[1] Method of determining the meaning and content of foreign laws and regulations applicable to legal relations containing foreign elements

[2] In a case where the issue is whether the charterer's damage liability against the carrier due to the inundation of cargo loaded with a ship is a claim secured by a maritime lien under the laws of the sea of the Republic of Pakistan, the country of registry, the case affirming the judgment of the court below that the above damage liability is not clear on the sole basis of the Supreme Court precedents and the written opinion of the law office of Pakistan, submitted by the charterer, and whether the above damage liability is a claim secured by a maritime lien under the laws of the Republic of Pakistan, and that is not a claim secured by a maritime lien before the last voyage, the above damage liability arising from the carrier's breach of the duty of due diligence cannot be deemed as a claim secured by

[1] Articles 1 and 5 of the Private International Act; Article 1 of the Civil Act / [2] Articles 1, 5, and 60 of the Private International Act; Article 1 of the Civil Act; Article 777 of the Commercial Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2005Da47939 Decided July 12, 2007, Supreme Court Decision 2008Da54587 Decided January 28, 2010 (Gong2010Sang, 384)

Nurier Shipping Co., Ltd. (Attorney Han-dong et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Daejeon District Court Order 2010Ra54 dated June 1, 2010

The reappeal is dismissed.

The grounds of reappeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. As to the first ground for reappeal

In principle, when determining the contents and interpreting the meaning of foreign laws applicable to legal relations containing foreign elements, such foreign laws shall be interpreted and applied in accordance with the meaning and content of the foreign laws actually interpreted and applied in their own country. However, if it is impossible to confirm the contents because data on the foreign precedents or interpretation standards are not submitted in the course of litigation, the court shall only determine the meaning and contents of the law in accordance with the general legal interpretation standards (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da47939, Jul. 12, 2007).

The court below determined that it is reasonable to determine whether the damage claim of the charterer due to the breach of the contract of carriage is the secured claim for maritime lien under Article 244 subparagraph 7 of the laws of the Republic of Pakistann country and the general legal interpretation of the laws of the Republic of Korea, on the sole basis of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of "HAITI" and the opinion of the legal office of QUJN Maz (SO& AS) in the Republic of Pakistann Republic of Korea, which was submitted by the re-appellant, in the case of "HAITI" and the judgment of the court below, since it is not clear whether the damage claim of the charterer due to the breach of the contract of carriage is recognized as the secured claim for maritime lien under Article 244 subparagraph 7 of the laws of the Republic of Pakistann country and the general legal interpretation of the laws of the Republic of Korea and the general legal principles of the Republic of Korea.

In light of the above legal principles and records, the judgment of the court below is just, and the judgment of the court below in the case of “SKY SEA” as alleged in the grounds for reappeal is not an obstacle to the above judgment. In so determining, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the standard

2. As to the second ground for reappeal

In light of the fact that the maritime lien on the “compensation for damage caused by negligence or negligence” under Article 1507 subparag. 5 of the Commercial Act (amended in 2008, Article 244 of the Act on the Sea of Pakistan), the lower court determined to the effect that if the maritime lien on the “compensation for damage caused by negligence or negligence” under Article 1507 subparag. 5 of the Act on the Sea of Pakistan (amended in 2008) is likely to occur on the ground of all the contractual causes, the liability for damages caused by breach of the contract would be recognized as the maritime lien without any limitation, and the meaning of separate provisions on the remaining maritime lien based on the specific limitation under the contract under Article 1507 subparag. 2 through 4, 7 through 9, 11, and 12 of the same Act would cease to exist, and that Article 1507 subparag. 11 of the Commercial Act of Pakistan has granted a separate maritime lien, it is difficult to view that the above damage claim caused by breach of the carrier’s duty of due care prior to navigation.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the interpretation of maritime lien under the law of the Republic of Pakistan in the Republic of Korea

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the reappeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Nung-hwan (Presiding Justice)