1. The defendant's appeal and the request for return of provisional payment are all dismissed.

2. The claims of the independent party intervenor are all made;

1. Basic facts

(a) C shall purchase insurance or subscribe to mutual aid prescribed by Presidential Decree in order to fully cover the accident compensation prescribed in this Act for all seafarers working on board the relevant ship;

(2) Where a shipowner purchases an insurance policy or mutual aid under paragraph (1), he/she shall do so at least average boarding wages.

On January 24, 2015, the insurance contract for fishing vessel crew members was concluded with the defendant as stated in the attached list with regard to D owned matters.

B. On September 15, 2015, B entered into a seafarer labor contract with C and the boarding period from September 15, 2015 to December 15 of the same year, with wages of KRW 10 million.

C. B was missing on September 20, 2015 while working on board D, and was found to have died on October 12, 2015.

B’s parents died before the death of B, and there are M, N, E,O, P, and Q as siblings B.

E. Insurance money to be paid by the Defendant to the bereaved family members under the insurance contract for fishing vessel crew members is KRW 133,790,800 for bereaved family’s compensation, and funeral expenses of KRW 12,349,920 for funeral expenses, KRW 146,140,720 for funeral expenses.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 4 through 6 (including a provisional number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Byung evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The gist of the parties' assertion argues that the plaintiff, who is a de facto marital spouse B, has the right to receive compensation for survivors and funeral expenses from the shipowner C pursuant to Article 29 subparagraph 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Seafarers' Act. Thus, the defendant, who concluded the insurance contract with C, is obligated to pay compensation for survivors and funeral expenses to the plaintiff.

In regard to this, the intervenor, if the remaining brothers and sisters of B renounced their respective shares so that they can independently exercise the right to claim insurance of this case, the plaintiff only lives together with B for a certain period of time, and there was no substance of marital life between them. Therefore, the plaintiff is de facto marital.