In case where a lessee of a ship uses a ship for commercial activities or for any other profit-making purpose and causes damage to a third party, whether the shipowner is liable.

If a lessee of a ship uses a ship for navigation for commercial activities or for any other profit, he/she has the same obligation as the shipowner with respect to matters concerning the use of the ship. If the lessee uses the ship for the above purpose and causes damage to a third party, he/she shall be liable for such damage to the lessee, and the original owner of the ship shall not be liable for such damage regardless of the existence of the lease.

Article 766 of the Commercial Act

Supreme Court Decision 74Da847 delivered on March 31, 1975 (Supreme Court Decision 74Da847 delivered on March 31, 197, Supreme Court Decision 23Da152 delivered on July 15, 197, Supreme Court Decision 746(1)751 delivered on July 751, 8386)

Plaintiff 1 and four others

Defendant 1 and one other

Gwangju District Court of the first instance (72 Ghana268)

Among the judgment of the first instance, the part against Defendant 1 and the part against Defendant 2 shall be revoked, respectively.

Defendant 2 paid to Plaintiff 1 the amount of KRW 507,60 of money, KRW 336,600 of money, KRW 419,400 of money to Plaintiff 3, KRW 216,00 of money to Plaintiff 4, KRW 227,700 of money to Plaintiff 5, and KRW 227,70 of money to Plaintiff 5 from May 5, 1972 to the same time.

The plaintiffs' claim against the defendant 1 is dismissed.

Defendant 2’s appeal is dismissed.

Of the litigation costs, the part against Defendant 1 shall be borne by all the plaintiffs in the first and second instances, and the costs of appeal against Defendant 2 shall be borne by the same defendant.

Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the amount of 2-1 percent of the plaintiffs' interest to defendant 2 and Paragraph 2 of the above order can be provisionally executed.

The Defendants shall be jointly and severally,

Plaintiff (1) 1,692,00 won for gold 1,122,00 won for gold 1,398,000 won for gold 1,398,000 won for the Plaintiff (3) and gold 720,000 won for the Plaintiff (4), 759,000 won for gold 759,000 won for the Plaintiff (5) and the amount paid to the Plaintiff (5) from May 5, 1972 to the time of full payment, the payment of the cost of lawsuit and provisional execution shall be declared.

The part against the plaintiff among the original judgment shall be revoked.

Defendant et al., jointly and severally,

Plaintiff (1) filed a declaration of 507,600 won with money, 336,600 won with money to Plaintiff (2), 419,400 won with money to Plaintiff (3), 216,000 won with money to Plaintiff (4), 227,700 won with money to Plaintiff (5), and 227,700 won with money to Plaintiff (5) with the rate of 5 percent per annum from May 5, 1972 to the time of full payment.

The part against the Defendants in the original judgment shall be revoked.

The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiffs in the first and second instances.

fact that the cargo line (name omitted) is owned by Defendant 1;

Non-party 1, as the captain of the above vessel, loaded 589 mix 589 vehicles owned by the plaintiffs on May 4, 1972, operated to the port of departure from the port of port of port of port of port around 00:0 on May 4, 1972, and around 04:00 on the same day, the ship was on the sea of approximately 1,200 meters in the north-do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do dong Do Do Gun Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do.

As to the evidence Nos. 1 through 6-5, Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 3, and Eul evidence No. 1 which is acknowledged as the authenticity by the testimony of non-party No. 2, the court below's witness No. 3, 4, 5, 1, and non-party No. 2, the whole purport of the party's pleading is taken into account in the testimony of non-party No. 3, 4

The above vessel (title omitted) is a vessel used for navigation with a gross tonnage of 99,68 tons, such as marine transportation, etc. or for other commercial activities, and Defendant 1 entered into a lease contract with Defendant 2 on April 10, 1971 with Defendant 2 for maritime transportation, etc., and entered into a transportation contract with Defendant 2 on May 3, 1972 between Defendant 2 and the Plaintiff, etc. with a vessel for marine transportation, etc., which means 500 boxes, such as the Plaintiff, etc., from the point of departure at around 23:0, to the port of departure at around 00:30 minutes of the same month, at around 30:0,000 after the departure of the vessel, the vessel owner of the vessel did not know about the direction of the vessel from the point of departure to the port of departure at around 30:30,000, and it did not affect the vessel's navigation, but at all at all, it did not affect the vessel's departure from the port of the captain.

In addition to the amount of the above recognition, the damage caused by the plaintiff et al. caused more damage to the plaintiff et al. to the plaintiff et al.., the 62 boxes owned by the plaintiff et al., the 62 boxes by the plaintiff et al., the 68 boxes by the plaintiff et al. (20 boxes by the plaintiff et al., the 68 boxes by the plaintiff et al., the 24 boxes by the plaintiff et al., the 25,000 boxes by the plaintiff et al., and the 25,000 boxes by the plaintiff et al. were destroyed by some parts of the 24 boxes by the plaintiff et al., and the above completely destroyed 15,00 won by the plaintiff et al. were destroyed, and the damage caused by the 6,000 won by the plaintiff et al. can not be proved otherwise.

The Plaintiff’s Attorney,

Defendant 1 is the owner of the above ship and Nonparty 1, the captain of the above ship, and Defendant 2 is the supervisor of the above ship in lieu of Defendant 1, and the defendant 2 is responsible for compensating for the above damages suffered by the plaintiff et al., thus, the defendant 1 is first examined about Defendant 1's liability for compensation.

As above, the above vessel is used for navigation for maritime transportation, commercial activities or other profit-making purposes such as commercial activities such as maritime transportation, etc., so compensation for damages caused by the vessel is not subject to the Civil Code, but subject to the Commercial Code

Defendant 1’s lease of the vessel to Defendant 2 and management by Defendant 2, who entered into a contract of carriage with the Plaintiff, etc. and entered into the contract of carriage with the Plaintiff, etc. as above recognition;

As such, in a case where the lessee of a ship uses the ship for navigation for commercial activities or for other profit, the same rights and duties as the shipowner over the third party. Thus, if the lessee of the ship causes damage to the third party due to the fault of the captain in sailing the ship for the purpose of commercial activities, the lessee of the ship shall be liable for damages, and the owner of the ship shall not be liable for damages. Accordingly, Defendant 1, the owner of the ship, is not liable for damages.

The plaintiff's attorney argues that the lease has no effect against a third party without the registration of the lease, but in the case of the registration of the lease of a ship, the third party who acquired the real right to the ship after the registration of the lease of the ship can claim the lease of the ship, not that it is the fact that the plaintiff's attorney can claim the damage claim like this.

Next, we examine the plaintiff's claim against the defendant 2.

Defendant 2 is identical to the above recognition that the accident of this case occurred during the course of the operation of the vessel leased by Defendant 2. Therefore, Defendant 2 is liable to compensate the Plaintiffs for all damages they suffered.

Defendant 2 Attorney:

Defendant 2 concluded a sub-lease contract with Plaintiff 1, and Plaintiff 1 took charge of this case under the direction and supervision of the captain, etc., so Defendant 2 is not responsible for Defendant 2. However, the charter contract between Defendant 2 and Plaintiff 1 is merely a type of a punishment transport contract, and the above arguments are groundless against the above recognition.

Then, Defendant 2’s attorney asserted that the accident caused by storm and storm or that the special agreement for exemption of KRW 10,000 was made, but there was no evidence to acknowledge it. Finally, Defendant 2’s attorney left the departure time after Plaintiff 1’s departure time, and therefore, Defendant 1’s attorney asserted that the accident occurred due to Amination of Amins weather.

The above vessel's departure from the port near about 1 hour and 30 minutes later than the scheduled departure time is identical to the above recognition, but all technical responsibilities for navigation are entirely borne by the captain, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that there is causation between the delay of departure time and the present accident (this point is consistent with the witness's statement portion of the court below's non-party 6 is not trusted).

Accordingly, we examine the amount of damages against the plaintiffs by the defendant 2, and the damages suffered by the plaintiffs are the same as the above recognition:

The amount of damages of the Plaintiff (1) is KRW 1,692,00 (15,00 x 88,62 x 6,000). The amount of damages of the Plaintiff (2) is KRW 1,122,00 (15,000 x 62 x 6,000 x 32). The amount of damages of the Plaintiff (3) is KRW 1,398,00 (15,000 x 66,000 x 6000 x 6,000 x 600 x 6006,000 x 600 x 6,000 x 600 x 24). The amount of damages of the Plaintiff (4) is obvious that the amount of damages of the Plaintiff (15,000 x 416,000 x 00 x 24) is calculated.

Therefore, Defendant 2 is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff (1) 1,122,00 won in money, 1,398,000 won in money to the Plaintiff (2), 1,398,000 won in money to the Plaintiff (3), 720,000 won in money to the Plaintiff (4), 759,000 won in money to the Plaintiff (5) and 759,000 won in money to the Plaintiff (5), the day when the said accident occurred, from May 5, 1972, to the day when the payment was made in full. Accordingly, Defendant 2, among the Plaintiff’s claims, has merit for all of them. Accordingly, this shall be accepted in full, and it shall be accepted.

The defendant 2 shall be obliged to pay to the plaintiff (1) 507,600 won, 336,600 won in money to the plaintiff (2), 419,400 won in money to the plaintiff (3), 216,000 won in money to the plaintiff (4), 227,700 won in money to the plaintiff (5), and 227,700 won in money to the plaintiff (5) and the amount to be paid in full from May 5, 1972 to the day of full payment. The defendant 1 shall be dismissed for the reasons that it is without merit.

Unlike these conclusions, the first instance court shall revoke the part of the appeal against the defendant 1 on the grounds that the appeal against the defendant 1 is well-grounded, revoke the part against the plaintiff against the defendant 2, dismiss the appeal against the defendant 2, the costs of the appeal shall be borne by the losing party, and the above cited part shall be decided as per Disposition with the provisional execution attached.

Judges Park Young-young (Presiding Judge)