. 22, 2005); and "the cause of the commencement of the inheritance" refers to the death of the inheritee (Article 97 of the

In light of the following circumstances revealed by the above facts, i.e., the prosecution and the police officers were punished for their activities to arrest the deceased non-party 3 for several months after the deceased non-party 3 escaped. However, there were various doubts and arguments about the arrest of the deceased non-party 3, including the possibility of smuggling, and ii) on July 22, 2014, the chief of the police station announced that the deceased non-party 2 was found to be the deceased non-party 3's office's office of search and seizure on 7th,000, and that the deceased non-party 4 was not the deceased non-party 7's office's office of search and seizure on 7th,000's office of the deceased non-party 3. It was not the deceased non-party 1's office of search and seizure on 7th,000's office of the deceased non-party 4, but it was not the deceased non-party 2's office of investigation.

However, the fact that Defendant 7 filed a report on the renunciation of inheritance on October 24, 2014, which was within three months from that time, is identical to that of Defendant 7, and thus, Defendant 7’s report on the renunciation of inheritance is valid.

C) Sub-determination

Since Defendant 7 and Nonparty 35’s declaration of renunciation of inheritance is valid, Defendant 1, Defendant 2, and Defendant 3 inherited the deceased Nonparty 3’s property, respectively.

D) Determination as to the assertion that Defendants 1, 2, and 3’s non-application of the Act on the Assistance to the Damage to the Sewol Ferry

(1) Summary of the assertion

The right to indemnity under Article 42(2) of the Sewol Ferry Damage Support Act is established by the Sewol Ferry Damage Support Act, and constitutes a right to indemnity recognized by a special Act. Since the Sewol Ferry Damage Support Act, which was enforced from March 29, 2015, did not separately provide for retroactive application in the Addenda, the Plaintiff’s right to indemnity was able to be exercised only after March 29, 2015.

However, it is presumed that the deceased non-party 3 died at the end of May 2014 or on or around June 2014. As such, the deceased non-party 3 had already died on March 29, 2015 when the Act was enforced. Accordingly, the deceased non-party 3 does not bear the duty of reimbursement under Article 42(2) of the Sewol Ferry Damage Support Act, and there is no obligation of reimbursement to be inherited to the Defendants.

(2) Determination

The deceased non-party 3 bears the duty of compensation for damages caused by the accident in this case as joint tortfeasor under Article 401-2 of the Commercial Act, and Article 760 of the Civil Act. The defendants inherited the duty of compensation of the deceased non-party 3 each half of 1/3, and the defendants are obligated to compensate for damages under Article 42(2) of the Sewol Ferry Damage Support Act. The meaning of "a person who caused the sinking accident in the Sewol Ferry" should be interpreted as "a person who bears the duty of compensation in accordance with the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, such as the Civil Act," and Article 42(2) of the Sewol Ferry Damage Support Act must be interpreted as "a person who bears the duty of compensation in the case of the accident in this case," and it is reasonable to view that Article 42(2) of the Sewol Ferry Damage Support Act provides the requirements and scope of the right of compensation that the deceased non-party 3, including the defendants, is not obligated to compensate for damages. Therefore, the above defendants' assertion is without merit.

3) Determination on the responsibility of Defendant 1, Defendant 2, and Defendant 3 for an executive instruction

A) The concept of a control group and whether to recognize the duty of loyalty to the members of a control group

The Plaintiff asserts to the effect that Defendant 1, Defendant 2, and Defendant 3 constitute a single control group with the deceased Nonparty 3 and Defendant 7, and that Defendant 1, Defendant 2, and Defendant 3, who are members of the control group, should be granted the duty and responsibility to the extent that they are obligated to perform the duty of loyalty of directors.

In light of the basic ideology of the Civil Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da71659, 7166, 71673, Nov. 16, 2007); Article 331 of the Commercial Act provides for the principle of limited liability of shareholders; the Commercial Act does not stipulate explicit provisions on “the principle of limited liability of shareholders” or “the common liability of the controlling group members”, “the duty of loyalty to the company of the controlling group” (Article 2 subparag. 2 of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act); Article 2 subparag. 6 of the Act on Corporate Governance of Financial Companies defines “large stockholders”; Article 2 subparag. 6 of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act; Article 331 of the Enforcement Decree of the Commercial Act defines “the company” as “the major shareholders”; Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act; Article 2 of the Act on Corporate Governance of Financial Companies; Article 331 of the Enforcement Decree of the Mutual Savings Banks Act provides that the Plaintiff’s joint liability to the Defendant or the company members.

Therefore, I will examine whether Defendant 1, Defendant 2, and Defendant 3 are individually responsible for the performance of duties.

B) Determination as to Defendant 1

According to the evidence mentioned above, Gap's evidence, Gap's evidence Nos. 5, 45, 54, 55, 61, 73, 74, 75, and 78, the defendant 1 had a considerable influence on the shipping and (group name omitted) affiliates of the defendant 1 who were the second south of the deceased non-party 3 and the defendant 19.44% of the shares of the defendant ASEAN; the defendant 4 conspired with the defendant 1 for 325,00,000,000 won to be paid to the defendant ASEAN for management consulting fee; the defendant 325,00,00,00 won to be embezzled for 325,00 won to be paid from October 1, 2008 to February 27, 2014; the defendant 201,000 won to be purchased from the non-party 30,100,000 won to the domestic company's photograph No. 219,200,10. 250.

However, even if Defendant 1, in collusion with Defendant 4, etc., inflicted property damage as above on the cargo taken place, in light of the content, timing, and scale of the above embezzlement and breach of trust, it is difficult to acknowledge that there is a proximate causal relationship between the above embezzlement and breach of trust and the accident of this case. ② In light of the fact that the Plaintiff did not assert or prove specific “violation of laws and subordinate statutes, articles of incorporation, or breach of duty,” the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff is insufficient to recognize that Defendant 1 is liable for the instant accident. This part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

C) Determination as to Defendant 2

In full view of the aforementioned evidence, Gap evidence, evidence Nos. 4, 5, 6, 51, 55, 61, 72, 75, 76, and 77 and the purport of the entire pleadings, it is acknowledged that defendant Nos. 2 held 2.57% of the shares of the defendant Aiba Holdings Holdings, the defendant No. 3, and the defendant No. 2 held as the representative director of the sand Abalian design for the purpose of the interior and design business, and that the sand Agal design was carried out as a photograph display room, a coffee shop, a coffee shop, a Mroat room, and a design for the 165,00,000 won from the Cheongd Marine Transport in the process of enlarging No. 3 and remodeling.

However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that Defendant 2 participated in the extension or remodeling decision of the Sewol ferry beyond participating in the interior and design of the exhibition room, etc., and ② even if Defendant 2 participated in the extension or remodeling decision of the Sewol ferry, Defendant 2 held that the extension or remodeling itself of the Sewol ferry itself (the Gwangju High Court did not recognize illegality of the extension or remodeling itself (Seoul High Court Decision 2014No509), or that there is no proximate causal relation between the extension or remodeling itself of the Sewol ferry and the accident of this case) of the Sewol ferry, and ③ Defendant 2 was not punished as embezzlement or embezzlement of the cargo taken place, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to acknowledge that Defendant 2 is responsible for the instant accident. This part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

D) Determination as to Defendant 3

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments as to Gap evidence Nos. 4, 5, and 6, it is recognized that defendant 3 held 2.57% of the shares of the deceased non-party 3 and the defendant Lee Won-won Holdings, but the plaintiff did not assert or prove specific arguments concerning the "violation of Acts and subordinate statutes, articles of incorporation" or "act of neglecting duties" of the defendant 3. Thus, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

C. Determination on the claim against Defendant 4

Defendant 4, in collusion with the deceased non-party 1 and Defendant 7, embezzled by requiring the transport from October 1, 2008 to February 27, 2014 to pay KRW 325,00,00 in aggregate as management consulting fees, and in collusion with the deceased non-party 3, Defendant 1, and Non-party 2 to purchase KRW 110,00,000 of the deceased non-party 3’s photograph, or the deceased non-party 3’s photograph from January 19, 201 to July 25, 2014 to obtain KRW 325,00,00 in aggregate as management consulting fees, it is difficult to recognize that there was no reasonable causal relation between the above act of embezzlement and the defendant’s breach of trust as stated above, on the premise that the deceased non-party 3’s photographic work’s domestic sales company (name 3 omitted), but the above act of embezzlement and embezzlement of KRW 460,00 in light of the following facts.

D. Determination as to the claim against Defendant Livea Holdings

1) A “person who instructs a director to conduct business by using his influence over the company” includes not only a natural person but also a parent company which is a legal person. However, in order for such parent company to be liable for damages to a third party under Article 401 of the Commercial Act, the “act of neglect of duties due to intention or gross negligence” is a “act of neglect of duties due to intention or gross negligence,” i.e., an illegal act of violating the duty of loyalty and duty of care recognized as an institution of the company (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Da2611

2) The facts that Defendant ABB Holdings owned 42.81% of the shares of Defendant ABB Holdings, and that Defendant ABB Holdings owned 39.4% of the shares of Defendant BBD, despite being aware of the fact that the Plaintiff held 39.4% of the shares of Defendant CBD, the Plaintiff did not give specific arguments and evidence as to the “violation of laws and subordinate statutes, articles of incorporation, or breach of duty” of Defendant ABD, which is in proximate relation to the instant accident (the Plaintiff’s assertion that Defendant ABB Holdings held shares of Defendant ABD and played an important role in giving orders to conduct business against the shipping for which the deceased Nonparty 3 was sought by holding the shares of Defendant BBD, cannot be deemed to have any assertion as to the “violation of laws and subordinate statutes,” articles of incorporation, or “act of neglect of duty”). The Plaintiff’s claim for ABD against Defendant ABD by the Plaintiff is without merit).

E. Sub-committee

Ultimately, as a joint tortfeasor under Article 401-2 of the Commercial Act, the deceased non-party 3, as a joint tortfeasor under Articles 760 and 750 of the Civil Act, bears the duty to compensate the victims for the damages caused by the instant accident as a joint tortfeasor under Article 401-2 of the Commercial Act, and Defendant 1, Defendant 2, and Defendant 3, the deceased non-party 3’s heir of the deceased non-party 3, have succeeded to the above liability of compensation 1/3 each by the deceased non-party 3. As such, the above Defendants are “a person who caused the Sewol ferry sinking,” and are liable to compensate the plaintiff for the damages under Article 42(2) of the Sewol Ferry Damage Support Act.

2. Determination on the scope of liability for indemnity

A. Determination on specific items

1) Summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion

As of December 31, 2017, the Plaintiff asserts that KRW 462,468,512,276 (i.e., KRW 447,031,745,468 of the enforcement amount + KRW 15,436,766,80 of the estimated enforcement amount + KRW 421,380,369,889 of the enforcement amount as indicated in the corresponding column in attached Table 3 (i.e., KRW 413,822,276,859 of the enforcement amount + KRW 7,58,093,030 of the estimated enforcement amount + KRW 7,558,030 of the estimated enforcement amount) is subject to the obligation of compensation as indicated in the corresponding column in attached Table 3.

2) Relevant legal principles

A) Each of the liability for damages under Articles 399, 414, 401, and 415 of the Commercial Act due to a director or auditor’s violation of the statutes, the articles of incorporation, or the neglect of duties shall be limited to the damages in proximate causal relation with the violation (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da2820, Apr. 29, 2005). Since it is reasonable to deem that the above legal principle applies to this case claiming the right of indemnity under Article 42(2) of the Sewol Ferry Damage Support Act, the expenses that the State, etc. may claim under the above provision shall not be all the expenses paid in connection with the instant accident, but shall be limited to the expenses that are recognized as proximate causal relation with the instant accident.

B) In addition, Articles 10 and 36(3) of the Constitution provide that the State shall take appropriate and efficient legislative and administrative measures necessary to protect the safety of the lives and bodies of citizens to prevent and maintain the risk of infringement (see, e.g., Constitutional Court en banc Order 2008Hun-Ma419, 423, and 436, Dec. 26, 2008). Article 34(6) of the Constitution provides that “The State shall endeavor to prevent disasters and protect citizens from the danger.” Article 2 of the former Framework Act on the Management of Disasters and Safety (Amended by Act No. 1284, Nov. 19, 2014) provides that “The State and local governments shall confirm that the State and local governments shall endeavor to prevent disasters and minimize damage if a disaster occurs,” and Article 5 of the Sewol ferry Damage Support Act provides that “The State shall endeavor to promote social security and social security obligations of the State.”

As above, the State bears the duty to comprehensively protect the lives and bodies of the people, the duty to prevent disasters and minimize damage, and the duty to promote social security and social welfare. Therefore, it is apprehended that the State’s compensation for all the expenses incurred in relation to the instant accident may be transferred to the person who caused the accident, and thus, it should be considered in determining the proximate causal relationship between the accident in this case and the expenses paid by the State.

C) Articles 66(6) and 66(3) of the Framework Act on the Management of Disasters and Safety (amended by Act No. 14553, Jan. 17, 2017; hereinafter “Disaster Safety Act”) provide that, where the State and a local government provide support to restore facilities damaged by social disasters and to stabilize the livelihood of affected residents, the State and the local government may claim all or part of the cost borne by the causing provider to the State and the local government. Articles 13(3), 13(1), and 4 of the Disaster Relief Act (amended by Act No. 13753, Jan. 7, 2016; hereinafter “Disaster Relief Act”) provide that, where the State or a relief agency bears the cost of relief to the victims of social disasters, the State or the relief agency may claim all or part of the cost borne by the causing provider to the State or the relief agency. In determining whether the cost spent by the State falls under any subparagraph of Article 42(2) of the Disaster Relief and Relief Act, the aforementioned provision must be referred to three weeks.

3) Determination on the claim of the estimated execution amount

A) Summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion

The Plaintiff asserts to the effect that the Plaintiff may exercise the right of indemnity on the grounds that the aggregate amount of KRW 7,58,093,030 (=the amount of KRW 787,00,000 supported by the victim (bereaved family members) + KRW 3,328,213,410 + the cost of accident relief + KRW 3,442,879,620) falls under each subparagraph of Article 42(2) of the Sewol Ferry Damage Support Act, as of December 13, 2017.

B) Determination

In light of the following, the plaintiff is deemed a joint tortfeasor of the accident of this case. One of the joint tortfeasor in order to exercise the right to indemnity against the share of the other joint tortfeasor according to the ratio of fault of the other joint tortfeasor, the time when the right to indemnity has occurred is actually paid to the victim for damages (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Da50896, Dec. 12, 1997); ② Article 42(2) of the Assistance to the Sewol Ferry Loss Act provides that the right to indemnity can be exercised in cases of payment of damages to the victim in reality; ③ other provisions to recognize the right to indemnity in advance of the joint tortfeasor in the Civil Act and the Assistance to the Damage to the Sewol Ferry Loss Act, etc., it is reasonable to deem that the plaintiff can exercise the right to indemnity under Article 42 of the Assistance to the Sewol Ferry Loss Act only when the plaintiff has actually paid the amount under each subparagraph of Article 42(2) of the Support to the Damage to the Sewol Ferry.

Therefore, insofar as there is no assertion or evidence as to whether the Plaintiff actually spent the above costs, the Plaintiff’s claim for reimbursement for this part of the claim for reimbursement is without merit without further review.

4) Determination on the costs of search and rescue

A) Determination as to oil expenses

In full view of the contents of evidence Nos. 15 and 110, the Plaintiff’s payment of KRW 42,535,045,371 in total as oil expenses for search, rescue, public inspection activities, etc. is recognized. It is reasonable to view that the above expenses constitute Article 42(2)2 of the Sewol Ferry Damage Support Act with the pre-paid expenses for the prevention of aquatic rescue and relief and victims’ loss.

B) Determination as to Lighting

In full view of the purport of each statement in Gap evidence Nos. 16 and 111, it is reasonable to view that the plaintiff paid KRW 20,155,58,000 as the amount of air lighting for the purpose of night rescue operations support, and that the above expenses constitute Article 42 (2) 2 of the Sewol Ferry Damage Support Act with the pre-paid expenses for the purpose of aquatic rescue and relief and the prevention of loss of victims.

C) Determination on personnel expenses

In full view of the purport of the evidence evidence Nos. 17 and 112 as a whole, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff spent KRW 6,019,318,300 in total as personnel expenses for diving investigation for search and rescue, and that the aforementioned expenses constitute Article 42(2)2 of the Sewol Ferry Damage Support Act with the pre-paid expenses for the prevention of aquatic rescue and relief and the loss of victims.

D) Determination on the purchase of equipment and usage fees

(1) Summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion

The plaintiff asserts to the effect that KRW 11,298,129,90 paid for the purchase of equipment and usage fees is the pre-paid expenses for aquatic rescue and relief activities and prevention of loss of victims under Article 42 (2) 2 of the Sewol Ferry Damage Support Act.

(2) Determination

According to the evidence evidence Nos. 18 and 113, the plaintiff recognized that he pre-paid the purchase of equipment and the user fee, such as caters, sea-going ships, and tugboat, and there is a proximate causal link between the above expenses and the prevention of loss of victims.

However, No. 13 20, 40, 51, 51, 18, 18, 24, 16, 16, 18, 24, 17, 18, 17, 196, 17, 196, 197, 197, 201, 197, 18, 197, 201, 196, 197, 201, 196, 197, 197, 201, 196, 197, 25, 196, 196, 17, 25, 196, 196, 196, 27, 316, 196, 25, 194, 163, 165, 168, 198, 196

Therefore, it is reasonable to view that only KRW 11,175,982,430 (i.e., KRW 11,298,129,90 - KRW 122,147,470) out of the purchase of equipment and the user fee constitutes Article 42(2)2 of the Sewol Ferry Damage Support Act for the purpose of aquatic rescue and relief and prevention of the loss of victims.

E) Determination on support for rescue search and fishing vessels

In full view of the evidence evidence Nos. 19 and 114 as a whole, it is recognized that the Plaintiff spent KRW 24,219,207,350 for the fishing vessel participating in the search, and that this constitutes Article 42(2)2 of the Sewol Ferry Damage Support Act for the purpose of preventing aquatic rescue and relief and victims from being lost.

F) Determination on search and rescue costs

(1) Summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion

The Plaintiff asserts to the effect that KRW 11,087,520,050 paid as search and rescue expenses is the pre-paid expenses for aquatic rescue and relief activities and prevention of loss of victims under Article 42(2)2 of the Sewol Ferry Damage Support Act.

(2) Determination

As seen earlier, the State has a duty to comprehensively protect the lives and bodies of the people, to prevent disasters and to minimize damage, and the Disaster Safety Act and the Disaster Relief Act provide that the State, etc. may claim all or part of the “support for the recovery of damaged facilities and the stabilization of the livelihood of damaged residents” or “relief expenses for victims of disaster, etc.” to a person who caused social disasters, and the State does not have any provision on various allowances, etc. paid to public officials, it is reasonable to deem that various allowances, office supplies, general goods purchase expenses, and accommodation expenses paid to public officials are not included in the pre-paid expenses for the purpose of aquatic rescue and relief and the prevention of the loss of victims.

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in evidence Nos. 20 and 115, it is reasonable to view that the aggregate of KRW 527,316,570 (No. 415-2 No. 115-2 No. 417), diving products, 448, 461, 463, 465, 468, 469, 470 won in total, 17,153,700, total of KRW 743,392,000,000 for the purchase of aquatic rescue equipment, expenses for rescue and repair of helicopter and equipment (No. 1428 through 1439), and expenses for aquatic rescue and relief, etc. for the prevention of victims and for the prevention of loss under Article 42(2)2 of the Act on Support for Damage Caused by the Sea Disaster.

However, the remainder of the above recognized costs, other than expenses, are various allowances to be paid to public officials, such as meal expenses, exclusive expenses, overtime travel expenses, overtime service, service allowances, naval service, lodging expenses, travel expenses, travel expenses, special food service expenses, and water supply expenses, or vehicle fuel expenses, motor vehicle comprehensive inspection expenses, telephone charges, Internet charges, newspapers, office supplies, office supplies, etc., and the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone cannot be deemed to have a proximate causal relation with the prevention of aquatic rescue and relief and the loss of victims.

Therefore, it is reasonable to view that only KRW 1,287,862,280 out of the search and rescue expenses (i.e., KRW 527,316,570 + KRW 17,153,700 + 743,392,010) falls under Article 42(2)2 of the Sewol Ferry Damage Support Act for the purpose of aquatic rescue and relief and prevention of loss of victims.

G) Determination on search, rescue, and other expenses on the pretext thereof

(1) Summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion

The plaintiff asserts to the effect that KRW 3,738,765,250 paid for search, rescue, or any other name is a pre-paid expense for aquatic rescue and relief activities and prevention of loss of victims under Article 42(2)2 of the Sewol Ferry Damage Support Act.

(2) Determination

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the evidence Nos. 21 and 116, KRW 1,574,547,091, total expenses for repair parts (No. 116 No. 3) shall be deemed to fall under Article 42(2)2 of the Sewol Ferry Damage Support Act, since there is a proximate causal relation between the rescue and relief of aquatic accidents and the prevention of loss of victims, as the expenses related to the parts for the equipment necessary for search and rescue are related to the parts for the equipment.

However, the remainder of the expenses, except for the above recognition costs, are hard to view that there is a proximate causal relation with the prevention of loss of aquatic rescue and relief activities and victims only with the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, such as the cost of proliferation, other materials (raw water, shampoo, male shampoo, cosmetics for man, fluorries, multi-purposes, etc.), clothes, ordinary goods (fluoring pipes, electrical material, woos, wings, anti-aircrafts, etc.), computer operation equipment (fluorpers), structural personnel and the general public, food expenses, travel expenses (No. 116 No. 40/16) 1,2,4,5,6,7,8,9,10).

In addition, since the National Police Agency stated the expenses for search and rescue support for business name (No. 116 No. 1. 1, 12, 13) as the detailed execution of the expenses (the details of the detailed execution of the expenses referred to as "responding expenses" or "the search support and maintenance of order related to the Sewol ferry", it cannot be confirmed specific use of the expenses, and the expenses for maintenance of order cannot be deemed as the expenses already paid for the purpose of aquatic rescue and relief and prevention of loss of victims, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone cannot be deemed as a proximate causal relation to the prevention of loss

5) Determination as to support for victims (bereaved family members)

A) Determination on the deceased and wounded noble person’s compensation

(1) Summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion

The plaintiff asserts to the effect that the 608,739,000 won paid as compensation for deceased and wounded noble persons is "expenses incurred in relation to human resources and equipment mobilized for rescue and relief and prevention of loss of victims" under Article 42 (2) 2 of the Act on the Support of Damage to the Sewol Ferry.

(2) Determination

According to the evidence evidence Nos. 27 and 117, the fact that the Plaintiff paid 608,739,000 won to three bereaved family members of the deceased and wounded noble person due to the instant accident as compensation in accordance with the Act on Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service for Public Good.

However, the Act on the Assistance for the Damage of the Sewol ferry provides that "fishermens" and "Gugdo residents" who suffered from the accident of this case shall be entitled to compensation for the injury, and no separate provision is provided for the compensation for the deceased and wounded (see Articles 42 (2) 1-2 and 7 (1) of the Act on the Assistance for the Damage of the Sewol Ferry). The system that pays compensation, etc. to the bereaved families of the wounded and wounded noble persons has the character of social security to promote the stabilization of their livelihood and the improvement of their welfare, as well as the State honorable treatment for their contributions and sacrifices for the nation and society (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Da46894, Feb. 23, 2001). In light of the purport and purpose of the Act, the compensation system for the damage does not constitute Article 42 (2) 2 of the Act on the Assistance for the Damage of the deceased and wounded noble Persons.

B) Determination on medical subsidies (such as bereaved family medical expenses)

(1) Summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion

The plaintiff asserts that KRW 1,694,212,260 paid as medical support for the victim or his/her bereaved family members is active damages due to illegal acts, which constitute compensation under Articles 42(2)1 and 6 of the Sewol Ferry Damage Support Act.

(2) Determination

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the evidence evidence Nos. 88, 89, and 118, the Ministry of Health and Welfare affiliated with the Plaintiff is recognized to have spent KRW 609,00,000 as “the subsidization of medical expenses for victims of the Sewol ferry” on December 26, 2014, and KRW 1,085,212,260 as “the subsidization of medical expenses for bereaved family members of the Sewol ferry” from December 29, 2015 to December 22, 2017.

First of all, it is reasonable to view that the health expenses for the medical expenses for the victims of the Sewol ferry fall under Article 42 (2) 1 of the Support for the Damage of the Sewol Ferry Act as compensation under Article 6 of the Support for the Damage of the Sewol Ferry Act.

Next, regarding the treatment costs of bereaved family members in the Sewol ferry, the following circumstances are considered as follows: ① Article 20(1) of the Sewol Ferry Damage Support Act provides that “the State, etc. shall take measures to provide support for the recovery of mental damage to victims”; Article 23(1)2 provides that “the State, etc. may pay the victims for medical expenses necessary for the treatment of mental diseases and post-treatment.” Article 24 provides that “The State, etc. shall provide the victims with necessary support, such as psychological counseling and daily life consultation for the psychological stability and adaptation of society,” and Article 25 provides that “The State, etc. shall exercise psychological support and treatment costs of the victims aggravated by the April 16 Sewol ferry disaster so that the victims can receive medical examination or treatment for mental illness, etc.” (Article 20(2) provides that “The State, etc. shall, in principle, have the duty to provide psychological support for the victims of the Sewol ferry disaster to the victims of the Sewol ferry disaster, and the head of the National Health and Safety Countermeasure Headquarters, which is clearly recognized as the victim’s or family members of the disaster.”

C) Determination on funeral expenses

Considering the overall purport of the arguments in the evidence Nos. 29, 81, 102, and 119, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff spent KRW 6,681,483,010 in total as funeral expenses of the victims of the instant accident, and that the above expenses constitute compensation under Article 6 of the Sewol Ferry Damage Support Act, which falls under Article 42(2)1 of the Sewol Ferry Damage Support Act.

D) Determination on funeral expenses

(1) Summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion

The plaintiff asserts that the total amount of KRW 415,195,293, which was paid as funeral expenses, is positive damages due to the illegal act, which constitutes compensation under Article 42 (2) 1 of the Sewol Ferry Damage Support Act.

(2) Determination

In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings, evidence Nos. 82 and 120 as a whole, among the expenses for which the plaintiff claims for funeral expenses, 374, 926,563 won in total, in relation to funeral expenses (the sum of 120 No. 120-2, 129 through 134, 136, 137, 139 through 174, 479 through 483), 374, 926, and 563 won in relation to funeral expenses, such as funeral supplies (the cell, tamper, tamper, etc.), freezing, and separate types of equipment for funeral support, funeral expenses, oil expenses, private funeral guidance expenses, etc. (the sum of 120-2, 120-3, 129 through 483), among the expenses for which the plaintiff claims for funeral expenses.

However, the remainder of the expenses, except for the above recognized portion, include the purchase cost (54 No. 115, 116), the current status list of support workers related to the Sewol ferry (15, 116), the relocation cost of public officials (No. 135), the printing cost of the funeral support team manual (No. 138), the support work cost of public officials, travel expenses, etc. (No. 175 through 357, 368 through 478, 484 through 506), and there is no other detailed evidence related to the above travel expenses, including the detailed statement of work for special assistance in the Sewol ferry, "the travel expenses related to the report to the President of the Korean Government Investigation Special Committee and the Minister," "the attendance expense for the National Police Investigation Committee and the list of support workers related to the Sewol ferry," "the detailed statement of funeral expense for the funeral service, etc. 280, 281, 378, 378, 378, 378, 3747, etc.

E) Determination on support for victims (bereaved family members) and other matters

(1) Summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion

The Plaintiff asserts that KRW 3,487,706,390 paid for the support of victims (bereaved family members) and other names constituted “other expenses disbursed in the course of the recovery of the April 16 Sewol ferry disaster” under Article 42(2)3 of the Sewol Ferry Damage Support Act.

(2) Determination

According to the evidence evidence Nos. 31 and 121, it is recognized that the Plaintiff spent KRW 3,487,706,390 in total under the name of “the first and second cycle of the ordinary victims of the Sewol ferry”, “the memorial support project”, “the operation of the memorial hall in the Sewol ferry”, and “the establishment of the temporary memorial hall for the victims of the Sewol ferry disaster”.

In light of the following, Article 36 of the Act on the Support for the Damage from the Sewol Ferry, the State, etc. provides that "the State, etc. shall implement the following projects to prevent the trend of victims of the April 16 Sewol ferry disaster and maritime accidents: Provided, That where a local government implements projects, the State, etc. shall provide support therefor;" and Article 42 (2) of the Act on the Support for the Damage from the Sewol Ferry provides for the State's duty to implement commemorative projects; ② the compensation paid pursuant to Article 6 of the Act on the Support for the Damage from the Sewol Ferry and the compensation paid pursuant to Article 7 of the same Act for the exercise of the right to indemnity; and there is no explicit provision for the expenses paid for the commemorative projects. In light of the fact that there is no provision for the expenses paid for the commemorative projects, the expenses related to the commemorative projects are the expenses to be borne by the Plaintiff according to the national honorable treatment, patriotism, and policy consideration for victims and their bereaved families.

6) Determination on the Life Stabilization Fund of Jindo fishermen

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 32 and 122, it is recognized that the plaintiff paid KRW 1,094,912,20 to the Jindo fishermen damaged due to the loss of fishing gear due to the search work of the accident of this case, restrictions on fishery activities, practical skills for fishery activities, decrease in the production of fishery products, decrease in the sales of fishery products, etc., and it is reasonable to view that the plaintiff was the compensation under Article 7(1) of the Sewol Ferry Damage Support Act, which is the cost under Article 42(2)1-2 of the Sewol Ferry Damage Support Act.

7) Determination on distribution of and compensation for damage

A) Determination on business damage, oil pollution damage, cargo damage, victim's shipbuilding compensation, and injured injury compensation

In full view of the purport of the arguments in the evidence evidence Nos. 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 96 through 103, and 123 through 128, the plaintiff is found to have paid KRW 2,714,272,040 as compensation for business damage, KRW 243,642,090 as compensation for oil pollution damage and compensation for cargo damage, KRW 10,198,752,90 as compensation for cargo damage, KRW 78,512,028,90 as compensation for damage, KRW 9,786,378,230 as compensation for the injured, and the above expenses are deemed to have been expenses under Article 42(2)1 and 1-2 of the Act on the Support for Damage Caused by the Sewol Ferry.

B) Determination on the allocation of damages, compensation, and other expenses on the pretext thereof

(1) Summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion

The plaintiff asserts that KRW 674,190,420, paid under other names such as allocation of damages, compensation, etc. falls under the control expenses under Article 42 (2) 3 of the Sewol Ferry Damage Support Act.

(2) Determination

According to Gap evidence Nos. 37 and 128, it is recognized that the plaintiff paid KRW 674,190,420 under the name of the research service related to the distribution and compensation of the Sewol ferry, the operation of the Sewol ferry Compensation Deliberation Committee (such as goods purchase cost, members' allowances, printing cost, equipment, vehicle rental cost, etc.).

However, Article 5 of the Act on the Support of Damage to the Sewol Ferry provides that "In order to confirm the obligation of the State to prevent disasters and protect citizens from such danger, and deliberate and resolve on matters concerning compensation and compensation for the April 16 Sewol ferry disaster, the Deliberative Committee on Compensation for the April 16 Sewol Ferry Disaster shall be established under the Prime Minister." Thus, in order to promptly compensate and compensate for the victims of the accident of this case according to uniform standards, the obligation of the State to establish and operate the Deliberative Committee on Compensation for the April 16 Sewol Ferry Disaster appears to be the obligation of the State, and the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone does not constitute Article 42 (2) 3 of the Act on the Support of Damage to the Sewol Ferry

8) Determination on the cost of accident management

A) Determination on the operation of the Countermeasures Headquarters

(1) Summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion

The plaintiff asserts that KRW 5,458,263,151, paid as part of the operation of the countermeasures headquarters, falls under the control expenses under Article 42 (2) 3 of the Sewol Ferry Damage Support Act.

(2) Determination

The evidence Nos. 38 and 129 reveals the purport of the argument as a whole, the plaintiff's 4,92,970 won for 4,92,970 won for diversatory equipment and probationary support equipment ( lifeboats, divers, water divers, water divers, water condition measurement equipment, outdoor lighting, portable search equipment, etc.) purchase cost and rent (Evidence No. 4251 through 259, 261 through 267, 267, 484) for 70,504,50 won for diversary support equipment, etc. (Evidence No. 129-2, 639, 640, 645, 647) for the purpose of confirming the identity of the victim, and for the expenses for diversary support equipment and disaster No. 375 and 475 of the Sewol Ferry Disaster.

However, the remainder of the expenses, except for the above recognized parts, are the creation of local jobs (No. 129-2 No. 48), the Special Investigation Committee, the investigation of the State, the purchase of goods by the Special Committee (No. 64, 66, 67, 338, 339, 617, 618, 620, 621, 622, 623, 624, 625, 625, 659, 661, 664), expenses for supporting press coverage (liver No. 129-2, 680, 681, 682, 683, 684), expenses for the installation of accident compensation support teams, office-related special committee (No. 129-2, 666, 1666, 260, 1666, 1666, 260, 1666, 1666, and 294).

In addition, expenses incurred in relation to marriage 2 and articles (No. 129 No. 129) 3, 594, 596, 597, 598, 600, 601, 602) and expenses incurred in relation to the operation of branch offices (No. 179, 180, 189, 190, 191, 196, 199, 205, 206, 211, 212, 218, 269, 327, 361, 360, 360, 360, 360, 360, 415, 417, 4847, 457, 457, 257, 405 of the State’s Act and expenses incurred in relation to No. 253 and 45 of the victims, 250.

B) Determination of the cost of hull salvage and the cost of hull salvage consulting;

In full view of the purport of the arguments in the evidence Nos. 39, 40, 130, and 131, the Plaintiff is deemed to have paid KRW 147,323,250,60 to the salvage hulls of the Sewol ferry, and KRW 3,667,684,710 to the hull salvage consulting expenses. The above expenses are deemed to be “other expenses paid in the course of recovery from the April 16 Sewol ferry disaster” under Article 42(2)3 of the Act on the Support for Damage to the Sewol Ferry Disaster.

C) Determination of identification expenses

(1) Summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion

The plaintiff asserts that KRW 99,786,055 paid as expenses for identification corresponds to the training expenses under Article 42 (2) 3 of the Sewol Ferry Damage Support Act.

(2) Determination

In full view of the overall purport of the arguments as to Gap evidence No. 132, it is reasonable to view that the sum of purchase costs (No. 15-2, No. 132-2, No. 15-22, 166), such as reagents materials, mash, wests, protective clothes, earth and tops, saws, saws, saws, saws, saws, etc. for identification, 13,829,100 won is "other expenses disbursed in the course of the recovery of the April 16 Sewol ferry disaster" under Article 42(2)3 of the Damage Support Act.

However, the remainder of the expenses, except for each of the above expenses, shall be borne by the Plaintiff, such as travel expenses (No. 132 No. 35 through 165, 167 through 171 of evidence A), or the work management headquarters for the Sewol ferry site (No. 132-2 No. 1 through 14 of evidence A), and the fuel expenses for public vehicles (No. 132-2 No. 23 through 34 of evidence A), or cannot be confirmed. Thus, it is difficult to deem that the above expenses fall under Article 42 (2) 3 of the Sewol Ferry Damage Support Act.

D) Determination on marine pollution response expenses

(1) Summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion

The plaintiff asserts that KRW 3,512,018,109 paid as marine pollution response expenses falls under the control expenses under Article 42 (2) 3 of the Sewol Ferry Damage Support Act.

(2) Determination

In full view of the purport of the argument in Gap evidence No. 133, it is reasonable to view that the plaintiff's service related to the calculation of pollution response expenses, marine pollution response spent goods, machinery and apparatus usage expenses, machinery and apparatus repair expenses, machinery and apparatus cleaning expenses, waste disposal equipment transport expenses, fuel disposal vehicle charges, pollution response vehicle fuel expenses, purchase expenses of materials for disaster prevention, pollution response company pollution response expenses, pollution response expenses, and marine environment prevention and removal expenses (A evidence No. 133 No. 1 1 through 8, 11 through 16, 18 through 22) total of 3,140,560,39 won as marine pollution response expenses and expenses for marine pollution response under Article 42 (2) 3 of the Act on the Support for Damage to the Sewol Ferry Disaster.

However, personnel expenses, domestic travel expenses, purchase expenses for office supplies, and meal expenses (No. 133 No. 9, 10, 17) with the exception of the above-mentioned parts cannot be deemed as the expenses under Article 42(2)3 of the Act on the Assistance to the Damage to Sewol Ferry.

E) Determination on the cost of operating decentralization

(1) Summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion

In full view of the fact that the Act on the Support for the Damage Caused by the Sewol Ferry is promoting the community recovery in the damaged area by gathering persons who have made a sacrifice due to the Sewol ferry, providing prompt relief for damage and assistance for living stability and psychological stability for persons who have sustained physical, mental, or economic damage, etc., the expenses for the operation of the branch office are expenses incurred in order to commemorate victims and restore victims and their surviving families to the maximum extent possible mental damage caused by the crime, the Plaintiff asserts that the expenses for the operation of the branch office constitute “other expenses incurred in the course of the relief of the April 16 Sewol ferry disaster” under Article 42(2)3 of the Act on the Support for the Damage Caused by the Sewol Ferry Disaster.

(2) Determination

According to Gap evidence Nos. 42 and 134, it is recognized that the plaintiff spent KRW 12,718,096,60 for the installation and operation of a joint branch office.

However, the expenses for the operation of the branch office are both the nature of funeral expenses and commemorative projects, and funeral expenses are already included in the subject of the exercise of the right to reimbursement, and the expenses related to commemorative projects are expenses to be borne by the Plaintiff according to the honorable treatment and policy consideration for victims and their bereaved family members, etc. Therefore, it is difficult to view that the above expenses fall under Article 42(2)3 of the Sewol Ferry Damage Support Act.

F) Determination on accident relief and other expenses

(1) Summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion

The plaintiff asserts that KRW 5,878,090,680 paid as accident recovery and other names constituted "other expenses disbursed in the course of the April 16 Sewol ferry disaster" under Article 42 (2) 3 of the Sewol Ferry Damage Support Act.

(2) Determination

In full view of the purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 43 and 135, the plaintiff recognized that the plaintiff paid 15,259,050 won for purchasing fuel oil, etc. (No. 135-2 / 12 or 19 of evidence No. 135), (name 7 omitted), (name 8 omitted), oil expenses (No. 194 or 225 of evidence No. 135-2, No. 135) to 80,568,623, fishing guide oil expenses (No. 4 of evidence No. 135-4, 292, 374, 438, 469, 607, 608, 609) to 48,000 won for each of the above circumstances, 283,967, 2057, 2085, 3605, 465, 2085, 2005.

However, except for the above recognition costs, the remaining costs constitute meal expenses (No. 135-2 No. 135-10), general goods purchase expenses, water supply expenses, excessive work allowances, travel expenses, travel expenses, insurance premiums, Internet and telephone charges, encouragement expenses (No. 135-2 No. 1, 20 through 82, 84 through 117, 121 through 136, 149 through 167, 169 through 172, 174 through 192, 135-4 No. 1 through 131, 133 through 142, 144-166), operation expenses for the victim of the Sewol ferry disaster and the operation expenses for the victim of No. 135-4 (No. 234 through 70-166), operation expenses for the victim of No. 1375-2, operation expenses for the victim of No. 1370-5 (No. 167).

9) Sub-committee

Therefore, among the expenses paid by the Plaintiff, the expenses subject to the exercise of the right to indemnity under Article 42(2) of the Sewol Ferry Damage Support Act are KRW 372,387,416,757, such as the sum of the expenses in attached Table 4.

(b) Restriction on the right of indemnity;

1) Relevant legal principles

In relation to the joint and several liability of creditors, the joint and several liability shall be limited to the joint and several liability of the joint and several liability, and the portion of liability shall be determined according to the degree of the fault of the joint and several liability, and when one of the joint and several liability has paid at least part of the joint and several liability and has caused the joint and several liability to be granted, the other joint and several liability may be exercised in proportion to the portion of the liability. One of the joint and several liability shall be asserted and proved that one of the joint and several liability shall be granted joint and several liability by paying at least the portion of his/her own liability to exercise the right to indemnity against the other joint and several liability (see Supreme Court Decision 96Da50896, Dec. 12, 1997, etc.).

The legal principle of limitation of the above right of indemnity based on the principle of litigation economy and the principle of good faith should also be applied to this case of claiming a right of indemnity in accordance with Article 42(2) of the Sewol Ferry Damage Support Act.

I look at the causes provider of the accident of this case and the internal share ratio.

2) Determination as to a cause provider

A) Relevant legal principles

As seen earlier, Article 42(2) of the Act on the Support for the Damage Caused by the Sewol Ferry shall be construed as “a person who causes the sinking of the Sewol Ferry” to mean “a person who bears the duty to compensate for damage under the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, such as the Civil Act, because proximate causal relation exists between the act and the result of the sinking of the Sewol Ferry.”

B) Determination on cargo and executive officers and employees ordered

According to the facts found above, there is a proximate causal relation between the occupational negligence committed by the non-party 2, the non-party 4, the non-party 7, the non-party 5, the non-party 6, the non-party 8, the non-party 10, the non-party 15, the non-party 10, the non-party 11, the non-party 7, and the non-party 8, the non-party 3, the non-party 3, the non-party 3, the non-party 10, the non-party 10, the non-party 10, the non-party 15, the non-party 10, the non-party 10, the non-party 11, the non-party 11, the non-party 3, the non-party 3, the non-party 3, the non-party 10 and the crew

Therefore, pursuant to Articles 401-2 and 401 of the Commercial Act or Articles 760 and 750 of the Civil Act, Cheongd Marine Transportation is obligated to compensate for damages caused by the instant accident in accordance with Articles 389(3) and 210 of the Commercial Act for acts of Nonparty 2, and Article 756 of the Civil Act for acts of the rest of executives and employees. Thus, it constitutes a cause provider under Article 42(2) of the Sewol Ferry Damage Support Act.

C) Determination as to the Round and the non-party 9

According to the facts found above, the non-party 9, the head of the field team of the Round, prepared a container of 8 feet size which was not approved by the Minister of Oceans and Fisheries, and the non-party 9, the head of the Round's site team, has been found to have been negligent in the course of business in violation of the flight management rules, which is the internal guidelines of the Round which regulates the loading of the cargo in the Sewol ferry and the loading of the cargo in the Sewol ferry. There is a proximate causal relation between the non-party 9's occupational negligence and the accident in the instant case.

Therefore, according to Articles 760 and 750 of the Civil Act, Nonparty 9, the employer of Nonparty 9, is obligated to compensate for the damages caused by the instant accident pursuant to Article 756 of the Civil Act. Thus, Nonparty 9 constitutes a cause provider under Article 42(2) of the Sewol Ferry Damage Support Act.

D) Determination on the Korea Shipping Association and Nonparty 13

(1) According to the facts found earlier, it is recognized that Nonparty 13, who is the operator, violated the former Marine Transportation Act, the Enforcement Rule of the former Marine Transportation Act, the former Passenger Ship Safety Management Guidelines, and the flight management guidelines of the Korea Shipping Association’s safe operation management office, and without verifying the type, weight, loading, and the state of gambling of the cargo, and there is a proximate causal link between Nonparty 13’s occupational negligence and the instant accident.

(2) Meanwhile, it is reasonable to view that the Korea Shipping Association jointly with the Plaintiff that it was in the position of guiding and supervising Nonparty 13, the operating manager, as follows.

(3) Therefore, pursuant to Articles 760 and 750 of the Civil Act, Nonparty 13 is liable to compensate for damages caused by the instant accident pursuant to Article 756 of the Civil Act. Thus, it constitutes a cause provider under Article 42(2) of the Sewol Ferry Damage Support Act.

E) Determination as to the Plaintiff

(1) State liability with respect to the performance of duties by Nonparty 13

(A) Management of safe operation of coastal passenger ships

The Minister of Oceans and Fisheries shall establish and implement policies for the safe navigation of coastal passenger ships (Article 22(1) of the former Marine Transportation Act). The Korea Shipping Association shall be under the supervision of the Minister of Oceans and Fisheries with the association established for the purpose of “projects for the safe operation of passenger ships and the safety management of ships,” etc. (Articles 6(1)14 and 39 of the former Korea Shipping Association Act (amended by Act No. 12844, Nov. 19, 2014); and the operator appointed by the Korea Shipping Association shall guide and supervise the safe operation of coastal passenger transportation services (Article 22(2) of the former Marine Transportation Act).

(b) Appointment, dismissal, etc. of operations managers;

The Minister of Oceans and Fisheries shall determine matters necessary for qualification requirements for operating managers, methods and procedures for appointment, scope of duties, direction and supervision of operating managers, etc. (Article 22(3) of the former Marine Transportation Act), according to the former Enforcement Rule of the Marine Transportation Act and the former Enforcement Rule of the Marine Transportation Act, the operating managers shall appoint and place the employees of the Korea Shipping Association, the Korean Shipping Association, and where the Korean Shipping Association intends to dismiss the operating managers, it shall consult with the Commissioner General of the Korea Coast Guard in advance (Article 15-7(1) and (2) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Marine Transportation Act, and Article 2 subparag. 2 of the former Guidelines for the Safety Management of Passenger Ships). When the head of the Korea Shipping Association intends to transfer the operating managers within the jurisdiction of the Korea Shipping Association Branch, he/she shall consult with the

(c) the specific duties of the operations manager;

The operator shall provide education on safety management for the operators of coastal passenger transportation services, persons in charge of safety management, and crew members, “written confirmation of the inspection report submitted by the captain prior to departure from port,” “verification of whether the number of passengers on board exceeds the number of passengers on board, maintenance of other navigation order,” “verification of whether the captain has performed emergency training on board”, “verification of whether the operator has performed emergency training on board”, and “verification of the status of implementation of the operator of coastal passenger transportation services in compliance with the operation management rules on board” (Article 22(3) of the former Marine Transportation Act and Article 15-8(1) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Marine Transportation Act) at least once a quarter (Article 22(3) of the former Marine Transportation Act and Article 15-8(1) of the former Enforcement Rule of the former Marine Transportation Act).

(d)Guidance and supervision of operations managers;

(i) The Korea Shipping Association shall establish and operate an operation management office, and shall establish and submit guidelines for the operation of the operation management office, including operating managers’ service guidelines, to the Commissioner of the Korea Coast Guard (Article 13(1) and (2) of the former Guidelines for the Safety Control of Passenger Ships). Accordingly, the Korea Shipping Association established the standards for the operation of the operation management office for the operation thereof and set forth detailed methods of the operation management officer, including the allocation of the operation manager’s duties, the hours of operation, the suspension of service of the operation manager, the maintenance of records of the operation results, etc. Furthermore, the Korea Shipping Association shall take measures for the prevention of marine accidents, vessel safety-related regulations, and vessel safety management guidelines at least once a year against the operation manager (Article 7(

(ii) The Commissioner of the Korea Coast Guard shall guide and supervise operations managers' duties to ensure the safety of passenger ships. If necessary for the guidance and supervision of operations managers, he/she may require them to report or submit data on the performance of their duties (Article 22(3) of the former Marine Transportation Act, Article 15-9(1) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Marine Transportation Act, Article 12(1) of the former Guidelines for the Safety Management of Passenger Ships, and Article 12(1) of the former Guidelines for the Safety Management of Passenger Ships submitted by the Korea Shipping Association, he/she may require changes if deemed necessary (Article 13(2) and (3) of the former Guidelines for the Safety Management of Passenger Ships), and the chief of the maritime police station shall guide and supervise operations managers' duties such as "written confirmation of operations managers' duties prior to departure," "verification of whether operations managers are over-board and proper, maintenance of order in navigation," and "compliance status of guidance and operation management regulations on safe passenger ships" at least once a quarter, and shall report the results thereof to the Commissioner of the Korea Coast and the Korea Coast.

(e) Sub-committee

In full view of the regulations on the safe operation of coastal passenger ships, appointment and dismissal of operating managers, specific duties, guidance and supervision regulations, etc., it is reasonable to deem that the Korea Shipping Association and operating managers constituted “private person entrusted with public duties,” such as the safe operation management of coastal passenger ships, and that the Plaintiff had a duty to instruct and supervise the duties of operating managers jointly with the Korea Shipping Association.

Meanwhile, as seen earlier, Nonparty 13 violated the law by negligence while performing duties concerning safe operation management, and there is a proximate causal relation between Nonparty 13’s occupational negligence and the instant accident. Therefore, the Plaintiff is liable for compensating for damages caused by Nonparty 13’s occupational violation in accordance with Article 2(1) of the State Compensation Act.

(2) State liability with respect to the performance of duties by Nonparty 29

The duty of police officers is to protect the lives, bodies and property of citizens, and maintain public peace and order, along with the prevention, suppression, and investigation of crimes. Since various authorities are granted under relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, such as the Act on the Performance of Duties by Police Officers, the Criminal Procedure Act, etc. to facilitate the performance of such duties, police officers who perform specific duties may exercise various authorities assigned to them in response to all circumstances and take necessary measures appropriately. Such authorities are generally delegated to police officers’ professional judgment based on reasonable discretion. However, in cases where it is deemed that it is considerably unreasonable for police officers to exercise their authority to take necessary measures according to specific circumstances in light of the purport and purpose of granting authority to police officers, non-exercise of such authority is deemed to violate official duties (see Supreme Court Decisions 97Da5482, May 8, 1998; 2017Da228083, Nov. 9, 2017, etc.).

According to the facts found above, although Non-party 29, 123, 123, 123, 123, 129, 29, 29, 200, 300, 123, 123, 123, 123, 200, 30, 123, 123, 123, 200, 200, 200, 300, 129, 200, 200, 200, 200, 200, 200, 200, 200, 200, 200, 30,000, 20,000, 30,00,00,00, 20,000,00,00,00,00 won.

(3) Sub-decisions

Therefore, the Plaintiff is obligated to compensate for damages caused by the instant accident pursuant to Article 2(1) of the State Compensation Act. Thus, the Plaintiff is a cause provider under Article 42(2) of the Sewol Ferry Damage Support Act.

3) Determination on internal share ratio

A) Classification of the responsible entity

(1) In principle, if there are several other joint-offenders who are liable to compensate for damages against one of the joint-offenders, their obligations to compensate for damages shall be deemed as a divided liability according to their respective share of liability. However, if there are special circumstances such as the alternative liability relationship between them, such as the employer and employees, or the relationship between them as to other joint-offenders, their obligations to compensate for damages should be deemed as joint-liability (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da89494, Feb. 29, 2008). Where the representative director of a stock company intentionally or negligently inflicted damages on another person due to an illegal act while performing his duties, the stock company shall be liable to compensate for damages against the third party pursuant to Articles 389(3) and 210 of the Commercial Act, and the representative director shall also be liable to compensate for the whole amount of damages against the third party, and the joint-liability shall be liable to compensate for damages against the third party (see Articles 750 and 210 of the Commercial Act).

(2) In light of the above legal principles, since the Health Team, Cheongd Marine Transportation and Officers (including the deceased non-party 3), Maddong Transportation and Non-party 9 are replaced by the alternative liability relationship such as the employer and the employee, or a similar relationship between the employer and the employee, and there are special circumstances that require the plaintiff to comply with the claim for reimbursement, it shall be assessed as a single responsible entity.

On the other hand, since the Korea Shipping Association and the Korea Shipping Association's operations manager belonging to the Korea Shipping Association constitute a public service trustee entrusted by the plaintiff, the plaintiff's internal apportionment ratio should be determined as well as the duty violation of the non-party 29 and the duty violation of the non-party 13 as well as the duty violation of the non-party 29.

B) Determination on specific internal share ratio

(1) The portion of the internal liability among the joint tortfeasors is determined according to the degree of the fault of the joint tortfeasors (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Da50896, Dec. 12, 1997). In determining the ratio of the portion of the liability, external elements directly related to the accident or damage, including the degree of negligence corresponding to the degree of the duty of care of each vicarious tortfeasors as to the occurrence or expansion of tort and damage, should be taken into account. Furthermore, in a case where there is a special internal legal relationship between the vicarious tortfeasors and the quasi-joint obligor and the obligor, if it is deemed that there is a substantial violation of equity unless taking into account the elements based on the actual relationship, the internal elements should be taken into account. In certain cases, it may be restricted to exercise the right of indemnity only to the extent that is deemed reasonable in light of such overall circumstances as the fair share of damage (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Da33607, Jan. 19, 2001).

(2) In light of the above legal principles, we examine the internal share ratio by responsible entity.

(A) We first examine the internal share ratio of shipping and executive officers and employees.

As seen earlier, the officers and employees of the shipping company are mainly responsible for the occurrence of the instant accident and the expansion of damages caused by the occurrence of the instant accident and the occurrence of the damages, such as overload, bad faith, safety education and training for seafarers, failure to conduct relief measures against passengers. Therefore, it is reasonable to view the internal ratio as 70%.

(B) Next, we examine the internal share ratio of the friendly transport and the non-party 9.

It is reasonable to limit the internal share of the 8 feet size to 5% in consideration of the fact that the Round's negligence is found to have been found to have been negligent in engaging in the business of cutting off the cargo in violation of the relevant provisions by Nonparty 9, but the above negligence of the Round was due to the request of the Posing Shipping.

(C) Finally, I examine the plaintiff's internal share ratio.

① As seen earlier, there is a proximate causal link between the occurrence of the instant accident and the expansion of damage, such as overfluories, bad faith, safety education, and failure to conduct training, etc., of the cargo officers and employees of the

Since the operator performs his duties such as “verification as to whether the cargo loaded exceeds the cargo loaded,” “verification as to whether the captain implements emergency training on the ship,” and “verification of the implementation status of the operation management regulations,” the causes of the instant accident are all included in the contents to be confirmed by the operator, who is the official consignee.

In particular, in the case of a coastal passenger ship, the operator is obliged to verify whether the number of passengers on board the ship exceeds the number of passengers on board the ship which may hinder safe sailing through on-site verification, such as paying attention to securing the safe sailing of coastal passenger ships and visiting the ship actually departing from the port, and to verify whether the number of passengers on board the ship exceeds the number of passengers on board the ship which may interfere with safe sailing through on-site verification, and if the ship is a passenger ship carrying cargo or a vehicle other than baggage, it is also obligated to verify whether the loading of the cargo or vehicle loaded for the safe sailing of the ship is proper.

However, as seen earlier, the operations manager signed a confirmation signature on the safety inspection report before departure from the port without a proper verification, and left the Sewol ferry and the head of the off and offline that 180 times or more during the period from January 7, 2013 to April 14, 2014, with the intention of 180 times or more during the period from April 7, 2014.

② In addition, Nonparty 13, at the time of visiting and inspecting the Pyeongtaek Sewol ferry, carried the cargo of the Sewol ferry at narrow intervals different from the allocation level of the vehicle and the cargo of the Sewol ferry in accordance with the flight management rules, loaded and operated the cargo at a narrow distance. On April 14, 2014, Nonparty 13, despite being aware of the fact that the loading of the cargo in the same manner as that of the Sewol ferry and the rapid loading of the cargo was delayed due to an excessive problem, entered the Sewol ferry on April 15, 2014, signed a safety inspection report prior to departure and departing from the Sewol ferry without verifying the type, weight, loading, and the status of the cargo.

It is reasonable to view that the general management failure and duty violation of the operations managers as above have contributed to the continuation of the illegal or inappropriate operations which caused the instant accident for a long time by the officers and employees of the Cheongd Shipping.

③ Furthermore, in the criminal judgment against the operations managers in the Sewol ferry and the Romanab, the Seoul High Court explained to the effect that “the receipt of a safety inspection report prior to departure from the port and the departure of a ship is a practice formed prior to the entry of the operations managers” (see Seoul High Court Decision 2014No3310, Jan. 7, 2016) that the operations managers are obligated to guide and supervise the operations managers’ duties, it is difficult to deem that the Korea Coast Guard, the Korea Coast Guard, and the Korea Shipping Association, who are obligated to faithfully perform their duties to guide and supervise the operations managers.”

④ In full view of the above operational managers’ failure to manage the Sewol ferry safety, the Commissioner General of the Korea Coast Guard who belongs to the Plaintiff, the chief of the Korea Coast Guard, and the Korea Shipping Association’s failure to guide and supervise the instant accident, etc., and Nonparty 29’s failure to guide and supervise the captain of the instant accident, etc., it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff’s internal share ratio is 25%.

4) Determination on the scope of joint immunity

Article 42(2) of the Act on the Assistance to the Damage Caused by Sewol Ferry, which the Plaintiff may claim for reimbursement against the causing provider pursuant to attached Table 4’s attached Table 372,387,416,757, as stated in the attached Table 4’s column, is as follows: (a) the internal share ratio among the joint tortfeasors is 25%; (b) the Plaintiff’s internal share ratio among the joint tortfeasors is 70%; (c) Defendant 1, Defendant 2, and Defendant 3 jointly inherited Nonparty 3, each of whom is 1/3.

Therefore, barring any special circumstance, Defendant 1, Defendant 2, and Defendant 3 are liable to pay to the Plaintiff delay damages from 86,890,397,243 won (i.e., KRW 372,387,416,757 x KRW 70 percent of the internal share ratio of shipping and executive officers and employees x KRW 42) 1/3 of the inheritance portion x 42) and each of the above money from January 10, 2017 on which the copy of the complaint of this case, stating the Plaintiff’s intent to request the performance, was served on the Defendants. From September 21, 2016, Defendant 2 was liable to pay damages from September 10, 2016 to the Plaintiff [the Plaintiff is liable to pay damages from delay from 187,813,476,185 won to the Plaintiff until August 31, 2015, Defendant 1, who was subject to the Plaintiff’s claim for performance of damages from Defendant 17.

3. Determination as to the defense of mutual aid between Defendants 1, 2, and 3

A. Summary of the defendants' assertion

Cheongd Shipping concluded a mutual aid agreement with the previous Korean Shipping Association. Since the Plaintiff received the mutual aid money by claiming the mutual aid money from the Korean Shipping Association on behalf of the Cheongd Shipping, the said mutual aid amount should be deducted from the Plaintiff’s claim amount.

B. Facts of recognition

In full view of the purport of the entire arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 94, 95, 105, 106, 107, and 108, the following facts are recognized:

1) Unclaimed Shipping Co., Ltd. entered into a vessel owner liability mutual aid agreement (passengers), vessel owner liability mutual aid agreement, vessel crew mutual aid agreement with the Korea Shipping Association in relation to the Sewol ferry, and the security terms of each of the above contracts are as follows:

Liability and expenses (Article 16) 3.5 billion won x 3.5 billion won x expenses for defense against liability, etc. against the passenger capacity (influence 300 million Won) of the passenger capacity (influence 300 million Won), which are included in the name of the ticket contract security requirement per passenger under customary security clause (Article 28).

Section 21) Liability and expenses (Article 21) with respect to the deduction amount under the terms of security in the name of the attached contract and the liability for the pollution of the owner's liability and expenses (Article 27) liability with respect to the goods, etc. subject to the basic deduction amount (Article 20) liability and expenses (Article 27) the basic deduction amount (Article 27) the third party's physical harm, smuggling and quarantine expenses, general average (Article 17, 18, 24, and 26), the expenses for the application of the basic deduction amount (Article 28) for defense against liability, etc. to which the basic deduction amount is applied (Article 28) the liability for collision with

Security under the Seafarers' Act, the amount of deduction under the name security of the card contract contained in the main sentence, and security under the Seafarers' Act

2) On March 30, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Korea Shipping Association for claiming mutual aid money, etc. against the Seoul Central District Court 2016 Gohap517217, on behalf of creditors on March 30, 2016. The Plaintiff agreed with the Korea Mutual Aid Association to pay the mutual aid money in whole or in part as follows.

The amount of the agreed amount paid in the name of the voting contract contained in the main sentence shall be 107,870,925,52 won, 2018-05-116,663,928,230 won, 2018-11-28, 2018-18-28,859,647,330 won (court Decision 444), unpaid 2,97,349,92 won and 25 won non-paid 425 won (P45), 2018-27427,427-427, 307, 308, 208-16, 200 won, 207, 207, 347, 1947, 205, 2014, 207, 4294, 257, 2016, 194, 2016

43) Plaintiff’s advance payment (the Board of Patriots and Veterans Affairs)

Note 44) (Court Decision)

Note 45) Unpaid 25 persons

C. Determination

As seen earlier, in relation to the Plaintiff, Defendant 1, Defendant 2, and Defendant 3 are liable for joint and several liability between the two parties, and one of the vicarious debtors jointly and severally liable has an absolute effect on all the obligors (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da19378, Jan. 27, 2006). As such, on behalf of the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff paid KRW 116,575,14,090 from May 11, 2018 to November 9, 2018 (i.e., KRW 119,572,494,082; KRW 2,97,349,929,92), the repayment of which was paid by the Korea Shipping Association from May 11, 2018 to November 9, 2018, has an absolute effect on Defendant 1, Defendant 2, and Defendant 3.

On the other hand, when the parties did not designate the obligation to pay, legal appropriation is made pursuant to Article 477 of the Civil Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 93Da49338, Feb. 22, 1994). Each of the above mutual-aid money is the Plaintiff’s claims for reimbursement against Defendant 1, Defendant 2, and Defendant 3, according to the order of statutory appropriation set forth in Articles 477 and 479 of the Civil Act, and attached Table 5’s “Calculation Schedule of appropriation” was appropriated in the corresponding column, interest, and principal order. As of November 28, 2018, the Plaintiff’s claims for reimbursement against Defendant 1 against Defendant 5,759,475,919, and KRW 57,17,150,328, claims for reimbursement against Defendant 3 for reimbursement against Defendant 57,257,61,694, and the remainder is extinguished.

4. Sub-committee

Therefore, Defendant 1 is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff 5,759,475,919, Defendant 2, Defendant 3, and Defendant 3, as well as 57,251,694,639, and the amount of money calculated at the rate of 12% per annum as prescribed by the Civil Act from November 29, 2018 to November 10, 2020, which is the date when the judgment is rendered, to dispute over the existence and scope of the Defendants’ obligation to pay for reimbursement under Article 42(2) of the Sewol ferry Damage Support Act.

V. Determination as to the right of subrogation under Article 18 of the Sewol Ferry Damage Support Act

1. Determination as to Defendants 1, 2, and 3

When only a part of the primary claim is accepted, the issue of whether to examine the conjunctive claim depends on the interpretation of the intention of the parties in the lawsuit (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Da23598 delivered on October 25, 2002, etc.).

In full view of the fact that the exercise of a claim by subrogation is limited to the scope of the right of indemnity (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Da24147, Oct. 13, 2005, etc.), and that the Plaintiff’s exercise of the right of subrogation by subrogation is part of the claim for reimbursement, the claim for subrogation by subrogation by the person who has performed reimbursement under Article 18 of the Sewol Ferry Damage Support Act is deemed a preliminary claim in preparation for the case where the claim for reimbursement by the person who has performed reimbursement under Article 42(2) of the Act on the Assistance to the Damage from Sewol Ferry Disaster is not accepted by the primary claimant’s claim for reimbursement, so long as the Plaintiff partly admitted the claim for reimbursement against Defendant 1, 2, and Defendant 3, the claim for subrogation by the person who has performed reimbursement cannot be determined separately.

2. Determination as to Defendant 7, Defendant 4, and Defendant AB Holdings

Although the deceased non-party 3 bears the duty to compensate for damages caused by the instant accident according to the business performance instructions and joint tort liability, Defendant 7’s renunciation of inheritance is valid as seen earlier, and even if Defendant 4 and ASEAN Holdings are not recognized as the business performance instructions, as seen earlier, the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant 7, 4, and ASEAN Holdings on different premise is without merit.

VI. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's lawsuit against the termination of the defendant is dismissed as illegal, and the claims against the defendant 1, 2, and 3 are accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as it is without merit. All claims against the defendant 7, 4, and ASEAN against the defendant 7, and ASEAN are dismissed as it is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment 1] Special Act on Remedy for Damage and Support, etc. for the April 16 Sewol Ferry Disaster: Omitted

[Attachment 2] List: omitted

[Attachment 3] List: omitted

[Attachment 4] List: omitted

[Attachment 5] A statement of calculation of appropriation amount: omitted

Judges Lee Dong-chul (Presiding Judge)

Note 1) The Gwangju High Court held that “A approximately 10% of the shares 11.6% of the shares of Nonparty 2 is the deceased Nonparty 3’s borrowed-name shares (Seoul High Court Decision 2014No509 decided May 12, 2015 (hereinafter “Seoul High Court Decision 2014No509 decided May 12, 201)”

2) According to the former Enforcement Rule of the Marine Transportation Act before February 27, 2012, when a vessel increases the existing sea route, the average import rate of the existing vessel owner shall be at least 25% (Article 12) in the case of the existing vessel owner, and at least 35% in the case of other vessels (Article 4), and it was difficult to enter the existing sea route from other vessels. However, on February 27, 2012, Article 4 of the said Enforcement Rule was amended, and as the case of other vessels, the entry between Incheon and Jeju became more than the transfer of the existing vessel owner.

Note 3) The term “carpet vessel” means a vessel with decks available for loading and transporting vehicles, as they are used for land transportation, etc., and the term “carpet vessel” means a vessel carrying not less than 13 passengers, which is a carpet vessel (see Article 2 subparagraphs 1 and 2 of the Standards for the Structure, Equipment, etc. of carpet vessels).

Note 4) The term “reparability” refers to the nature of returning to the original state of balance when the vessel floating on the water in a state of balance has been heeled by external force, such as waves and wind (Article 2 Subparag. 8 of the Ship Safety Act).

Note 5) The term “right” refers to pure weight of a ship.

Note 6) The term “goods weight” means the maximum weight that can be loaded on board a ship in light of its condition, such as containers, cargoes, and vehicles.

7) Article 60(1)13 and (2) of the former Ship Safety Act (amended by Act No. 1299, Jan. 6, 2015; hereinafter the same)

8) Article 28(1) and (2) of the former Ship Safety Act

9) The term “ full load line” refers to the line that indicates the maximum limit on boarding or loading passengers or cargo and that enables safe navigation, as the draft repair (the depth of the body divings on water) of the load loaded for the safe navigation of the vessel (Article 2 subparag. 7 of the Ship Safety Act).

Note 10) Mad Cow has continued to engage in a contract on shipping and shipment for about a period of up to 15 years.

Note 11) The term "string" means fixing any container, cargo, vehicle, etc. on the floor of a ship to a diring on the floor of the ship by using tring, wire, street, strings, etc. so that they may not drive any container, vehicle, etc. on the ship.

12) Article 39(1) and (3) of the former Ship Safety Act

13) Article 26 of the former Ship Safety Act, Article 20 subparag. 1 of the former Standards for the Structures, Equipment, etc. of Carpet Ships (Notice of the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries No. 2013-73, hereinafter the same shall apply)

14) Articles 23, 24, and 25 of the former Ship Safety Act

Note 15) A container self-produced at Posing Transport at the request of Posing Transport.

(16) On March 2013, Nonparty 10: (a) took care of Nonparty 11, who was scheduled to take charge of the captain of the Sewol ferry from March 2013 to March 1, 2013; (b) took care of Nonparty 11, who was scheduled to take charge of the captain of the Sewol ferry after his retirement; (c) retired from the retirement age on August 2013; and (d) Nonparty 10 was on duty as captain of the Sewol ferry during the period of his temporary leave from August 2013. Nonparty 10 asserted that “the captain of the Sewol ferry is merely a substitute captain, and there is no duty to take training for the crew” in the case of the Gwangju District Court 2014 High Court 2014Da180, the above court acknowledged that Nonparty 10 was on duty to take care of the captain of the Sewol ferry and the Sewol ferry, and Nonparty 10 was on duty to take training according to the training cycle stipulated in the operation management rules.

Note 17) Around August 2013, it was appointed as captain of the Sewol ferry.

18) Article 3(1)1 of the former Guidelines for Safety Management of Passenger Ships (Notice No. 2013-5, hereinafter the same shall apply)

19) Article 22(3) and (4) of the former Marine Transportation Act (amended by Act No. 12844, Nov. 19, 2014; hereinafter the same), Article 15-8(1)6 and 13 of the Enforcement Rule of the former Marine Transportation Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries No. 111, Nov. 19, 2014; hereinafter the same shall apply), Article 14(2) of the former Guidelines on the Safety Management of Passenger Ships

20) Article 3(1)1 of the former Guidelines for the Safety Management of Passenger Ships and Guidelines for the Management of Operational Services (Safety Management Office of the Korea Shipping Association)

Note 21) The term “inshore” means the act of changing the course of a vessel underway.

Note 22) Nonparty 32 died of the sea from the on-site rail at around 08:49, which was launched by the Sewol ferry, and the remaining 303 persons died of the sea while the Sewol ferry was sunken.

23) Article 22 (Prohibition, etc. of Discharge of Pollutants) (1) of the Marine Environment Management Act shall not discharge pollutants from any ship into the sea: Provided, That this shall not apply to any of the following cases. Any person who falls under any of the following subparagraphs shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than three years or by a fine not exceeding 30 million won:

24) If the captain or crew of the relevant ship commits a crime under Article 268 of the Criminal Act due to traffic of the ship under Article 2 of the former Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Amended by Act No. 13440, Jul. 24, 2015) (Aggravated Punishment against the captain or crew of the relevant ship) and runs away without taking measures under the proviso to Article 18 (1) of the Maritime Rescue and Relief Act (former Searches and Rescue, etc. at Sea), such as aiding victims, the punishment shall be aggravated as follows:

Note 25) Nonparty 9 thought that the above guidance was merely that it was made for the purposes of obtaining the ISO certification at the friendly Round, but did not comply with the above guidance when loading freight in the Sewol ferry.

Note 26) Of the deceased 304 persons, the crime of occupational negligence was recognized for 303 persons except the non-party 32 who died due to fall at the sea before the non-party 29 arrives at the site.

Note 27) In the facts charged against shipping-related persons, the fact that they suffered injury to 152 passengers, and the fact that they sustained injury to 142 passengers in the facts charged against Nonparty 29.

Note 28) The date and time of death in the death report was written as “the presumption before June 12, 2014”.

Note 29) The Plaintiff asserted against the Defendants the amount of reimbursement under Article 42(2) of the Support for the Damage of the Sewol Ferry Act, ② the assertion of subrogation by the person liable for reimbursement under Article 18 of the Support for the Damage of the Sewol Ferry Act, and Article 480 of the Civil Act, ③ the claim for the claim for the return of unjust enrichment under Article 741 of the Civil Act, ④ the claim for the claim for the reimbursement of expenses under the management of affairs under Article 739(1) of the Civil Act. However, the Plaintiff withdrawn the remainder of the claim except for the claim for reimbursement under Article 42(2) of the Support for the Damage of the Sewol Ferry (see, e.g., the preparatory brief as of June 21, 2015) (see, e., the preparatory brief as of June 21, 2018), again by subrogation by the person liable for reimbursement under Article 480 of the Civil Act (see, e.g., the preparatory brief as of October 12, 2015).

(30) The Plaintiff claimed KRW 187,813,476,185 against Defendant 1, Defendant 2, and Defendant 3 on the premise that the liability for reimbursement is indivisible (see the complaint No. 2015,5799). However, the Plaintiff withdrawn an indivisible claim (see this court’s pleading protocol as of November 15, 2019). However, the Plaintiff did not modify the purport of the claim based on his/her share of inheritance, and is deemed to have claimed the entire amount of the claim stated in the purport of the claim against Defendant 1, Defendant 2, and Defendant 3.

Note 31) As to Defendant 7, the Plaintiff claimed for the share of inheritance (1/4, and the Plaintiff’s return of renunciation of inheritance by Defendant 7) out of the indemnity liability, the Plaintiff’s share of inheritance (the share of inheritance by Defendant 7, Defendant 1, Defendant 2, and Defendant 3, except Nonparty 35, on the premise that Defendant 7, Defendant 1, Defendant 2, and Defendant 3 jointly inherited Nonparty 3, appears to have calculated the share of inheritance by Defendant 7) and the delay damages therefrom (i.e., KRW 187,813,476,185 x 1/4).

Note 32) The Plaintiff asserted the responsibility of the principal against Defendant 1, Defendant 2, and Defendant 3 under Article 401-2 of the Commercial Act. However, as to Defendant 7, the Plaintiff did not assert his/her responsibility as the principal’s manager, the Plaintiff asserted only the inheritance liability of Nonparty 3 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Da526204, 2015Gahap57999, Oct. 12, 2018, 2019, the preparatory documents dated May 24, 2019, the preparatory documents dated November 15, 2019, and the 12th protocol of pleadings of this Court as of November 15, 2019).

33) When it is decided to authorize the rehabilitation plan pursuant to Article 251 of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act, the debtor shall be exempted from liability for all rehabilitation claims and rehabilitation security rights, except the rights recognized pursuant to the provisions of the rehabilitation plan or this Act, and the rights of shareholders and equity right holders and all of the security rights in the debtor's property shall be extinguished: Provided, That the same shall not apply to the right to claim under Article 140

Note 34) The Gwangju High Court decided to the effect that approximately 10% of the shares 11.6% of the shares of Nonparty 2 is the deceased Nonparty 3’s borrowed shares (Seoul High Court Decision 2014No509).

35) Nonparty 36, Nonparty 37, Nonparty 38, and Nonparty 39, who was the operations manager of the Korea Shipping Association, were convicted of criminal facts that the Defendant was guilty of having obstructed the maritime traffic management duties of the chief of the Korea Coast Guard and the safe passenger ship operation management duties of the Korea Shipping Association by deceptive means by receiving a false safety inspection report on the cargo loading status from the captain, etc. over 46 times, 38 times through 46 times, and Nonparty 39 signed it to the confirmation column without corrective measures, indicating the cargo loading status as the "walk" by the captain, etc., on 45 occasions, and signing it to the confirmation column without corrective measures.

Note 36) “Towing” means a vessel towing or pushing another vessel (Article 2 subparag. 13 of the Ship Safety Act).

Note 37) At the time of the arrest of Defendant 7 and Nonparty 42, Scar was seized one mobile phone at the above officetel, but Nonparty 41 stated in the prosecution that “the above mobile phone is a mobile phone used by himself prior to his towing, and it was not a fact that he lent the mobile phone to Defendant 7 and Nonparty 42.”

(38) Article 66 of the Framework Act on the Management of Disasters and Safety (Support of National Treasury Subsidies, etc. to Disaster Areas) (3) The State and local governments may provide the following support for the restoration of facilities damaged by a disaster and the stabilization of the livelihood of the affected residents: Provided, That where the State or local governments provide the same kind of compensation or subsidy pursuant to other Acts and subordinate statutes, or where the person causing damage due to a disaster falling under subparagraph 1 (b) of Article 3 pays insurance money, etc., the amount of such compensation, subsidy, insurance money, etc. shall not be paid; 1. 2. Subsidization of the expenses for the restoration of residential buildings; 4. Exemption of the school expenses of high school students; 4. Extension of the repayment period of the funds, reduction of the interest, or financing of the funds to small, medium or micro enterprises; 5. Subsidization of the funds to be provided to the State or local governments under the main sentence of Article 3 (1) of the Act and subordinate statutes;

39) The types of relief are as follows: 1. Supply of temporary residential facilities; 2. Provision of food, clothing, bedclothes, and other necessities of living; 3. Provision of medical services; 4. Support for the prevention of infectious diseases and prevention of epidemics; 7. Support for psychological recovery; 8. Other matters prescribed by Presidential Decree; 4. Provision of sanitary guidance; 5. Provision of other necessities of living; 4. Provision of food, clothing, bedclothes, and other necessities of living; 6. Provision of funeral services; 7. Support for psychological recovery; and 8. Provision of other matters; (2) Relief agencies may, if deemed necessary, pay cash to victims of disaster and bear expenses for relief under Article 4.

Note 40) The business title No. 116 No. 1 is indicated as “luminous trees for the purpose of remodeling aircraft” but according to the Gap evidence No. 116-2, the business title appears to be the increase cost.

41) ① Persons other than victims, ② spouses, lineal ascendants and descendants, siblings of victims, ③ spouses, lineal ascendants and descendants, siblings of the above-mentioned spouse, lineal ascendants and descendants, brothers and sisters, and ④ Other persons recognized by the Board of Patriots and Veterans Affairs (see Article 2 subparag. 3 of the Act on the Support for Damage Caused by Sewol Ferry).

42) As seen earlier, the Plaintiff withdrawn the assertion that the inheritance obligation of Defendant 1, Defendant 2, and Defendant 3 was indivisible. Even if the deceased Nonparty 3’s liability for damages was jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff, this is a monetary obligation, as a matter of course, divided and reverted to the co-inheritors according to the statutory share of inheritance (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Da8809, Jun. 24, 1997). It is reasonable to view that the liability was divided and succeeded to the inherited portion to Defendant 1, Defendant 2, and Defendant 3.

Note 43) Mutual-aid funds for the damages that the plaintiff paid in advance to those who agreed to the decision of the Compensation Review Board among the passengers of the Sewol ferry.

Note 44) Mutual aid money for the damages the plaintiff has paid in advance according to the court ruling among the passengers of the Sewol ferry.

Note 45) Of the passengers of the Sewol ferry, the agreement between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff was reached or the court’s decision reached an agreement on settlement and payment of compensation for the remaining 25 persons except for those who made the advance payment of compensation (total 443 persons, dead 294 persons, injured 149 persons).

Note 46) The last day on which the Plaintiff received mutual aid money from the Korean Shipping Association.