(영문) 대전지방법원 서산지원 2015.6.24.선고 2013가합1029-3 판결

1. With respect to the case of limitation on liability of shipowners, etc. on January 14, 2013, with respect to the Daejeon District Court's Seosan Branch of Daejeon District Court's 2008 1.208, the amount of each circumstance stated in the "amount of changed price" column in the separate sheet on each limited claim (as stated in the separate sheet: the bond declaration number: the bond registration number stated in the separate sheet: the bond registration number stated in the separate sheet) of Defendant 17, 10, 20, 27, 27, 34, 14, 34, 1, 1, and 2 of the Republic of Korea (the Ministry of Environment under his jurisdiction) shall be changed to each corresponding amount.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by each person;

Purport of claim

(2013Gahap1029) With respect to the Daejeon District Court's 2008 Seol1 shipowner, etc.'s liability limitation case, the above court shall change the amount of each of the circumstances stated in the separate sheet of the defendants (including the defendant and the plaintiff) as stated in the separate sheet of the attached sheet of the judgment on January 14, 2013 to 0 won, respectively.

[2013Gahap2121 (Joint)] With respect to the Daejeon District Court's 2008 Seosan case on the limitation of liability of the shipowner, etc., the amount stated in the "determined Amount of Claim Report" in the attached Table on the limited claim of the defendant and the plaintiff (hereinafter "the defendant's jurisdiction") in the above court's ruling on January 14, 2013 shall be changed to the amount stated in the "amount of Claim Report" in the same Table.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

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

A. On December 7, 2007, Samsung Heavy Industries Co., Ltd. 11, 828 tons of Samsung Heavy Industries Co., Ltd. 1, while sailing from "T-5" and "T-3 of Samsung Heavy Industries Co., Ltd. 1, the towing line of "Ssung Heavy Industries 1" was cut off and 07:06, the 6th 00 Southwestwest coast of west, west-gun, west 106, the 6th west coast of 10,000 Northwest coast of 7,000, 126 03,000 East Coast of 1,000,000 East Coast of 5,000,000 East Coast of 1,000,000 East Coast of 5,000,000 East Coast of 1,000 East Coast of 1,000,000 East Coast of 3,000,000 East Coast of 1,00.

C. Since December 10, 2007, the outflow oil came to go into and flow out of the coast due to the influence of tidal currents, and came to remain under the influence of the wind of the North Korean wind, the nineth day after the accident occurred, from December 15, 2007, to the sea in front of the west-gun, Chungcheongnamcheon-gun, the first day after December 17, 2007, and the last day of the 31th day before the end of the west-do, the last day after the 31st day after the Jeju-do.

2. Participation of the Defendants in pest control operations and surveys on the health impacts of local residents;

A. After the occurrence of the instant accident, the Korea Coast Guard and the Korea Coast Guard under the jurisdiction of the Defendant Republic of Korea established a pest control and command the headquarters within the Taean Coast Guard to take charge of maritime and coastal pest control operations. On the other hand, the Korea Coast Guard and the Korea Coast Guard performed the leakage search and maritime pest control operations using aircraft and ships dispatched by each regional coast guard station across the country, and the Korea Coast Guard established a field commander in eight areas with severe pollution to efficiently conduct coastal pest control operations, and performed duties, such as division of pollution response operations, adjustment, supply of goods, technical guidance, safety education for workers, field guidance, etc.

The Defendant Hongsung-gun, Seocheon-gun, and Bocheon-si performed pest control operations to remove oil flown within the jurisdiction after the instant accident, and all expenses incurred by purchasing pest control goods, etc. were incurred in the process.

B. After the accident occurred, the Ministry of Environment affiliated with Defendant Republic of Korea conducted a short-term and long-term health impact survey on the affected area residents and pollution response participants, etc., and designated and operated the Taean Health Center as the Health Center for Taean Health and Welfare.

3. Reasons to the objection of this case

A. Commencement of limitation of liability procedure of this case

(1) The Plaintiff, the owner of the oil tanker of this case, and the Defendant Hubacom Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Plaintiff-owner”) filed an application for the commencement of the limitation of liability procedures under Article 6 of the former Guarantee of Oil Pollution Damage (wholly amended by Act No. 9740, May 27, 2009; hereinafter the same shall apply) and Article 9 of the former Act on the Limitation of Liability of the Shipowner, etc. (wholly amended by Act No. 9833, Dec. 29, 2009; hereinafter “the Limitation of Liability Procedure Act”) on January 15, 2008 pursuant to Article 9 of the former Act on the Limitation of Liability for Oil Pollution Damage (wholly amended by Act No. 9833, Dec. 29, 2009).

(2) In addition, an international organization established under the International Convention on the Establishment of the International Fund for Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage, 1992 for the purpose of providing compensation for oil pollution damage to the extent of insufficient protection under the International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage, 1992.

The plaintiff and the defendant 192 International Fund for Oil Pollution Damage Compensation (hereinafter referred to as the "Plaintiff International Fund") participated in the procedure for limiting liability on February 4, 2008 in accordance with Article 36 of the former Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage Guarantee Act. (3) Upon the plaintiff's prior application, the Seogu District Court rendered a decision to commence the procedure for limiting liability on February 9, 2009 and at the same time appointed a lawyer as a manager, the procedure for limiting liability was commenced.

B. Judgment, etc. on reporting and examining the Defendants’ subordinate limitation claims

(1) On June 19, 2008, the Republic of Korea held the Special Countermeasure Committee on Oil Pollution Accident in Switzerland and decided that the claims of the State and local governments shall be subordinate to the claims of the State and local governments in accordance with Article 11 of the Enforcement Decree of the Special Act on the Support for Residents in the Oil Pollution Accident in Switzerland and the Restoration of the Marine Environment, etc., in order to facilitate prompt payment of compensation to victims, and declared on June 23, 2008 that the 41st Enforcement Committee of the Plaintiff International Fund held on June 23, 2008 shall be subordinate to the State and local governments' pollution response expenses and restitution

(2) Accordingly, the Defendants reported each of the corresponding amounts stated in the “Report Amount of Claim” column in the attached Table to the limited liability court under the pretext of the above prevention costs, survey costs, etc. as subordinate limited claims.

(3) The limited liability court decided to select a verification body composed of experts in each field to receive basic data necessary for the hearing. After hearing opinions from October 21, 201 to March 28, 201 after selecting an appraiser B, etc. as an appraiser from October 21, 201 to March 28, 2012, and received the results of appraisal based on the results of appraisal. On January 14, 2013, the court tried to determine the circumstances that the amount stated in the "determined Amount of Assessment" column as to the reported claims of the Defendants is considered as subordinate limited claims.

(4) Accordingly, the Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit of demurrer against the Defendants under this Court No. 2013Gahap1029, and Defendant 22 of the Republic of Korea (Jurisdiction: Taean Coastal Police Station) filed a lawsuit of demurrer against the Plaintiffs and Defendant A under this Court No. 2013Gahap2121, respectively. The court joined each of the above lawsuits in accordance with Article 41 of the Compensation Security Act and Article 59(4) of the Act on the Procedure for Limit of Oil Pollution Damage.

(5) On January 2008, in addition to the procedures for limiting liability of this court, the Plaintiff’s International Fund established the “Resurance Skuld Center,” which is the office in charge of claiming compensation for oil pollution damage caused by the instant accident, in Seoul, and received the claim from the creditors claiming pollution damage caused by the instant accident, and the Defendants also filed a claim for the corresponding claim with the number of the “C Claim No.” stated in the attached Table of the HS.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, significant fact, fact-finding, fact-finding of appraiser B of the limited liability limitation case of this court on October 18, 2013, purport of the whole pleadings]

I. Criteria for recognition of subordinated bonds;

1. Details of subordinated bonds;

As seen above 1. 3. b.(1), the claims of the State and local governments against which the State and local governments are entitled to a compensation lower than the claims of other applicants are junior claims.3) In this case, junior claims claimed by the State and local governments including the Defendants are divided into those related to pollution response activities, those related to pollution response activities, and those other than pollution response include personnel expenses, environmental purification work and environmental improvement work expenses, and economic revitalization project expenses.

2. Criteria for judgment;

A. The Republic of Korea joined the International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage in 1992 (hereinafter referred to as the "Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage in 1992") and the International Convention on the Establishment of the International Fund in 1992 (hereinafter referred to as the "International Fund Convention in 1992") with respect to civil liability and compensation for oil pollution accidents caused by oil tankers, etc., and revised the Guarantee of Oil Pollution Damage Compensation Guarantee Act in 1997 to accept these Convention as domestic law. Therefore, the scope of compensation for oil pollution damage caused by oil pollution accidents caused by oil tankers, etc. shall be determined in accordance with the above two Convention and the Guarantee of Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage.

(b)Article 1(6) of the Civil Liability Convention, 1992, provides that claims related to pest control activities shall include preventive measures costs (expenses for pest control measures) in pollution damage that can be compensated, and Article 1(7) provides that "preventive measures (preventive measures)" means any reasonable measure taken by any person to prevent or reduce pollution damage after the occurrence of the accident at least.

Article 1(2) of the International Fund Convention in 1992 provides that "ship", "person", "owner", "oil", "pollution damage", "preventive measure", "accident" and "the Organization" shall have the same purport as Article 1 of the Civil Liability Convention in 1992." The meaning of "pollution damage" and "preventive measure (preventive measure)" of Article 1(6) of the Civil Liability Convention in 192 shall also apply to the International Fund Convention in 192.

Article 2 subparag. 4 of the former Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage Guarantee Act, in force at the time of the incident, provides that "loss or damage caused outside the ship by pollution caused by the outflow or discharge of oil from the ship, regardless of the place of outflow or discharge, and additional loss or damage caused by the cost of pollution response measures and pollution response measures. In such cases, loss or damage to the environment other than loss of profit from environmental damage shall be limited to the cost of considerable measures taken or to be taken for the recovery thereof." Article 2 subparag. 6 of the former Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage Guarantee Act provides that "the pollution response measure means any reasonable measure taken by a party or a third party to prevent or mitigate the pollution damage after the occurrence of the accident."

As seen above, the Civil Liability Convention of 192, the International Fund Convention of 1992, and the former Oil Compensation Security Act of 192 are limited to the costs required for reasonable measures to prevent oil pollution damage arising from prevention and removal activities. As such, the scope of compensation for the costs of prevention and removal measures is limited to the costs required for reasonable prevention and removal measures, among the costs incurred by the parties or a third party, and such "comparity" includes both "the rationality of measures" and "the rationality of expenses." The "reasonable of measures" concerns whether the nature of prevention and removal activities is reasonable or not, as it concerns the place of the accident, season, weather conditions, type, form, and quantity of the leaked oil, based on objective standards, based on the circumstances at the time of taking measures.

It should be determined, and "the rationality of cost" means that the amount of prevention and removal cost should be reasonable, and where the amount is unreasonable than the ordinary market price, the portion exceeding the market price is not reasonable.

C. Claim other than pest control measures, the Civil Liability Convention 192, the International Fund Convention 1992, and the former Guarantee of Oil Pollution Damage Guarantee Act do not have detailed provisions regarding the scope of damage to be compensated except for claims other than pest control measures with respect to claims other than pest control measures. As such, in this part, whether there exists a proximate causal relation between oil pollution accident and the damages suffered by creditors (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Da36733, Apr. 28, 2004). The existence of such proximate causal relation should be determined by comprehensively taking into account the probability of the occurrence of the result, the mode of the illegal act, the nature of the benefits from the infringement (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da1162, May 11, 2007).

I. Determination on Defendant 17. Red Military Limited Claims

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

On May 1, 2009, the Defendant reported a total of KRW 830,746,070 as limited bonds.In this regard, on September 22, 2011, KRW 814,051,580, KRW 12,739,238,420 on March 12, 2012, and KRW 3,069,238,420 on June 18, 201 as stated in the “reported Amount” column, and the limited court rendered a judgment on January 14, 2013 regarding the Defendant’s reported claim, on the condition that the Plaintiffs are assessing the same amount as indicated in the “determined Amount” column as below. In this regard, the amount recognized by the Plaintiffs for each item is as listed in the following table:

A person shall be appointed.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, significant facts, Gap evidence 17, Eul evidence 17, Eul evidence 17, and Eul evidence 1 and 2, the fact inquiry results conducted on October 18, 2013 concerning appraiser B of the limited liability limitation case of this court, the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Where a limited creditor subject to the instant judgment did not file a lawsuit of objection against a claim recognized in the assessment judgment, while only a shipowner et al. stated an objection and files a lawsuit of objection against the part acknowledged in the assessment judgment among reported claims, the subject matter of lawsuit is limited to the part recognized in the assessment judgment among reported claims.

In this case, among the claims reported by the defendant, the items of "project cost for improving the environment of the pollution fishing ground (2019, 2019), " personnel cost of the department exclusively in charge of oil accidents (2015, 2012)," and "operating cost of the department exclusively in charge of oil accidents (2012-2015, 2015)" are not recognized as limited claims in the judgment of assessment, and the defendant did not file a lawsuit of objection against the claims reported by the defendant, while the plaintiffs filed a lawsuit of objection against the part recognized in the judgment of assessment among the claims reported by the defendant, the subject matter of the lawsuit in this case shall be limited to the remainder other

3. Fields of pest control measures;

(a) Expenses for marine pollution response and personnel expenses for marine pollution response;

Comprehensively taking account of the aforementioned evidence and the purport of the entire arguments in subparagraph 3-1 through 3 of Article 17, it is recognized that the above amount is included in the scope of compensation and compensation6 as reasonable expenses for pollution response measures, in consideration of the size of the accident of this case and urgency of the marine pollution response work immediately after the occurrence of the accident of this case, the above amount is included in the range of compensation and compensation6).

(b) Costs for purchasing pest control goods;

In full view of the evidence mentioned above and the purport of evidence Nos. 4 and 4-4 of evidence Nos. 17, the Defendant spent an amount equivalent to KRW 32,320,650 at the purchase cost of the goods related to pest control measures from December 15, 2007 to around December 12, 17, 2007 (e.g., pest control clothes, smoke wnings, locks, rubbers, rubbers, PPPppp, etc.). Since the goods purchased by the Defendant were distributed to each vessel and used in collecting tar as stated in paragraph (a) above, it is reasonable to view that the above purchase cost is included in the scope of compensation as reasonable preventive measures.

In full view of the evidence mentioned above and evidence Nos. 3-4 of Eul 17-4, the defendant operated the room for countermeasures against marine pollution accident immediately after the occurrence of the accident in this case, and spent KRW 1,943,00 in total from December 15, 2007 to December 31, 2007 as computer and complex rent, heating fuel cost, meal service cost, etc. In light of the amount of crude oil leaked out due to the accident in this case, the degree of contaminated sea, the polluted place, etc., it is reasonable to view the above costs as losses in proximate causal relation with the accident in this case. However, the evidence submitted by the defendant alone is insufficient to deem the above amount as expenses in excess of the above amount as expenses in proximate causal relation with the accident in this case, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

D. Sub-committee

Therefore, the assessment amount of this part of the limited claim should be KRW 137,471,150 (=73,487,500 + KRW 29,720,00 + KRW 32,320,650 + KRW 1,943,00).

4. Non-pest control area;

A. According to the evidence No. 17 of the cost of improving the environment of polluted fishing grounds (201, 2012), the Defendant entered into an entrustment contract with the Korea Fisheries Infrastructure Association in relation to the project for improving the environment of village fishing grounds in 2011 and 2012 and paid KRW 145,00,000 for each of the following costs:

However, the following circumstances acknowledged by considering the overall purport of the arguments:

① In other words, the project for improving the village fishing ground environment is implemented three years after the time of the accident. ② The content of the project is the environmental improvement project for improving the productivity of the village fishing ground, the project necessary for collecting and disposing of the closed fishing ground, the implementation plan for the project area, the public education and public relations activities for improving the fishing ground environment, and the project that the Defendant acknowledges to require the improvement of the fishing ground environment due to the disposal of unclaimed land wastes, etc., the evidence alone submitted by the Defendant is insufficient to recognize that the project cost for improving the village fishing ground environment that was paid by the Defendant as above constitutes the damage in proximate causal relation with the accident of this case, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Therefore, the assessment amount of this part of limited claims should be 0 won each.

B. According to the statement of 17 subparag. 3 to 8 of the personnel expenses and operating expenses of the department in exclusive charge of oil accidents (2008-201), the Defendant organized and operated the Marine Pollution Accident Response Team with six or seven employees from February 2008 to recover from the harm and tap water. The Defendant’s payment of KRW 288,267,680 in total for the year 2008 as the remuneration and operating expenses of the pertinent employees, KRW 381,319,350 in total for the year 2009, KRW 277,207,190 in total for the year 2010, KRW 167,323,570 in total for the year 2011.

However, in order for the Defendant to constitute oil pollution damage caused by the instant accident, the details of the work and operating expenses performed by a public official who was subject to the disbursement of the above personnel expenses and the relationship between the instant accident. In light of the aforementioned circumstances and the overall purport of the arguments, it is difficult to find that there was no evidence to acknowledge the proximate causal relation between the Defendant’s personnel expenses and operating expenses incurred by the employees of the Marine Environment Pollution Response Group for the following reasons: (a) the time of the instant accident; (b) the pollution response work performed by the Defendant in relation to the instant accident was terminated by December 207; (c) the degree of the pollution in the sea and the coast under the jurisdiction of the Defendant; (d) the need for separate organization to implement various measures (e.g., declaration of the special disaster area and the order of operation of the disaster response team); and (e) the need to establish reasonable causal relation between the remuneration and operating expenses incurred by the employees of the Marine Environment Pollution Response for the instant accident and the damages incurred by the Defendant for April 208, 2008.

Therefore, the assessment amount of the limited claims should be KRW 38,016,270,00 in total paid as remuneration for February and March 2008 to employees belonging to the Korea Marine Environment Pollution Response Group (EU 8,477,440 in total) + EV 7,505,870 in + EW 8,484,980 in + KRW 6,533,220 in + EY 3,076,80 in + EY 3,076,80 in total + KRW 40,307,70 in total in operating expenses paid until March 2008.

C. According to the statement No. 17 No. 3-9 of the project cost of the Seocho Coast fishery promotion trial, it is recognized that the Defendant participated in the Cheongcheoncheon Stakcheon Squa on April 18, 2009, while holding a meeting for public relations of red fishery products in neighboring parks located in the Cheongcheon-dong, Dongjak-gu, Seoul at September 29 through September 30, 2009 to promote the fishery products in the region of the Defendant and distributed a tourist guide for the promotion of the fishery products, and that the Defendant spent KRW 25,00,000,000 in total for the expenses of purchasing fishery products, event agencies, and services following the conclusion of service contracts with the above events. However, it is recognized in full view of the evidence and the overall purport of the arguments as seen earlier.

In light of the following circumstances: (a) each of the above events was held at the time one year or more after the occurrence of the instant accident; and (b) the control work in the Defendant’s region was most terminated at around December 2007, the evidence alone submitted by the Defendant is insufficient to recognize that the expenses incurred by the Defendant by participating in the instant event constituted damages in proximate causal relation with the instant accident; and (c) there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the assessment amount of subordinated limited claims reported by the defendant should be changed to the sum of KRW 177,795,120 as shown below.

A person shall be appointed.

5. Determination on the limited claim of the Seocheon-gun

1. Judgment on reporting and assessing limited claims by the defendant;

On May 4, 2009, the Defendant reported the total amount of KRW 958,072,040 as limited bonds, but on February 16, 2012, the sum of KRW 2,159,357,400, and the sum of KRW 10,659,357,400 as stated in the table of "reported amount" as stated in the table of "reported amount" as of June 25, 2012, respectively, and on January 14, 2013, the limited liability law clerk tried to assess the amount as stated in the table of "determined amount" as subordinate bonds. In this regard, the amount recognized by the Plaintiffs by each item is as described in the column of "amount recognized by the Plaintiffs as listed below."

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, significant facts, Gap evidence 20, Eul evidence 20, Eul evidence 1, 20, 20 evidence 1, 20, and 3-1, fact inquiry results of this court's liability limitation case appraiser B on October 18, 2013, purport of all pleadings]

A person shall be appointed.

2. Where a limited creditor subject to the instant judgment did not file a lawsuit of objection against a claim recognized in the assessment judgment, while only a shipowner et al. stated an objection and files a lawsuit of objection against the part acknowledged in the judgment of assessment among reported claims, the subject matter of lawsuit is limited to the part recognized in the judgment of assessment among reported claims.

In this case, among the claims reported by the Defendant, the items of "business management expenses for the promotion of oil damage (2013-2015)", "oil damage promotion expenses (2013-2015)", "business expenses for environmental improvement (2013-2019), such as village fishing grounds (2013-2019), "business expenses for the improvement of the environment (2013-2019)," "business expenses for the improvement of the environment of fish farms (2013-2019)," "business expenses for the removal and disposal of fish nets (2013-2019)," "business expenses for the removal and disposal of fish nets (2013-2015)," and "business expenses for the federation of oil damage residents' organizations (2010-2015)" are not limited to the claims reported by the Defendant in the trial, while only the Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit of objection against the claims recognized in the trial.

3. Fields of pest control measures;

(a) Costs for purchasing pest control goods;

Comprehensively taking account of the evidence mentioned above and the purport of evidence Nos. 2, 4, and 6 (including various numbers) of Eul 20 No. 3-20, the defendant paid an amount equivalent to KRW 241,273,900 in total to purchase the goods related to pest control during December 2007 (blosts, plastic fins, pinites, pins, retreatments, milk treatment agents, smokings, sunrise, pest control clothes, and pents, etc.). The defendant used the purchased pest control goods as above to take pest control measures from December 13, 2007 to January 5, 2008, so it is reasonable to view that the above purchase price is included in the scope of compensation as reasonable cost for pest control measures.

B. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence and the whole purport of the argument in each of the statements No. 4-1 through No. 5 of B17, 39 vessels were mobilized from December 19, 2007 to December 21, 2007 and participated in tar collection work at sea within the jurisdiction of the defendant. The defendant paid KRW 111,80,000 at the oil cost of each of the above vessels. In light of the size of the accident in this case and the urgency of the marine pollution prevention work immediately after the occurrence of the accident in this case, it is reasonable to view that the above amount is included in the scope of compensation as reasonable cost for pollution response measures.

C. According to the evidence evidence No. 20 No. 3-3, the Defendant purchased containers from FB operating FA in March 2008 and around May 2008, and paid a total of KRW 7,200,000 (= KRW 4,700,000 + KRW 2,500,000). The Defendant’s payment of KRW 748,00 to FC in May 2008 is recognized as having taken full account of the overall purport of the arguments. In other words, the Defendant’s payment of KRW 748,00 is recognized as having taken full account of the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant’s payment of container was made from FC immediately after the accident to January 2, 2008; (b) the purchase cost and rent of container; and (c) the payment of rent was completed after two months or more; and (d) there is no evidence to acknowledge that each of the above Defendant’s payment was insufficient for pest control.

D. According to the statement of the rent for the transportation of volunteers No. 20 No. 3-4, it is recognized that the Defendant paid KRW 785,000 in total as the vehicle rent to transport volunteers to the coast of Boan-si Island around March 2008, but it cannot be deemed that the expenses incurred to transport volunteers to areas other than the jurisdiction of the Defendant are reasonable pollution response expenses.

E. Sub-committee

Therefore, the assessment amount of this part of the limited claim should be 353,073,90 won (=241,273,900 won + 111,800,000 won).

4. Non-pest control area;

A. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in each of the statements in the evidence 5 through 13 evidence 20 No. 3 of the Act on Promotion of Oil Damage Affairs (2008 to 2012), the Defendant organized the Support Group for Oil Damage Countermeasures with six employees from among its employees in January 2008 for the management of accidents and the recovery from damage, and with the remuneration and office management expenses of the relevant employees in 2008 totaling KRW 274,639,500, totaling KRW 311,203,640, totaling KRW 3158,860, totaling KRW 200,158,860, totaling KRW 174,116,280, and KRW 15,421,470 for year 2012.

However, in order for the Defendant to constitute oil pollution damage caused by the instant accident, the details of the work and operating expenses performed by a public official who was subject to the disbursement of the above personnel expenses and the relationship between the instant accident. In light of the aforementioned circumstances and the overall purport of the arguments, the following facts are not submitted, namely, data on the details of the specific work performed by the employees belonging to the oil damage support group, and most of the control work performed by the Defendant in relation to the instant accident until January 2008, it is difficult to recognize the proximate causal relation between the Defendant and the Defendant’s employees’ compensation and management expenses incurred from the instant accident and the need to separately operate the special disaster area, the degree of the pollution in the region under its jurisdiction, the degree of the pollution in the sea and the coast, the level of the pollution in the region under its jurisdiction, the operation of the special disaster area, the operation order of the disaster support group, and the demand for public administrative activities to support the victims caused by the previous accident. However, it is not reasonable to recognize the proximate causal relation between the Defendant’s employees’ compensation and management expenses incurred from the instant accident until May 20, 4, 20.

Therefore, the assessment amount of the limited claims should be KRW 92,373,701, which is the aggregate of the amount paid for the remuneration of the employees belonging to the Support Group for Oil Damage in January, 2008 (FE 20,237,337,337 + FF 18,573,933 + FG 14,958,013 + FFH 13,912,376 + FI 14,956,826 + FJ 14,956,826 + FJ 9,735,216 + FJ 9,735,216) paid in April 208.

(b) Expenses for various events;

1) Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the statement No. 20 No. 1 of 208 of the Youth Abs. 1 and No. 208 of the First Sea Ebs 208, the Defendant: (a) held juvenile Abs. 22,00 won and paid KRW 22,201,00 each of the costs at the Chuncheon Abs. Abs. 1 to improve the image of the instant accident and to attract tourists by promoting the Chuncheon Abs. 3 which is a representative tourist in the Defendant’s jurisdiction; and (b) in consideration of the degree of contamination in the Defendant’s jurisdiction, the timing and purpose of holding the events, contents, etc., of the event; and (c) in consideration of the degree of pollution, the timing and contents, etc. of the event, the above Fabs. 1 to reduce the economic loss of the instant accident.

It is reasonable to view that the expenses paid in relation to the foregoing as holding are included in the scope of compensation. However, according to the same evidence in the case of juvenile summary, it is recognized that the events held before the accident of this case were held once every year in 2008, and the events held at the time of the completion of the pest control work in the Defendant’s region. Thus, it is difficult to deem that such events were paid in order to reduce economic losses caused by the accident of this case.

2) In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in Nos. 2, 3, and 4 marine axiss (2009-201) No. 1, the Defendant held the sea speed axiss from July 2009 to July 201 each year from July 201, and the Defendant paid KRW 60,000,000, KRW 80,000,000 at each expense.

However, the following circumstances may be acknowledged by taking into account the aforementioned evidence and the whole purport of the pleading:

In other words, since the first competition was held in 2008, the above competition was held every year since 2009, and since 2009, the competition was held at the time of the occurrence of the accident in this case, and the pest control work in the region of the defendant was completed at the beginning of 2008, it is difficult to view that the above expenses were paid to reduce economic losses caused by the accident in this case.

C. Reviewing the ecological environment survey cost’s statement 20 subparag. 3-4, No. 5-1 through No. 4, the Defendant conducted an observation and survey on the submarine ecological environment three times from March 2008 to June 2008, and it is recognized that the Defendant spent KRW 10,422,000 in total for that cost.

However, the following circumstances may be acknowledged by taking into account the aforementioned evidence and the whole purport of the pleading:

In other words, in light of the fact that the pest control work in the region of the defendant was already terminated at the beginning of January 2008, and that various figures such as the temperature of observation results, the concentration of salt, the quantity of ozone oxygen, and the concentration of hydrogen temperature have been shown to be excellent, etc., the evidence submitted by the defendant alone is insufficient to recognize the causal relationship between the expenses paid as above and the accident of this case, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge

(d) According to the evidence that the Defendant spent KRW 68,00,000 (=10,000 + KRW 294,000 + KRW 294,000 + KRW 294,00,000 + KRW 294,0000 + KRW 294,000,000) based on the cost of removing wastes from coastal fishing grounds (201 to 2012), based on the fact that the Defendant paid KRW 1,873,00,000 in total,00 in relation to the project to improve the fishing ground environment, and the cost of improving the environment of seeds and seedlings (201 to 2012) by concluding an entrustment contract with the Korea Fisheries Infrastructure Association in relation to the project to improve the fishing ground environment (fishing grounds) and the cost of removing seeds and seedlings (200,000,000,000,000 won in total,000 won in total,000 won in relation to the project to improve the fishing ground environment.

However, the following circumstances acknowledged by considering the overall purport of the arguments:

① In other words, in light of the fact that each of the above projects has been implemented two years or more after the time of the accident, ② the contents of the project are items to be implemented to improve the fishing ground environment normally by dredging, projecting, spraying of low quality improvement chemicals, organizing fishing ground partition, building a fishing ground passage, collecting waste fishing gear materials, etc., the evidence alone submitted by the Defendant alone is insufficient to acknowledge that each of the above projects cost incurred as above constitutes damages in proximate causal relation with the instant accident, and there is no other evidence to

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the assessment amount of the lower-ranking claim reported by the Defendant should be changed to the sum of KRW 489,538,861 as stated below.

A person shall be appointed.

5. Determination on the limited claims of the Republic of Korea (Jurisdiction: Taean Coastal Police Station)

1. Judgment on reporting and assessing limited claims by the defendant;

On May 6, 2009, the Defendant reported a limited claim of KRW 17,002,550,166 in total to the limitation court, but reported the change of the limited claim of KRW 21,662,097,780 on June 7, 2012, and the limited court tried on January 14, 2013 on the condition that the Defendant’s reported claim of KRW 21,62,097,780 on the condition that the amount as indicated below is considered as subordinate limited claim of KRW 17,02,50 on the basis of the limitation court. In this regard, the amount recognized by the Plaintiffs for each item is as listed below in the column for the Plaintiffs’ recognized

A person shall be appointed.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, significant facts, entry of Gap No. 22, fact inquiry results of the limited liability limitation case appraiser B on October 18, 2013, purport of the entire pleadings]

2. Determination on the expenses for pest control materials and goods

The reported amount by item and the amount recognized as the plaintiffs are as follows, and the part in dispute between the parties is the remaining part excluding 's smoking and other items'.

A person shall be appointed.

A. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statements in Eul evidence Nos. 13) 22 Nos. 3, 4, and 5 (including various numbers), the defendant can recognize the fact that the defendant used 529,236,200 won in total while performing pest control operations by naval vessels or aircraft from December 27, 2007 to December 27, 2007. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the above expenses shall be compensated by the plaintiffs as pollution response expenses. However, as there is no evidence to prove the fact that the above amount exceeds the above amount, the defendant's assertion on the excessive portion is without merit.

The plaintiffs asserted that, until December 13, 2007, black oil was confirmed at sea, but all forms of oil discovered after December 14, 2007 are hump or tar, and that, in such circumstances, it is not appropriate to control the spread of emulative agents, so the expenses for emulative agents used after the above point cannot be compensated.

(4) On December 14, 207, the following circumstances are considered to have been comprehensively taken into account each of the entries and videos No. 22, No. 25 to 32, and No. 39. On the 20th anniversary of the occurrence of the instant accident, 17 days away from the time of 00, 2007, 107, 207, 207, 107, 207, 207, 207, 30,000,000, 200,000,000,000,0000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000,000,00,000,00,000,00,000).

B. According to the evidence as seen earlier, the boom 14,170 meters booms were mobilized from a nationwide marine landscape test during the response process due to the instant accident, and the Defendant’s 5,460 meters booms were damaged among them, and thus, the amount equivalent to the above amount should be compensated by the Plaintiffs as pollution response expenses. However, there is no evidence to prove that the above amount is damaged. However, the Defendant’s assertion on the excessive portion is without merit. According to the evidence as seen earlier, it is recognized that the Defendant spent KRW 52,923,60,39,241,200 for working clothes and work costs of the maritime police assigned by the Defendant for pollution response. Thus, it is reasonable to deem that each of the above amounts is included in the scope of compensation as pollution response expenses. However, since there is no evidence to acknowledge that the above amount exceeds the above amount is a fact and reasonable expenditure, the Defendant’s assertion on the excessive portion is without merit.

D. The Defendant’s expenses incurred in relation to each of the above items cannot be deemed as reasonable pollution response expenses to eliminate oil pollution caused by the instant accident, and there is no evidence to acknowledge the spending fact in search and investigation. This part of the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

E. According to the evidence mentioned above, it is recognized that the defendant spent expenses equivalent to the "amount reported" in relation to each of the above items in the process of pest control operations. This constitutes losses in proximate causal relation with the accident of this case. Since each of the above items can be used even after pest control operations, it is reasonable to determine the amount of damages with the amount equivalent to 1/2 of the purchaser's price in the case of log 1/2, pumps, non-electrics, and cameras equivalent to 1/3 of the purchaser's price in the case of log 1/2, in consideration of depreciation. However, since it is difficult to view the portion exceeding the amount in consideration of each depreciation as damages in proximate causal relation with the accident of this case, the defendant's assertion on that

F. According to the evidence indicated earlier, the Defendant used waste oil storage containers while performing pest control operations, and it is found that the amount equivalent to KRW 41,015,00 is not returned due to damage to the total amount of KRW 21,00,000, among them, the amount equivalent to the above amount should be compensated by the Plaintiffs as the cost of pollution response measures.

G. Sub-committee

Therefore, the assessment amount of this part of the limited claims should be KRW 4,938,453,835, the sum of the "recognized amount" of the above Table.

3. Determination of repair expenses, such as pest control vessels and materials for pest control measures

The reported amount by item and the amount recognized as the plaintiffs are as follows:

A person shall be appointed.

A. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence as mentioned above and the purport of the argument in Eul evidence No. 22 No. 7, it is reasonable to view that, around 11:00 on December 8, 2007, helicopters No. 960 on the air surveillance of oil spilled on the sea and suffered damage of heavy trees, which was plucked by the wind, and plucked on the wind, during the landing at the land helicopter located in the land helicopter located in the west, due to the sudden 4 cm in length and 8m in width, the repair cost incurred by the accident that occurred in the course of moving to the pest control work is also included in the scope of compensation expenses incurred in relation to the pest control work. Thus, it is reasonable to view that the above expenses for pollution response are also considered expenses incurred in relation to the pest control work.

B. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments and arguments, it is reasonable to determine the amount of damages with the amount equivalent to 1/2 of the purchase price in consideration of the expenses for preventive measures, as the defendant used booming booming up to 8 booming around the sea and used it for preventive measures, and the total amount of KRW 974,237,510 for the replacement expenses for the booming booming that was lost during that process, and as it is recognized that the defendant paid KRW 51,762,40 for the repair expenses for the damaged boom boom booming, barring any special circumstance, and as for the replaced booming booming, it is reasonable to determine the amount of damages with the amount equivalent to 538,81,155 won (=487,118,755 won + 51,762,400 won). However, the defendant's assertion about the excessive portion is without merit.

In full view of the purport of the entire arguments as seen earlier, the Defendant used the collection and collection of oil discharged from the naval wave and the naval boat to load the recovery season and the remainder thereof, and each disbursement of KRW 210,664,690 and KRW 18,542,868 is recognized as having been made at the cost of recovery season and the repair cost destroyed during the process. As such, the amount equivalent to the cost is included in the cost of pollution response to be compensated by the Plaintiffs. However, as there is no evidence to acknowledge the fact of disbursement for the excess portion, the Defendant’s assertion on the excess portion is without

D. Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire arguments as seen earlier, the Defendant’s payment of KRW 2,111,300 in total as repair cost of the vessel’s hull, engine, equipment, etc. damaged in the course of pest control operations is recognized, and the amount equivalent to such cost is included in the cost of preventive measures to be compensated by the Plaintiffs. However, with respect to the exceeding amount, there is no evidence that the hull, etc. was damaged in the course of pest control operations, or there is no evidence that prove that repair cost was spent.

E. Sub-committee

Therefore, the assessment amount of this part of the limited claim should be KRW 772,410,793, the sum of the "recognized Amount" of the above Table.

4. Determination on the user fee of equipment

The reported amount by item and the amount recognized as the plaintiffs are as follows, and the part in dispute between the parties is "aircraft".

A person shall be appointed.

Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire arguments as seen earlier, the Defendant borrowed Maggs Aircraft (L100-300) and accessories (ADS PAC) from Washington from OSL/EARL on December 14, 2007 to 12, 18, 207 for the spraying work, and paid a sum of KRW 370,285,810 as the user fee, and the Defendant recognized the fact that he spreaded chemical agents on the sea by using the above aircraft on December 16, 2007, barring special circumstances, the above costs are included in the cost of preventive measures that the Plaintiffs should compensate.

In light of the situation at the time, the plaintiffs asserted that a large-scale flexible aviation spraying is not technically reasonable, and thus, it cannot be acknowledged that aircraft usage fees are not recognized. However, as seen in the above 2-A Item (a) as seen in the above 2-A, it is reasonable to view that the expenses incurred in spraying chemical after December 14, 2007 are included in the scope of compensation for pollution response expenses. The plaintiffs' assertion is without merit.

Therefore, the assessment amount of this part of the limited claim should be maintained at KRW 372,463,566, which is the sum "amount recognized" of the above Table.

5. Determination on fuel costs, such as naval vessels and aircraft

The reported amount by item and the amount recognized as the plaintiffs are as follows, and the dispute between the parties is "ship and aircraft" part.

A person shall be appointed.

A. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments and arguments, since the defendant mobilized more than 90 naval vessels and performed marine pollution response operations, it is recognized that the defendant spent 4,458,784,020 won in total as fuel costs (i.e., 960,272,375 won in gross pay of 3,000 tons + 1,793,321,164 won in gross pay of 1,000 tons + 1,144,192,411 won in gross pay of not more than 500 tons + 560,98,070 won in response to pollution response measures to be compensated by the plaintiffs, the amount equivalent to such expenses shall be included in the cost of pollution response measures to be compensated by the plaintiffs. However, since there is no evidence to prove that the above amount exceeds the above amount, the defendant's assertion on the excess portion is without merit.

The plaintiffs asserted that the fuel cost of 3,00 tons of oil should not be recognized since the 3,00 tons of oil was not an appropriate means of response after December 14, 2007 when the 3,000 tons of oil was under command, and that the 3,000 tons of oil was under command, and that the 3,000 tons of oil was under command. However, as seen in the above 2-A., it is reasonable to view that the expenses incurred in spraying of oil after December 14, 207 are included in the scope of compensation as reasonable cost of prevention measures. Considering the quantity of leaked crude oil, the scope of polluted sea area, the necessity for emergency prevention measures to protect fishing grounds, etc., the plaintiffs' assertion that the 3,00 tons of oil should be recognized after December 14, 2007 should also be included in the scope of compensation as reasonable cost of prevention measures. Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the plaintiffs' assertion is without merit.

B. Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire arguments in the above evidence, since the defendant used 9 aircrafts to search for aviation outflow oil and spread of emulation agents, it is recognized that the defendant paid a total of KRW 140,756,232 (=the amount calculated by deducting KRW 5,110 L (liter) using the Yan Coast Coast Police Station, which is claimed in duplicate from the reported amount, KRW 5,942,930, and KRW 164,511,00 (liter) using the Yan Coast Guard, which is not evidence) as fuel cost, the amount equivalent to such cost shall be included in the pollution response cost to be compensated by the plaintiffs. However, since there is no evidence to prove that the above amount exceeds the above amount, the defendant's assertion

The plaintiffs, upon entering into a service contract with Washington OSL/EAR, performed ging lease aircraft and Kamop 961,962 belonging to South Maritime Organization on or after December 14, 2007. The plaintiffs asserted that the relevant expenses cannot be recognized since the spread of ging agents was not an appropriate response method at the above time, but it is reasonable to view that the expenses incurred in spraying after December 14, 2007, as seen in the above paragraph (a) of the above 2-A, are included in the scope of compensation for pollution response expenses. Therefore, the plaintiffs' assertion is without merit.

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, the assessment amount of this part of limited claims should be the sum of 4,613,040,687 won.

6. Determination on personnel expenses

The reported amount by item and the amount recognized as the plaintiffs are as follows, and the part in dispute between the parties is the remaining part excluding ‘daily worker wage'.

A person shall be appointed.

(a) Sanitary expenses;

1) The subject sanitation costs of the dispute are 10,000 won per day for bathing and washing, etc. paid to the employees who were placed in the pest control work. The Defendant asserted that 115,450,000 won per day for land workers and 200,400,000 won for air workers and 4,050,000 won for air workers, and reported a total of 319,90,000 won for air workers. Of these, there is no dispute between the parties in relation to the sanitation costs paid to air workers.

2) Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the above evidence, since from December 7, 2007 to December 28, 2007, 1,264, 194, and 19) maritime pollution response teams belonging to the Maritime Pollution Response Headquarters, 193 persons and day, 106 persons and day, 106 persons and day, and 15,630,000 won (=(1,264 + 193 + 106) x 10,00 won x 10,00 won) were paid to the Maritime Pollution Response Team, the amount equivalent to the expenses is included in the expenses for pollution response to be compensated by the plaintiffs. However, there is no reason to acknowledge that there was no reason to acknowledge that there was lack of evidence to acknowledge that there was a lack of expenses for pollution response on the part above Maritime Pollution Response or for pollution response on the part above Maritime Environment.

3) Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the entirety of the evidence incurred before workers on warships, it is acknowledged that 81 employees on warships were put into work for prevention and removal from December 7, 2007 to December 28, 2007, and that a total of 200,400,000 won (=20,040 x 10,000 won) was paid to workers on warships. Therefore, the amount equivalent to the above amount should be compensated by the plaintiffs as expenses for prevention and removal measures.

The plaintiffs asserted that since December 14, 2007, the sanitary expenses for employees in 3,00 tons' security boxes cannot be recognized. However, this part of the allegation is without merit for the same reasons as stated in the above 5-A.

4) Sub-committee

This part of the recognition amount is KRW 220,080,00 (=15,630,000 + 200,400,000 + 4,050,000).

(b) Off-time allowances;

1) The Defendant asserted that the allowances outside the dispute were paid for the hours worked between 18 and 09 cc., and that the Defendant paid 345,631,431 won to the land workers and 303,432,024 won to the workers on warships, and reported 649,063,455 won in total.

2) Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the evidence revealed above as a whole, in the case of land workers, the number of pest control headquarters employees recognized under the above Paragraph A-2 of the above Article is recognized as having been engaged in excess of 2-3 hours per day until March 2008, such as by attending the committee for pest control measures and reporting on the progress of pest control measures. As such, overtime allowances for the corresponding time are additionally borne by the defendant due to the instant accident. However, in the case of the number of employees exceeding the above, the evidence submitted by the defendant alone is insufficient to acknowledge the fact of excess, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Therefore, if the average claim rate is applied by 67 hours per month for land workers recognized above, the amount recognized shall be 86,095,804 won.

3) Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the evidence held before workers on warships, the employees on warships are required to engage in pest control activities or to be provided with pest control materials by making full use of the daylight time during December 2007.

Since it is recognized that the defendant has been engaged in overtime work within four hours a day, the defendant's additional expenses for overtime work shall be paid to the plaintiffs as the expenses incurred by the accident in this case: Provided, That after January 2008, the evidence submitted by the defendant alone is insufficient to recognize that an overtime work has been performed between 18:00 and 09:00, and there is no other evidence to recognize otherwise. Therefore, if the average rate per hour of each vessel is calculated by the above time, the amount recognized shall be 224,912,292 won.

4) Sub-committee

This part of the recognition amount is 31,008,096 won (=86,095,804 won + 224,912,292). It is a holiday work allowance.

1) The disputed holiday work allowance is paid to the employees working on Saturdays, Sundays and national holidays. The Defendant claimed that seven police boxes were paid KRW 63,265,59 to the employees working on seven police boxes, KRW 3,710,128, KRW 573,348, and KRW 252,809, and KRW 325,358,897 in total to the employees working on seven police boxes.

2) It is insufficient to recognize that the employees of a police box and the evidence submitted by the Defendant alone carried out a holiday duty in relation to the eradication work. There is no other evidence to acknowledge that the employees of a police box carried out a holiday duty. Marine pollution response and employees do not belong to the persons subject to the present duty, and therefore, they are not subject to the payment of holiday duty allowance in accordance with the Public Officials’ Remuneration Service Regulations. The Defendant’

3) Comprehensively taking account of the evidence and the purport of the argument in the statement No. 22 subparag. 31 of the Republic of Korea’s Republic of Korea’s Republic of Korea’s Republic of Korea’s Republic of Korea’s Republic of Korea’s Republic of Korea’s Republic of Korea’s Republic of Korea’s Republic of Korea’s Republic of Korea’s Republic of Korea’s Republic of Korea’s Republic of Korea’s Republic of Korea’s Republic of Korea’s Republic of Korea’s Republic of Korea’s Republic of Korea’s Republic of Korea’s Republic of Korea’s Republic of Korea’s Republic of Korea’s Republic of Korea’s Republic of Korea’s Republic of Korea’s Republic of Korea’s Republic of Korea’s Republic of Korea’s Republic of Korea’s Republic of Korea’

4) Comprehensively taking into account the purport of the entire arguments in the entirety of the arguments as seen earlier, if allowances equivalent to holidays within a period equivalent to the number of working days in each vessel are calculated for 894 workers on board 73 vessels, the amount shall be 252,809,822 won. The above amount shall be compensated by the Plaintiffs as damages with proximate causal relation with the instant accident. The Plaintiffs asserted that the holiday work allowance for workers on board 3,000 tons of 3,00 tons after December 14, 2007 cannot be acknowledged, but the above 5.

A. For the same reasons as seen in this paragraph, this part of the argument is without merit.

5) Sub-committee

This part of the recognition amount is 258,383,170 won (=5,573,348 won + 252,809,822). D. The Defendant alleged that 571 workers on board 49 ships worked for a total of 35,057 hours between 22,00 and 06,000 during December 207, while the Defendant reported a total of 84,878,957 won, the evidence submitted by the Defendant alone is insufficient to recognize that the aforementioned workers on board had engaged in activities related to pest control operations during the said hours, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

E. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the above evidence, ① each maritime police station (Militarysan, Magna, Magna, Magna) shall borrow pest control materials from related agencies within the initial jurisdiction of the accident and carry out activities such as transporting them into the military, and conducting investigation of and guidance on marine pollution and pollution response within the jurisdiction, and paid a total of 347 official travel expenses in relation thereto; ② its employees were dispatched to Taeanan area after the accident; ② its employees were assigned to 8,471 daily travel expenses for 8,471 employees; and in relation thereto, the travel expenses paid should be compensated by the Plaintiffs as expenses incurred by the Defendant for the instant accident. Furthermore, if the unit price of travel expenses calculated pursuant to Chapter 9 [Attachment 29] of the Regulations on the Remuneration Affairs of Public Officials on the Day recognized earlier, travel expenses within the jurisdiction shall be the total of KRW 14,03,890, KRW 4637,637,2716 and KRW 3716,270.

F. The Defendant reported KRW 134,470 to the cost required for the treatment of the FK’s typatary care on December 25, 2007. However, there is no evidence to support that the accident occurred in relation to the pest control operations or that the treatment amount equivalent to the above amount was included therein. The Defendant’s assertion in this part is without merit.

G. Sub-committee

Therefore, the assessment amount of this part of the limited claim should be KRW 1,267,458,386, the sum of the "recognized amount" of the above Table.

7. Determination of transportation expenses and waste disposal expenses

The reported amount by item and the amount recognized as the plaintiffs are as follows, and the part in dispute between the parties is the remaining part excluding ‘labor cost'.

A person shall be appointed.

(a) Equipment rental fees;

(i)the subject matter of the dispute;

The Defendant reported KRW 161,551,980 as truck rent, KRW 7,735,00 as truck rent, KRW 2,732,00 as bus rent, KRW 12,50,120 as bus rent, KRW 43,565,50 as rental fee, KRW 52,136,450 as vessel rent, and KRW 280,221,050 as a total. The part in dispute between the parties is a truck, bus, vessel.

2) Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments as seen earlier, immediately after the instant accident, it was acknowledged that the 13 marine police stations transported the pest control equipment taken over by their own possession and relevant agencies in each region, but was returned after the pest control work was completed, and that the Defendant spent KRW 156,77,980 as truck rental fee, and the amount equivalent to the above amount is included in the cost of pollution response measures to be compensated by the Plaintiffs. However, since there is no evidence to acknowledge the use and disbursement of the excess amount, the Defendant’s assertion on the excess portion is without merit.

3) Between December 21, 2007 and December 22, 2007, the bus Defendant asserted that the complete coast guard station and the package navigational transport station have paid bus rental fees to transport volunteers on their own. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge the spending fact, and furthermore, inasmuch as volunteers intend to provide the labor force for the prevention work without compensation, it is reasonable to deem that they participate in the prevention activities with the intention of volunteers to pay for the prevention work, barring special circumstances. It is reasonable to deem that the bus is leased by the agency or organization members for the purpose of collectively providing the volunteers (in such cases, it is reasonable to deem that the agency or organization planning the volunteer participates in the prevention activities with the intention of bearing the rent, etc.), and its rent, etc. as expenses for prevention measures. This part of the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

4) Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire arguments and arguments as seen earlier, each maritime police station used a tugboat from December 2007 to January 2008, to remove boom booms installed in the polluted sea area, and as such, it is recognized that the tugboat spent 51,527,650 won in total as rent for the tugboat, the amount equivalent to the above is included in the cost of pollution response measures to be compensated by the Plaintiffs. However, since there is no evidence to prove the use and disbursement of the excess amount, the Defendant’s assertion on the excess portion is without merit.

5) Sub-committee

This part of the recognition amount is 272,106,250 won (=156,77,980 won + 7,735,00 won + 12,50,120 won + 43,565,500 won + 51,527,650 won).

B. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the entirety of the evidence as seen earlier, vehicles owned by the employees of the Navy or Navy used the transportation of human resources, equipment, and materials in relation to the instant accident. Since the payment of KRW 5,785,875 is recognized in December 2007 as the fuel cost, the above cost is included in the pollution response cost to be compensated by the Plaintiffs. However, as there is no evidence that the vehicle was used in relation to the pest response work, the Defendant’s assertion on the excess portion is without merit.

(i)the subject matter of the dispute;

The Defendant reported the total amount of KRW 11,285,50 in total, 14,292,600 in 2,514,100 in the cost of treating lusium/lic mixturess, 495,00 in the cost of treating lusiums destroyed, and 11,285,50 in the cost of treating lusiums destroyed.

2) Determination

Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire pleadings as seen earlier, ① the Defendant stored in a drum after dilution with water for spraying, and the time changed due to the passage of time, and disposed of 16.22 tons around September 30, 2009, and paid a total of 2,514,100 tons in the process, and ② the Defendant’s pest control vessel 11 stored a emulative substance remaining after using it in a marine pest control operation in a tank. As a result of its self analysis, the Defendant disposed of 1.2 tons in a total of 495,00 won while disposing of 1.22 tons, and ③ the Defendant paid KRW 7,80,000 in the process of disposing of the destruction of the boom after installing the booming boom in order to prevent oil pollution in the coastal fish farming facilities. As such, each of the above Plaintiffs’ expenses equivalent to the above expenses should be included in the compensation for the part exceeding the amount of pollution response.

3) Sub-committee

This part of the recognition amount is 10,809,100 won (=2,514,100 won + 495,000 won + 7,800,000).

D. Sub-committee

Therefore, the assessment amount of the limited claim should be KRW 296,721,225, which is the sum of the "recognized amount" of the above Table.

8. Operation of the Countermeasure Headquarters and determination of other expenses

The reported amount by item and the amount recognized as the plaintiffs are as follows, and the disputed part between the parties is "office equipment, fees, office office fixtures, household goods, and banner".

A person shall be appointed.

A. Comprehensively taking into account the purport of the entire arguments as revealed earlier, since the Defendant was found to have spent expenses equivalent to the reported amount in order to purchase various office equipment and office equipment and office equipment in the process of establishing the pest control and response headquarters within the Taean Coast Guard, such expenses shall be compensated by the Plaintiffs as losses with proximate causal relation to the instant accident. Furthermore, in light of depreciation, the amount equivalent to 1/3 of the purchase price in the case of frackter, telephone, microfracker, and cold and hot water meter, and the amount equivalent to 1/2 of the purchase price in the case of fracker, telephone, and microfracker, and the amount equivalent to 1/2 of the purchase price in the case of fracker, telephone, and TV antenna cable, the purchase cost cannot be recognized as reasonable costs for preventive measures.

Except for the costs of purchasing non-regular electric power source (UPS) and TV antenna lines (286,00 won + 44,000 won), the amount of depreciation applied to the fracker, telephone, microfr, and cold and hot water source is KRW 20,980,423 of office equipment, and KRW 1,726,63 of office equipment.

B. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments above, the defendant paid KRW 1,30,00 as advisory fees to the Korea Maritime Research Institute, the Korea Maritime Organization, the Institute of Maritime Safety, and the Institute of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, and to the advisory members composed of university professors. ② The defendant paid KRW 1,913,00 in order to commission the goods to be paid to the vessels participating in the marine pollution response work to each maritime police station (i.e., KRW 1,913,00 in working clothes, KRW 1,329,00 in working clothes, KRW 1,329,00 in office, and KRW 584,00 in office, KRW 128,990 in office, KRW 21,60 in total with the funds for procurement and transfer fees, KRW 200 in total with KRW 1,60 in order to send the guidance for pollution response information prepared by the three defendant to the relevant organization. However, it is difficult to recognize the remainder of the expenses for pollution response measures, KRW 2900, KRW 2090.70 in terms

C. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments and arguments as seen earlier, the Defendant’s payment of KRW 1,598,000 in total to purchase cremation paper, taxation, garbage bags, bags, locks, and slots under the name of the control headquarters is recognized. The remainder expenses except slots are to be borne by the Defendant due to the instant accident. However, in the case of slots, the purchase cost of KRW 200,000 cannot be recognized as reasonable expenses for pest control measures because it is difficult to recognize relevance with pest control activities. Accordingly, the amount recognized as such is not equivalent to KRW 1,398,00 (=1,598,000 - 200,000).

D. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the evidence revealed earlier, the installation cost of each banner is not deemed to constitute damage in proximate causal relation with the accident of this case, on the grounds that it is recognized that it was installed at the control headquarters, blping room, and 10 boxes within the jurisdiction, etc., but there is no evidence to acknowledge the necessity, utility, etc. of installing each banner.

E. Sub-committee

Therefore, the assessment amount of this part of the limited claim should be KRW 86,218,817, which is the sum of the "approved Amount" of the above Table.

9. Determination on the amount of litigation claiming expenses for pest control measures;

A. Comprehensively taking into account the evidence of the lawsuit amount and the purport of evidence No. 22, No. 39,40 and each statement of evidence No. 22, No. 39,40, etc., ① Corporation operating air pest control business, etc., from December 13, 2007 to December 18, 2007, 103 Aircraft No. 502, and filed a lawsuit against the defendant seeking payment of the above service charges amounting to 86 times, and the defendant took part in the lawsuit above (Seoul Central District Court Decision 201Na5952), ② The court of first instance rendered a judgment on August 16, 2012 that the defendant paid damages for delay to the defendant 2, 360,000 won and delayed payment damages to the defendant 2,365,000 won, and the court rendered a judgment on December 16, 2018.

Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant’s total amount of KRW 152,424,658 (i.e., KRW 88,788,618 + KRW 63,636,040) paid by the Defendant to KFS Co., Ltd. in accordance with the above judgment as expenses incurred in relation to pest control operations following the occurrence of the instant accident are reasonable cost for pest control measures. The assessment amount of the limited claim should be the amount.

Accordingly, the plaintiffs asserted that the costs of pest control activities that are technically inappropriate cannot be acknowledged since the case corporation had a situation where it is difficult for it to function as an air pest control operation at the time of the air pest control operations, but the costs incurred in relation to the spraying operations since December 14, 2007, as seen in Section A of the above 2.2.

Since it is reasonable to view that expenses are included in the scope of compensation, the plaintiffs' assertion is without merit.

B. Comprehensively taking into account the evidence and the purport of the arguments as stated in Section 25 through No. 38 of Section 22, the main environmental company (i) employs eight workers after the occurrence of the instant accident from December 7, 2007 to January 3, 2008, assist the Defendant in the oil control work by leasing five vessels and two vehicles, and filing a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking payment of the amount equivalent to the above service charges (Seoul District Court Decision 2008Da9750), ② On September 17, 2009, the court of the first instance sentenced the Defendant to KRW 200, KRW 474, KRW 683, KRW 401 and delay damages paid to the main environmental company of KRW 20, KRW 406, KRW 97, KRW 400, KRW 97, KRW 400, KRW 97, KRW 297, KRW 97, KRW 297, which was already paid by the Defendant to the main environmental company.

On the other hand, the conciliation was concluded on February 4, 2015 in the lawsuit of objection against the ruling of assessment cases between the plaintiffs and the main environmental corporation (merger). The conciliation protocol states that "the plaintiff and the main environmental corporation recognize the limited amount of claims against the main environmental corporation as 1,776,727,812 won in total (paragraph (1)), and the main environmental corporation as 39,223,804 won in total was already paid from the defendant in accordance with the above ruling, since the above amount was stated as "the defendant or the person who claims the same amount to the defendant (Article 3-4 (d)) is subject to reporting on succession (Article 3-4 (d))."

Ultimately, the above KRW 39,223,804 was determined as a limitation claim between the plaintiffs and the main environmental corporation through the above mediation. However, as long as the above money was paid to the main environmental corporation, it is sufficient for the defendant to report succession to the limitation court on liability on the ground that he succeeded to the rights of the main environmental corporation, so the above money in this case shall not be recognized as a overlap with the defendant's limited claim. Accordingly, the assessment price for this part of the limited claim shall be set at zero won.

(c) Litigation amount in the East Trade Corporation, the stock company's non-commercial port business, the company's truth-finding business; and

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments as seen earlier, the following facts are alleged: (a) the Dongsung Trading Co., Ltd., Ltd.; (b) the Jinsung Co., Ltd.; and (c) the Jinsung Co., Ltd., Ltd., on October 21, 2010, filed a lawsuit seeking payment of the amount equivalent to service charges against the Defendant (Seoul District Court 2010Gahap19795); and (c) the Defendant reported the amount claimed in the instant lawsuit as the amount of claims in the instant case; (d) it is recognized that the said lawsuit was withdrawn on April 20, 2015; and (e) accordingly, the Defendant’s assertion on this part of the limited claims should be maintained as zero won.

10. Conclusion

The assessment amount of the lower-ranking claims reported by the Defendant must be changed to the sum of KRW 12,499,191,967 as shown in the following table:

A person shall be appointed.

VI. Determination on the limited claims of Korea (Jurisdiction): Ministry of Environment)

1. Judgment on reporting and assessing limited claims by the defendant;

On May 8, 2009, the Defendant reported the limited amount of KRW 3,794,299,600 in total to the limitation court. On January 14, 2013, the limitation court rendered a judgment on the assessment of the Defendant’s reported claims as subordinate limited claims. In this regard, the amount recognized by the Plaintiffs by item is as indicated in the column of “amount recognized by the Plaintiffs” as follows.

A person shall be appointed.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, significant facts, entry of Gap No. 27, fact inquiry results of the limited liability limitation case appraiser B on October 18, 2013, purport of the entire pleadings]

2. Determination on expenses incurred in investigating the short-term acute health impacts of residents and pollution response participants;

In full view of the purport of the arguments in the statement 1, 3, 4, 8, 10, 11 and 3-2 and 4 of evidence Nos. 1, 27, the following facts were revealed: ① part of the participants in the pest control work from the beginning of the accident in this case and the residents in the affected area appeal against health harm, such as double pains or respiratory distresss, and skin diseases; ② the defendant was informed of the degree of exposure to hazardous chemicals caused by the accident in this case and the impact of such exposure on health of local residents, etc. based on Article 15 (1) 24 of the Environmental Health Act, it is reasonable to view that the defendant conducted a short-term and acute analysis of impacts on health damage on the residents and participants in the affected area from December 2, 207 to August 2008, and conducted a survey on impacts on health by exposure to and removal of 14,000,000 won in total for such purpose; ③ the aforementioned investigation on health impact by non-governmental organizations, academic circless, etc.

3. Determination on operating expenses for the designation of the Environmental Health Center in Thailand

Comprehensively taking into account the evidence mentioned above and evidence Nos. 2, 12, and 3-3 of the evidence Nos. 27-2, 3-3 of the Environmental Health Center, ① the need for overall health care and promotion projects for residents in polluted areas under the Environmental Impact Assessment Results indicated in the above paragraph 2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2008. Accordingly, the defendant, at the local level around August 2008, designated an administrative health center based on Article 26 (1) 25 of the Environmental Health Act in order to systematically investigate and research the impact of the accident on the health of the residents and to promote the measures to prevent and reduce damage. ② The defendant paid KRW 395,00,00 to Taean-gun-gun as the operating expenses of the Environmental Health Center, ③ The above Environmental Health Center has to employ residents in the field of survey, research, prevention of health impacts, consultation, education, etc. on the health impact of the residents, and the background and circumstance that the plaintiffs should have designated the environmental health center.

4. According to the records of evidence Nos. 10, 11, 3-1, 5-1, 5-2 of the evidence Nos. 10, 11, 3-1, 5-1, 27 of the mid- to long-term health impact assessment and health examination (1, 2th) of the Taean-Gun residents in Taean District, the Environmental Health Center of Taean District conducted health impact assessment and health examination for residents in Taean District from Jan. 2009 to Jun. 201, and the defendant conducted the above project cost on a health impact assessment and health examination for residents in Taean District. From Oct. 2008, the defendant was deemed to have paid KRW 2,504,00,000 around Mar. 20, 2009, and the overall purport of the arguments in the above facts, i.e., the above investigation and examination conducted at the time of accident occurrence to more than one year from the date of accident, and there is no reasonable causal relation with the health impact assessment results of local residents or short-term.

5. According to the records of evidence Nos. 6, 9, 3-6 of the Certificate No. 27 No. 1-6, 27, the defendant established a mother and child health center in the Taean area from April 2008 to December 2008 and paid KRW 51,29,600 to the expenses related to the examination of health impact of the mother and child in the Taean area of Taean, although it is found that the defendant had paid KRW 51,29,600 to the expenses related to the examination of health impact of the mother and child in Taean area, the following circumstances acknowledged by considering the whole arguments, i.e., to secure basic materials necessary for the formulation and evaluation of the environmental health policy for the women in this area, the defendant entered into a research service contract for the health impact of the mother and child in this case on the five-year plan in order to obtain the basic materials necessary for the formulation and evaluation of the environmental health policy for the women and children in this case, the defendant did not have any sufficient evidence to recognize that the expenses incurred in this case's child and child were part of this case.

6. Conclusion

Therefore, the assessment amount of subordinated limited claims reported by the defendant should be changed to the sum of KRW 539,00,000 as shown below.

A person shall be appointed.

V. Judgment on Defendant 34. Boh-si’s Limited Claims

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

On May 4, 2009, the Defendant reported the limited claim amount of KRW 6,90,675,40 in total to the limited claim number 55968, and on December 7, 2010, the total amount of KRW 9,59,99,040 was limited claim; KRW 9,806,874,860 as the total amount of February 13, 2012; KRW 10,639,550,30 as the total amount of KRW 10,639,50,30 as the limited claim; KRW 38,638,50,30 as the total amount of KRW 30 on May 31, 2012; the lower court separately stated the reported amount of KRW 375,375,751 as the reported amount of claim; the lower court stated the reported amount as KRW 375,751,7375,757,73751 as the reported amount of claim.

A person shall be appointed.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, significant facts, Gap evidence No. 34, Eul evidence No. 34, Eul evidence No. 1 through 5 (including each number), the fact inquiry results conducted on October 18, 2013 concerning appraiser B of the limited liability limitation case of this court, the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Where a limited creditor subject to the instant judgment did not file a lawsuit of demurrer against a claim recognized in the judgment of assessment, but only a shipowner et al. stated an objection and files a lawsuit of objection against the part acknowledged in the judgment of assessment among reported claims, the subject matter of lawsuit is limited to the part recognized in the judgment of assessment among reported claims.

In this case, among the claims reported by the defendant, the items of "support for operating expenses of the federation in the area other than pest control measures", "expenses for restoring marine environment (2019, 2012), " personnel expenses (2012-2015)" and "operating expenses of the Deliberation Committee" are not recognized as limited claims in the judgment of assessment, and the defendant did not file a lawsuit of objection against them, while only the plaintiffs filed a lawsuit of objection against the part acknowledged in the judgment of assessment among the claims reported by the defendant, the subject matter of the lawsuit in this case is limited to the remaining parts other than the above items.

3. Determination as to whether the period for filing a lawsuit expires

A. The plaintiff International Fund's assertion

Since the portion reported after December 7, 2010, when three years have elapsed since the date on which the damage occurred among the claims reported by the Defendant, was exceeded the three-year period for filing a lawsuit as stipulated in Article 11 of the former Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage Guarantee Act, the assessment amount of the relevant portion limited claims shall be changed to zero won.

B. Determination

Comprehensively taking into account the purport of the entire arguments, the following facts are as follows: (a) the obligee increased the total amount of limited claims of KRW 9,806,874,860 from the existing KRW 9,59,99,040 to December 13, 2012; (b) the additionally added portion is the subject of support for personnel expenses of public officials and operating expenses of the Federation from December 2010 to December 2011; and (c) the additional amount of limited claims of KRW 9,806,874,860 to KRW 10,639,50,330 from January 27, 2012 to KRW 10,639,50 from the previous KRW 201 to December 2015 to the aggregate amount of the limited claims of KRW 201 to the Marine Environment excluding the previous amount of personnel expenses from January 31, 2012 to KRW 30,530,381 to 2013.

Meanwhile, Article 11 of the former Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage Guarantee Act provides that "the right to claim compensation against the owner of a ship under Article 4 (1) or (2) shall expire if no judicial claim is filed within three years from the date of occurrence of oil pollution damage." However, the damage equivalent to "the labor cost for public officials from December 2010 to December 201, 201, which was claimed by the defendant, paid labor cost, shall be deemed to have occurred only after December 201, 201, in which the expenses were paid. Therefore, as long as each limited claim was reported on February 13, 2012 and May 31, 2012, which was within three years from the above point of time, the damage equivalent to "the labor cost for public officials from December 2010 to December 2011."

4. Fields of pest control measures;

A. Determination on pollution response personnel and expenses incurred in transporting goods

(1) Fees for excursion ships, passenger ships, etc.;

Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire arguments as seen earlier, the Defendant spent KRW 34,625,00 at sight lines and passenger ship costs in order to transport military personnel engaged in pest control operations in December 2007. Since it is recognized that the Defendant spent KRW 759,150 while transporting engineers to repair equipment from broken-out in the course of pest control operations in January 2008, the amount equivalent to the above costs is included in the cost of pollution response measures to be compensated by the Plaintiffs. However, as there is no evidence to support that the excess amount is a fact or a reasonable expenditure, the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

(2) Costs of official ships

Comprehensively taking account of the aforementioned evidence and the purport of the argument in the statement No. 34 No. 9-1 through No. 3, the following facts: ① The Defendant provided pest control services, such as transporting and providing pest control goods between December 2007 and July 2008, and provided maritime pest control services directly, or disbursed KRW 135,294,983 in total for purchasing fuel oil and replacing damaged parts for the purpose of replacing damaged parts while operating a fishery guidance boat (No. 201) in order to support pest control services between January 2008 and July 2008; ② the Defendant spent KRW 41,167,500 in total for fuel oil costs for the purpose of supporting pest control services between July 2008 and July 2008, the amount equivalent to the above expenses shall be included in the expenses for pest control measures to be compensated by the Plaintiffs. However, there is no evidence that there is no expenditure or pest control services related to the above portion.

(3) Sub-decisions

Therefore, the assessment amount of this part of the limited claim is 211,846,63 won (=34,625,00 won + 759,150 won + 135,294,983 won + 41,167,500 won).

B. Determination on expenses for prevention and removal personnel food

(1) Comprehensively taking account of the evidence and the purport of the entire arguments in each statement in Eul evidence Nos. 34, 6, and 10 (including each number), since the defendant spent KRW 21,675,700 in total as the food of its employees, such as the disaster situation room, oil accident support team, etc., where the defendant performed a pest control work between December 2007 and October 2008, the amount equivalent to the above expenses shall be included in the cost of pollution response to be compensated by the plaintiffs. However, the amount in excess of the above amount shall not be recognized as reasonable cost of pollution response measures because it was spent after November 2008, or it is difficult to recognize relevance with pest control work, such as provision of alcoholic beverages, employee food, etc.

(2) There is no dispute between the parties regarding the fact that the defendant paid a total of KRW 565,00 as the food expenses of volunteers composed of civilians, public officials, soldiers, etc. for December 2007 and KRW 46,935,00,00 in the food expenses of volunteers consisting of the defendant's employees, maritime police officers, the plaintiff International Fund's employees, and fishermen's representatives, etc. around May 2008. Meanwhile, in full view of the whole purport of the arguments in the above evidence, it can be acknowledged that the defendant paid KRW 126,913,00 in total as the food expenses of volunteers consisting of civilians, public officials, and soldiers from January 208 to June 2008. In light of the degree of pollution in the defendant's jurisdiction, in light of various circumstances such as places where volunteers took pest control measures, main methods, number of participating volunteers, degree of contribution of volunteers, and necessity of volunteer service at the time, it is reasonable to set the above amount equivalent to 30% of the above expenses for pollution response measures.

(3) Sub-decisions

Therefore, the assessment amount of this part of limited claims should be KRW 107,249,60 [=21,675,700 + KRW 46,935,00 + KRW 565,00 + KRW 38,073,900 + KRW 126,913,00 + 30%).

(1) Subsidization of the cost of oil for fishing vessels participating in marine tar collection;

Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire arguments, 638 vessels were mobilized from December 19, 2007 to December 21, 2007, and participated in tar collection work at sea within the jurisdiction of the defendant. It is recognized that the defendant paid 441,100,000 won at the oil expense of the above vessel. Considering the size of the accident of this case and the urgency of the marine pollution prevention work immediately after the occurrence of the accident of this case, it is reasonable to view that the above amount is included in the compensation scope as reasonable pollution prevention expenses.

(2) From December 15, 2007 to December 27, 2007, the Defendant leased the land, caters, and tugboat to temporarily store oil waste collected by fishing vessels on the sea, and paid KRW 51,096,00 with the fee for the use thereof, there is no dispute between the parties, and considering the purport of the entire arguments, the Defendant’s payment of KRW 1,320,00 as a bus fee to transport military personnel who are to perform pest control operations from December 12, 2007 to December 29, 207 is recognized, and the amount equivalent to each of the above expenses is included in the cost of pollution response measures to be compensated by the Plaintiffs. However, there is no evidence that it is true or reasonable expenditure with respect to the above excess amount, and the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

(3) The fact that the Defendant paid an amount equivalent to KRW 562,538,070 out of the above amount to the purchase cost of the pest control goods used by volunteers for their pest control operations during December 2007 (e.g., smoking, nets, lockings, rubbers, rubbers, pP0, and pest control clothes) is not a dispute between the parties. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings, it is recognized that the Defendant spent KRW 22,259,350 on the purchase cost of the pest control goods used by volunteers for pest control operations from January 2008 to September 200, and it is reasonable to determine that the Defendant spent KRW 22,259,350 as the purchase cost of the pest control goods used for pest control operations. In light of the degree of contamination in the region under the jurisdiction of the Defendant, the location of the pest control operations conducted by volunteers, the main method of pest control, the degree of contribution of volunteers, the need of volunteer services at the time of

(4) The theory of lawsuit

Therefore, the assessment amount of this part of limited claims should be KRW 1,122,731,875 [=441,10,000 + KRW 51,096,00 + KRW 1,320,00 + + KRW 562,538,070 + + 66,67,805 won (= KRW 222,259,350)];

5. Non-pest control area;

A. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence and the overall purport of the argument in the statement in Section B, No. 15-1 through No. 22 of Article 34 as a whole, it is recognized that the operating income of the SPS as a famous tourist destination in the Defendant’s jurisdiction has significantly decreased compared to the previous three years (2005, 2006, 2007) since the occurrence of the instant accident. Considering the time and scale of the instant accident, the degree of contamination in the Defendant’s region, the process and timing of the pest control work, etc., it is reasonable to deem that the total operating loss amount of KRW 106,083,00 from Dec. 2, 2007 to Oct. 208 from the completion of most pest control work in the Defendant’s region as a proximate causal relation with the instant accident.

B. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments as to other expenses related to oil pollution, the above expenses are recognized as having been paid KRW 25,222,052 by the purchase cost of various office supplies, etc. to organize and maintain the headquarters for the countermeasures against oil pollution and the oil accident support team between December 2007 and October 2008, and to support the pest control operation. As such, the above expenses are in proximate causal relation with the accident of this case and are included in the scope of compensation. However, the evidence submitted by the Defendant alone is insufficient to deem them as having proximate causal relation with the accident of this case, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge them. The defendant asserts that the cost of various events and image improvement is responsible for the following events to minimize economic losses in the fishery industry and tourism industry caused by the accident of this case, and thus, the causal relation with the accident of this case is recognized.

(1) It is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant spent the above amount in order to reduce economic loss caused by the instant accident only with the evidence and the statement in Eul evidence No. 34 subparag. 14, 350,000 as to the production cost of a book for oil outflow damage, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.

(2) Comprehensively taking account of the evidence and the purport of the entire arguments in the statement in Eul evidence Nos. 43,020,90 won and evidence No. 34 No. 16-2, the defendant held an event under the name of "Cheongcheon Bathing Beach and Cheong Information Declaration Form" in order to improve the image of the accident and attract tourists in preparation for the opening of large-scale bathing beaches and scarbs, etc., and held 43,020,90 won at its expense. The above event includes cultural events that read the declaration letter to keep the Defendant’s region clean, Cheong Information Camp, etc., which is invited to keep the Defendant’s region clean, Cheong Information Camp, which includes expenses that were incurred in relation to the above event’s holding of this case’s event’s economic losses including the scope of the event’s implementation of pollution and its purpose, and the scope of the event’s implementation of pollution and its purpose.

(3) According to evidence and evidence Nos. 4,400,000 won for the local economy revitalization conference, the defendant paid the above amount in relation to the regional economy revitalization conference, but according to evidence, it is also acknowledged that the defendant was selected as the representative of Chungcheongnam-do in June 2008 as an exemplary example where the oil pollution accident occurred well, and that the defendant paid the corresponding amount to the external company in order to create materials to be used in the competition. Thus, it is difficult to view that it was paid to reduce economic losses caused by the accident of this case.

(d) Expenses of KRW 100,000,000 in relation to the relocation of large bathing beaches; and

According to the evidence mentioned above and evidence No. 34 No. 16-6 and No. 7 of Eul 34, the defendant's payment of the above amount is recognized in relation to the opening of the Wancheon Bathing Beach and the west Coast Pream on or around June 2008. However, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the same evidence, namely, the opening ceremony of the Wancheon Bathing Beach is an event held each year, and the opening ceremony of the Wancheon Bathing Beaching beach is an event held each year, and the subsidies are granted from the defendant's side to the number of correspondences initially planned for the west Coast Preaming on or around the coast, it is difficult to deem that the above expenses were paid to reduce the economic loss

(5) According to the evidence and evidence 33,575,00 won as to the expenses related to the Incheon Northern Festivals and evidence 34 No. 16-1, the defendant paid the above amount in relation to the Incheon Northern Festivals on or around December 2008, but according to the evidence, it is recognized that the defendant paid the above amount, but according to the above evidence, it is an event held every year prior to the accident of this case, one year after the accident of this case, and one year after the accident of this case, and most of the pest control work in the region of the defendant was completed. In light of this, it is difficult to view that the above expenses were paid to reduce economic losses caused by the accident of this case.

(6) According to the evidence and evidence No. 130,00,000 won and evidence No. 34 No. 16-4, the court below held that the defendant paid the above amount with respect to the Seocho Coast Love System around December 2008. However, according to the above evidence, the above event was held to attract local residents and volunteers at the time of the completion of the eradication work, and it is difficult to view that it was paid to reduce economic loss due to the accident in this case.

(7) Sub-committee

Therefore, the assessment amount of the limited claim should be KRW 43,020,90.

D. According to each of the statements in Eul evidence Nos. 34, 4, and 5 (including each number), it is recognized that the defendant paid a total of KRW 331,536,000 in relation to the improvement of fishing ground environment to fishing village fraternities within the island area from October 17, 2008 to December 9, 2008.

However, in light of the following circumstances, which are acknowledged as a whole based on the overall purport of the pleadings, namely, ① pest control work in the region within the jurisdiction of the defendant was terminated in October 2008 (the pest control work was performed in May 2009 only in some areas), the above amount was paid thereafter, ② the payment details are ordinarily conducted or supported for the improvement of the fishing ground environment, such as the improvement of the quality of fishing ground, the pollution of rock, the spread of the boom and the boomet, the spread of seawater seeds, the marking of fishing ground boundary, the fishing ground sand spraying, etc., the evidence submitted by the defendant alone is insufficient to recognize the above subsidization costs as losses in proximate causal relation with the accident of this case, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

In addition, the defendant argued that since the defendant spent KRW 531,620 as the name of the injury treatment expenses of volunteers who participated in pest control operations around December 2007, this is also included in the scope of compensation. However, even after examining the record, there is no evidence about the situation of the occurrence of the specific injury and the details of the expenditure. Therefore, the evidence submitted alone is insufficient to recognize that the above expense constituted damage in proximate causal relation with the accident of this case, and there is no other evidence

E. According to the statements in the Marine Environment Improvement Expenses (including various numbers) Nos. 3 and 4 (including 2010, 201), the Defendant’s payment of KRW 2,539,00,000 for the business expenses of improving the fishing ground environment in 2010 and KRW 3,111,00,000 for the year 201. However, the following circumstances, which are acknowledged by comprehensively considering the overall purport of the arguments, are as follows: (i) pollution response work in the Defendant’s region was completed in October 2008; (ii) pollution response work in the Defendant’s region was conducted two or more years after the time of the accident; and (iii) the contents of the project were conducted to improve the fishing ground environment normally by dredging, project expenses, spraying of low quality improvement chemicals and fishing ground traffic, development of fishing ground traffic, removal of waste materials, etc., the evidence submitted by the Defendant alone alone is insufficient to acknowledge proximate causal relation between the accident and the fishing ground environment in this case.

F. The facts that the Defendant paid a total of KRW 22,242,841 as out-time allowance to the employees belonging to the Marine Fishery and Fisheries and its employees who performed the duties related to pest control operations from January 2008 to October 2008, and KRW 440,000 as out-of-time allowance around December 2007, there is no dispute between the parties. Considering the aforementioned evidence and the purport of the arguments in the evidence Nos. 346 to 8 (including separate numbers) of B-34, there is no evidence to acknowledge that there was a lack of reasonable causation between the Defendant and the employees of the oil accident support team as out-of-time allowance and the employees’ out-time allowance, etc. for the period of 286,130,850, out-time allowance for the employees belonging to the oil accident support team from January 208 to October 2008, there is no evidence to acknowledge that there was a lack of reasonable causal relation between the Plaintiffs’ out-of-time allowance and the employees’ out-time allowance for 208 years.

Therefore, the assessment amount of this part of limited claims should be 358,553,571 won (=22,242,841 won + 440,00 won + 286,130,850 won + 35,539,880 won + 14,200,000 won for payment of interest on pollution response loans).

The defendant asserts that the non-speak-si corporation in the jurisdiction of the pest control business entity obtained a loan from NFF to make a prior payment to residents of some of the residents' personnel expenses and the user fees for equipment incurred between July 2008 and October 2008, and that the defendant paid interest 2,905,266 won to the non-speak-si corporation. However, even if the defendant's assertion itself is based on the defendant's own opinion, it is insufficient to recognize that the above loan is a loss in proximate causal relation with the accident of this case, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this.

Therefore, the assessment amount of subordinated limitation claims reported by the defendant should be changed to the sum of KRW 1,974,707,631 as shown below.

A person shall be appointed.

I. Conclusion

Therefore, since the part of the judgment of this case concerning the defendants' limited claims is unfair in all, it is so decided as per Disposition by changing the assessment amount of the defendants' limited claims to the amount corresponding to the " modified amount" in the attached Table.

Judges

The presiding judge, judge and deputy judge

Judges Cho Jae-chul

In case of being a judge, superintendent, or deputy director, it is impossible to sign.

The presiding judge

Judges

Note tin

1) On November 19, 2014, the Korea Coast Guard shall be the Korea Coast Guard, the Korea Coast Guard, and the Taean Coast Guard shall be the Taean Coast Guard, the Taean Coast Guard, the Korea Coast Guard.

Although the name is changed to a safety book, the name at the time of the accident is used for the convenience of understanding.

2) The defendant number in the combined case is 22.

(iii) Enforcement Decree of the Special Act on the Support for Residents in Damage Caused by Helle Oil Pollution Accidents and the Restoration of the Marine Environment

§ 11(10) The State or local governments shall compensate to the International Fund, etc. under the Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage Guarantee Act; or

Where claiming compensation pursuant to the same Act, the other claimant claiming compensation or compensation pursuant to the same Act.

may be subordinate to claims.

4) The limited liability court does not specify the amount granted for each damage claim in relation to the costs of pollution response in the assessment judgment.

In order to ensure the convenience of judgment, an appraiser in the field of the prevention of limitation of liability cases has determined the amount comprehensively;

The amount of award by each damage claim specified in the certificate was stated in the certificate.

5) The report on the performance of the pest control activities (No. 17 No. 3-2) is a detailed statement on the performance of the pest control activities (on board any vessel).

There are many kinds of books on which tar has been collected in a certain area.

6) According to the instant accident, the Plaintiff’s shipowner is liable for damages as the shipowner (limited to maximum amount of 8,977,00 SDR).

under the International Fund Convention, 1992, the Plaintiff International Fund shall appear to have suffered damages in excess of the limits of liability of the Defendant’s owner under

to be held liable (including the portion to be borne by the Plaintiff’s prior owner, and the maximum amount of 2.3 million SDR) shall be less than

‘compensation' is referred to as ‘compensation'.

7) Although the Defendant classified it as a claim in the field of pest control, the content thereof is not directly related to the “pest control measure”.

It is determined from the perspective of whether proximate causal relation exists between the current expenditure and the accident of this case.

8) The assessment amount per item has not been changed but shall be indicated as the changed amount for the convenience of calculation; hereinafter the same shall apply.

9) The limited liability court does not specify the amount granted for each damage claim in relation to the costs of pollution response in the assessment judgment.

In order to ensure the convenience of judgment, an appraiser in the field of the prevention of limitation of liability cases has determined the amount comprehensively;

The amount of award by each damage claim specified in the certificate was stated in the certificate.

10) Once the oil outflow accident occurred in Seocheon-gun (No. 20 No. 4), the content of the pest control activities conducted every day and the pest control items used.

The details of goods are stated, and in the case of the date of release of the pest control equipment (No. 20 No. 6), any kind and number by date.

There is a statement to whom the quantity control goods are transferred.

11) The limited liability court shall specify the amount granted for each damage claim in relation to the costs of pollution response in the assessment court.

The appraisal in the field of the prevention of limited liability incidents for the convenience of judgment, although the amount of the award was comprehensively determined;

The amount of award by each damage claim specified in the certificate of personal inspection was stated.

12) The defendant overlaps with 16,810,000 won claimed by the Mebooming Marine Police Station for booming Items booming on June 27, 2014.

The total amount was determined as KRW 5,747,255,769 on the ground that the claim was filed.

(xii) chemicals to treat oil leaked on the sea by chemical and biochemical methods, with oil disagnating them;

It shall be made in an easy state by decentralization with sea water so as to promote self-regulatory action.

14) It may be used for double purposes that injecte and recover oil and that combines a pentle and that is in force on a brush;

It is an exaggeration.

15) The defendant shall exclude, from the preparatory document dated June 27, 2014, the amount of items without evidentiary data, such as a written disbursement resolution, etc.

B determined the property as KRW 1,752,008,898.

16) In the case of the repair cost of KRW 444,856,300,00,000, 278,000, in particular, in which the parties are disputing, 62-2,00,000

According to the record, on December 18, 2007, the problem while entering the port after patroling the marine pollution center on the above vessel.

As a result of the inspection conducted by the producer, many parts were damaged at the present end, which is due to the long-term use of materials.

one hand is presumed to be one hand, and there is a fact that the above parts are written in the internal report.

It is not damaged in the process, but damaged by a Matern, etc. due to the long-term use of the above vessel for a specified period.

Since this is reasonable, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

17) The defendant's office overlapping office with KRW 5,942,930,00 claimed by the Ganpo Coastal Police Station among the aircraft items in the preparatory documents dated June 27, 2014.

The total amount was determined as KRW 4,665,087,270 by excluding the amount in question on the ground that it was sought.

18) In accordance with relevant provisions in the preparatory documents dated June 27, 2014, the Defendant limits excess work hours to 67 hours, and holidays.

The sum of 91,441,163 won reduced by 1,894,316,629 won as a result of the adjustment of an unpaid allowance or night allowance

had been.

19) Calculation by multiplying the input number by the number of working days;

20) The Maritime Police Agency shall have three regional maritime police agencies (hereinafter referred to as the East Sea, Yellow Sea, and South Sea) under its jurisdiction, and each regional maritime police agency.

There are 15 maritime police stations under its jurisdiction. The main office and three regional offices, and 13 local offices in connection with the accident in this case.

The Korea Coast Guard involved in the response work.

21) The Defendant excluded the relevant amount on the ground that the sanitary expense items overlap in the preparatory documents dated June 27, 2014, on the ground that the same were requested.

The sum total was 91,042,751 won.

22) In the briefs submitted by the Defendant on June 17, 2015, the lawsuit brought up by the Defendant in the course of carrying out the lawsuit as set forth in paragraph (b) below.

Although the claimant alleged that the cost of KRW 5,500,000 should be recognized as limited claims, the circumstances

The above assertion is not the subject-matter of a lawsuit in the instant case where the court examines and determines the propriety of the judgment.

subsection (1) of this section shall not be determined.

23) With respect to the claims of each of the above companies, in the case of the East Trade Co., Ltd., the court 2013da620, 1425 (s)

2) In the case of an objection against the assessment judgment, this Court 2013No 1005, in the case of Jin-Mail, Inc.;

1401 (Merger) In the lawsuit of demurrer against the 1401 ruling, conciliation has been concluded between the plaintiffs on February 4, 2015, respectively.

in the case of a corporation without fault, the filing of a suit for objection against the ruling of assessment in the case of a corporation with no fault

It is in the middle.

24) The Minister of Environment shall conduct epidemiological investigations on local residents who are likely or suspected to suffer harm to environmentally hazardous factors.

may be held.

25) The Minister of Environment shall investigate, research and technical specifications for the identification, monitoring, prevention and control of harm to health caused by environmentally hazardous factors.

For growth, national and public research institutes, universities, national and public hospitals, private hospitals, etc. shall be designated and operated as Environmental Health Centers.

the corporation.

26) The limited liability court shall specify the amount granted for each damage claim in relation to the costs of pollution response in the assessment judgment.

The appraisal in the field of the prevention of limited liability incidents for the convenience of judgment, although the amount of the award was comprehensively determined;

The amount of award by each damage claim specified in the certificate of personal inspection was stated.

27) 467,801,539 won (2009, 2009) + 250,388,710 won (2010, 2009) + 156,875,820 won (2011, 201)

28) The Plaintiff International Fund in principle incurs expenses incurred after January 2008 in relation to the response work of volunteers.

It is the position that it cannot be recognized as such.

29) The bus rental fee for transporting military personnel participating in pest control operations by the International Fund is reasonable cost of preventive measures.

contained in the Act.

30) The defendant asserts that bus rental fees paid to transport civilian volunteers are also included in the scope of compensation.

However, volunteers are those who intend to provide labor force related to pest control operations free of charge, and there are no special circumstances.

the expenses that the volunteers have left or have returned to the pest control area shall be the intention of the volunteers to bear.

Since it is reasonable to deem that he/she participates in volunteer service activities, such rent cannot be deemed as reasonable cost for preventive measures.

참조조문

-선박소유자 등의 책임제한절차에 관한 법률 제9조

-유류오염손해배상 보장법

-유류오염손해배상 보장법 제2조 제4호

-유류오염손해배상 보장법 제4조 제1항

-허베이 스피리트호 유류오염사고 피해주민의 지원 및 해양환경의 복원 등에 관한 특별법 시행령

-허베이 스피리트호 유류오염사고 피해주민의 지원 및 해양환경의 복원 등에 관한 특별법 시행령 제11조

-환경보건법 제15조 제1항