The details of the duty to avoid navigation and the methods of navigation in accordance with the method of designating navigation routes for vessels which are not subject to the draft water in the specific sea area for traffic safety, and the standards for determining whether such vessels comply with the method of navigation in the specific sea area for traffic safety.

Under Article 2 subparag. 13, Articles 13, 45, and 47(1) of the Sea Traffic Safety Act, Article 4 [Attachment 2] of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, Article 8(1) and (4) [Attachment 3] and [Attachment 5] of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries No. 149 of Nov. 26, 1999), all vessels shall be at all times at the proper boundaries by all means suitable for the visual, hearing, and prevailing circumstances so as to make a full determination of the situation of collision with other vessels. In particular, with respect to a sea area in which a large marine accident is likely to occur, vessels may take the same measures as the designation of sea route in which vessels pass by designating the sea area as the “specific sea area for the safe navigation of vessels,” and the designation of sea route in which vessels shall navigate within the said sea area as one of such sea areas, and vessels shall be deep or deep so long as vessels navigated within the designated sea route does not follow the aforementioned sea route.

Article 2 subparag. 13, Articles 13, 45, and 47(1) of the Sea Traffic Safety Act, Article 4 [Attachment 2] of the Enforcement Decree of the Sea Traffic Safety Act, Article 8(1) [Attachment 3] [Attachment 7] of the former Enforcement Rule of the Sea Traffic Safety Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries No. 149 of Nov. 26, 1999), Articles 8(1) [Attachment 7] [Attachment 7] and 8(1) [Attachment 5] [Attachment 4] [Attachment 9].

Plaintiff (Law Firm Sejong, Attorneys Final-hwan et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

President of the Central Maritime Safety Tribunal

October 24, 2000

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff.

1. The accident of this case and the ruling of disciplinary action

갑 제6호증의1, 갑 제7호증, 갑 제13호증, 을 제6호증, 을 제7호증, 을 제16호증의 각 기재와 갑 제5호증의 일부 기재에 변론의 전취지를 종합하면, 총톤수 2,483t의 일반화물선인 ' 제1 선박'호(다음부터는 '이 사건 선박'이라고 한다)가 1999. 10. 1. 07:25경 광양만 고철부두에서 강재(강재) 3,141t을 적재하고 출항하여 일본국의 후나바시항을 향하여 항행하던 중 같은 날 09:12경 여수구역 교통안전 특정해역(다음부터는 '이 사건 특정해역'이라고 한다) 내의 대도등대 남서 해상 1.8마일 지점(북위 34º 39´ 06˝, 동경 127º 55´ 36˝)에서 총톤수 22t의 멸치잡이 어선 ' 제2 선박'(다음부터는 '상대 선박'이라고 한다)를 충돌·침몰시켜 그 선원 6명을 익사하게 한 사실(다음부터는 위 사고를 '이 사건 사고'라고 한다), 원고는 이 사건 선박의 선장으로서 이 사건 사고 무렵 선교에서 혼자 항해 당직을 서고 있었던 사실 및 피고는 2000. 5. 10. 원고가 이 사건 선박을 항로지정방식에 따라 항행하지 아니하고 항법의 기본수칙인 경계를 소홀히 함으로써 상대 선박의 동정과 충돌의 위험을 제대로 파악하지 못한 직무상의 과실로 이 사건 사고를 발생하게 하였다는 이유로 원고의 3급 항해사 업무를 6월간 정지하는 이 사건 징계재결을 한 사실을 인정할 수 있다.

2. Whether the disciplinary decision of this case is unlawful

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the instant vessel was under navigation in accordance with the sea route designation scheme within the specific sea area of this case, and therefore, the subject of the claim at the time of the instant accident, despite the fact that the vessel was under fishing within the specific sea area of this case, the instant judgment on disciplinary action was unlawful on the premise that the instant vessel did not navigate in accordance with the sea route designation scheme, and thus, the Plaintiff, the captain of the instant vessel, was subject to excessive disciplinary action.

B. Under Article 2 subparag. 13, Articles 13, 45, and 47(1) of the Sea Traffic Safety Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), Article 4 [Attachment 2] of the Enforcement Decree of the Act, Article 8(1), (4) [Attachment 3] and [Attachment 5] of the Enforcement Decree of the Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries No. 149 of Nov. 26, 199), all vessels shall always be placed at all times at the proper boundaries by all means suitable for the visual, hearing, and prevailing circumstances so as to make a full determination of the surrounding circumstances and the danger of collision with other vessels. In particular, with respect to a sea area in which a large marine accident is likely to occur, vessels may take the same measures as the designation of sea route by designating the sea area as the “specific sea area for traffic safety,” and the designation of sea route by vessels shall be deep or deep, so long as the designation of sea route is within the said sea area as one of the sea area for navigation by vessels is within the designated sea route.

다. 그런데 을 제1, 2, 16호증의 각 기재와 갑 제1 내지 5, 9, 10호증의 각 일부 기재에 변론의 전취지를 종합하면, 이 사건 선박은 흘수제약을 받지 아니하는 선박으로서 이 사건 사고 당일 광양만의 항계를 벗어나 이 사건 특정해역에 접어든 직후 일차 진로를 변경한 후에는 그 깊은 수심 항로를 두 차례 가로지르면서 그 항로의 방향과는 상관없이 계속 직진하다가 같은 날 08:30경 진로를 135º로 변침하였으나 역시 위 항로의 방향과는 상관없이 계속 진행하여 가던 중 08:50경 당시 선교에서 항해 당직 중이던 원고가 진로 전방 4마일 지점에 상대 선박이 다른 선박과 함께 있는 것을 발견한 사실, 그런데 상대 선박이 당시 어로 작업 중임을 나타내는 소정의 형상물을 부착하고 있지는 아니하였지만 그에 연결하여 끌고 있는 어망이 상당부분 수면 위로 드러나 있었음에도 원고는 이를 미처 발견하지 못한 채 상대 선박과 그 후미를 따르고 있는 다른 선박 사이로 빠져나갈 수 있을 것으로 판단하고 계속하여 위 항로의 방향과는 상관없이 그대로 직진하여 간 사실, 그러다가 같은 날 09:00경에는 이 사건 특정해역을 벗어났다가 이 사건 사고 직전인 09:06경 다시 진입하여 같은 방향으로 진행하던 중 상대 선박 후미를 지나면서 상대 선박이 끌고 있는 어망에 걸려 방향 전환을 하다가 상대 선박을 충돌·침몰하게 하였던 사실을 인정할 수 있다.

According to these facts, the plaintiff navigating the ship of this case and continued to proceed without complying with the direction of deep sea depth in the specific sea area of this case. Thus, such navigation cannot be deemed as navigation in accordance with the navigation designation method under the above Act, and therefore, it cannot be said that the other ship was engaged in fishing in the specific sea area of this case, and it cannot be said that the other ship is obliged not to obstruct the navigation of the ship of this case pursuant to Article 47 (1) of the Act, on the ground that the other ship was engaged in fishing in the specific sea area of this case. On the other hand, in the occurrence of the accident of this case, the plaintiff failed to discover in advance the network being towed by the other ship by neglecting the basic duty of boundary required for the navigation of all ships of this case.

Therefore, in the instant disciplinary decision, it is not unlawful on the premise that the Plaintiff was negligent in performing his duties as to the occurrence of the instant accident. In addition, considering all the circumstances such as the content of the occupational negligence and the result of the instant accident, the contents of the disciplinary action do not excessively excessive, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim of this case premised on the illegality of the judgment on the instant disciplinary action does not seem to have any reason.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Zwon (Presiding Justice)