[1] The law applicable to maritime lien (=the law of the country of registry)

[2] The purport of Article 372(2)(c) and Article 50(m) of the Shering Act of the other country’s Sheetant on a maritime lien, and whether a claim arising from a contract concluded by a charterer of a ship constitutes a claim secured by a maritime lien pursuant to Article 50(m) of the Sheetant Act of the other country (negative in principle)

[1] Article 60 subparag. 1 of the Private International Act / [2] Article 60 subparag. 1 of the Private International Act, Article 372 subparag. 2 subparag. c and Article 50 subparag. m of the Merchant Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2005Da39617 Decided July 12, 2007 (Gong2007Ha, 1241) Supreme Court Order 2014Ma1099 Decided November 27, 2014 (Gong2015Sang, 22)

GSH1 CH1 CHCED CARIER II AS (Attorneys Jeong Byung-hee et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Korea Tank Services Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Samyang, Attorneys Noh Jeong-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2012Na84396 decided March 14, 2013

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Whether maritime lien is established, whether certain claims are secured by maritime lien, and the scope of the subject of maritime lien is the law of the country of registry according to Article 60 subparag. 1 of the Private International Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da39617, Jul. 12, 2007).

In addition, Article 372(2)(c) of the Shebant Act provides that “any obligation or other obligation may be secured by a maritime lien: Provided, That maritime lien shall take effect by law, and any obligation or obligation other than that specified in the law shall not be secured by a maritime lien,” and Article 50 provides that “any obligation specified in the following subparagraphs shall be secured by a maritime lien on all damages arising from the collision and other accidents as well as the vessel, all insurance money, and by a special type of maritime lien on all damages arising from the collision and other accidents,” and Article 50 provides that “the amount for which the obligation to pay to the creditor has occurred for the purchase of goods, foodstuffs, designs, and equipment prior to the final voyage of the vessel.” However, if the contract causing the obligation did not directly enter into the agreement, the right of the shipowner, master, or agent of the vessel to pay for the purchase of the vessel is not recognized.”

As can be seen, the Act strictly limits the scope of the claims secured by the maritime lien as stipulated in the law, while limiting the scope of the claims secured by the maritime lien to “the agent authorized by the shipowner, the captain, or the shipowner,” in the case of a contract for purchase of goods supplied, etc., the scope of the parties that may cause the maritime lien shall be limited to “the agent authorized by the shipowner, the captain, or the shipowner.” Thus, the purpose of protecting claims secured by the contract is to prevent any harm to the interests of the shipowner, the mortgagee, etc. due to the occurrence of the maritime lien due to the transaction not caused by the shipowner’s intent, and only when the parties prescribed by the law have entered into a contract to promote a reasonable balance between creditors and the shipowner’s interests, barring any special circumstance, barring any special circumstance, the claims secured by the contract that the charterer entered into by the maritime lien shall not

2. 원심은 증거를 종합하여, ① 삼호해운 주식회사(이하 ‘삼호해운’이라고 한다)는 2007. 11. 23. 이 사건 선박의 소유자로서 외국 법인인 원고와 ‘이 사건 선박’에 관하여 나용선계약을 체결한 사실, ② 삼호해운은 2011. 4. 6. 이디앤에프 맨 몰라시스 비브이-암스테르담(ED＆F MAN MOLASSES BV-AMSTERDAM)과 사이에, ‘태국의 방콕, 시암 등의 항구에서 당밀 15,000톤을 이 사건 선박에 선적한 후 대한민국의 부산, 군산, 포항 등의 항구에서 양하’하는 내용의 운송계약을 체결한 사실, ③ 삼호해운이 위 운송계약상 항해를 시작하기 전에 피고는 나용선자인 삼호해운과 체결한 유류공급계약에 따라 2011. 4. 9. 대만 카오슝에서 미화 165,068.00달러 상당의 연료유를 이 사건 선박에 공급한 사실, ④ 피고는 이 사건 연료유채권이 선박우선특권으로 담보되는 채권이라고 주장하면서 이 사건 선박에 임의경매신청을 하여 2011. 5. 24. 대구지방법원 포항지원 2011타경4163호 로 위 선박에 대한 임의경매개시결정이 내려진 사실, ⑤ 이 사건 연료유채권의 발생 당시 이 사건 선박의 선적국은 몰타국인 사실 등을 인정한 다음, 위와 같은 사실관계를 토대로 하여, 몰타국 상선법 제50조 제m호 소정의 ‘선주’나 ‘선장’에 ‘나용선자’가 포함된다고 볼 수 없고, 나용선자인 삼호해운이 선주로부터 이 사건 유류공급계약을 체결할 권한을 부여받지 않은 이상 ‘선주로부터 권한을 부여받은 대리인’에 해당한다고 볼 수도 없다는 이유로, 나용선자가 체결한 계약으로부터 발생한 이 사건 유류비채권은 이 사건 선박에 대한 선박우선특권에 의하여 담보되지 않는다고 판단하였다.

Examining the above provisions and purport of the Madon Line Act in light of the provisions and intent of the Madon Line Act, the judgment of the court below is justified, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal principles on maritime lien under the Madon Line Act

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Min Il-young (Presiding Justice)