2015Nu13237 Revocation of a ruling

1. A;

2. B

President of the Central Maritime Safety Tribunal

March 31, 2016

April 28, 2016

1. All of the instant lawsuits are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

On September 23, 2015, the Korean Maritime Safety Tribunal rendered a decision on the sinking of the vessel C by the Central Sea Tribunal No. 2015-009.

1. Occurrence of marine accidents and details of adjudication;

A. (1) The Plaintiff B is a representative of D and a total of four vessels (mamline E and accessories C, F, G) owner A, who is a substantial business operator of the Plaintiff A.

2) Nonparty 1’s captain H, 1, fishing ground J, crew K, L, and M were seafarers of D, who had engaged in the operation of usual fishing gear, and the said six crew members set off a port at the port of a mother line E, paper C, and F in order to replace the paths of the high-level N (0.5 ma on January 18, 2015) of the political net fishing ground in Gangwon-do 09:00 on January 18, 2015.

3) At around 11:00 on the same day, the three vessels entered into the upper N and were engaged in the removal of the street, and at around 12:30, E moved to the entrance of the above political net fishing ground in an unmanned condition, and C and F carried out the installation of the street in a place where approximately 500 meters away from E, six seafarers were on board.

4) During the work, seafarers found that the hole to be released from the girst line at the time of the work of removing the streets, and 1, K, and J, on the same day, entered the girst line by using the girst lines of E at around 14:30 on the same day and moved to E by getting the girst lines.

5) Meanwhile, around 14:50 on the same day, H, M, and L remaining in F did not go back to E, and C was found to have been on the left part of the outer part of the high-quality R fishing ground (N 38°18°22 east 128°34 20 east east 15°48) without showing seafarers from the near part of the high-quality R fishing ground (N 38°18°18°20 east 128°20 east 20 east).

6) Although seafarers remaining in F were contacted by P and arrived at the scene of the accident, C had already been sunken, and C was found to have left the scene of death of J and K by searching the surrounding areas of fishing ground, but the I’s body was not found (the accident caused by the sinking of the above C; hereinafter referred to as the “instant marine accident”).

B. On September 23, 2015, the Korean Maritime Safety Tribunal rendered a ruling to find the cause of the marine accident of this case that "the marine accident of this case was restored by the external force, such as a strong wind and wave, near mother E that was pending while moving while the weather of C was aggravated (hereinafter "the ruling of this case")."

[Ground of recognition] The entry of Gap evidence No. 1 and the purport of the whole argument

2. Whether the request for cancellation of the adjudication of this case is legitimate

A lawsuit against a judgment rendered by the Korean Maritime Safety Tribunal under Article 74 (1) of the Act on the Investigation of and Inquiry into Marine Accidents has the nature of a lawsuit against cancellation of an administrative disposition, and thus, the contents of the judgment subject to a lawsuit shall also be the flag with the effect of forming and limiting the rights and obligations of the people, such as the exercise of public authority by an administrative agency. The part of the judgment to find the cause of a marine accident, which merely finds in identifying the facts of the cause of a marine accident, shall not be deemed an administrative disposition because it does not have the effect of forming or confirming the rights and obligations of the people, unlike the result of a disciplinary decision or recommendation made against a person involved in a marine accident, and thus, it shall not be subject to a lawsuit for cancellation of a judgment under the aforementioned legal provision (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 9Da16, Jun. 9, 200; 20

Therefore, the lawsuit of this case seeking the cancellation of the ruling of this case, which is the cause ruling, is unlawful as it is filed concerning matters not subject to the revocation lawsuit.

(1) The plaintiffs asserted that "in the case of this case, the judgment of the causes of the marine accident of this case is to be made, and this would affect specific rights, such as the amount of the plaintiffs' insurance benefits." However, the plaintiffs' insurance benefits, etc. are not formed or finalized by the judgment of this case, and the above assertion is not accepted.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, since the lawsuit of this case is unlawful, it is dismissed in entirety.

Allowable judges of the presiding judge

Judges Kim Gin-han

Judge Park Jong-hoon