The meaning of "person who is related to the cause of the marine accident" in Article 5 (3) of the Marine Accidents Inquiry Act and whether the corporation is qualified as a designated person in the marine accident (affirmative)

The term "person related to the cause of the marine accident" in Article 5 (3) of the Marine Accidents Inquiry Act means a shipowner, shipbuilding businessman, engine manufacturer, shipper, shipper, unloading businessman, harbor manager, etc. who is acknowledged the causal relationship between his act or omission and the occurrence of the marine accident, not only a natural person but also a designated person may be designated as a designated person, and Articles 29 and 59 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provide that a designated person as well as a natural person shall state his name, date of birth, address, resident registration number, official name, etc. in a written request or a written ruling for the marine accident shall not be interpreted as not being qualified as a designated person.

Article 5 (3) of the Maritime Accidents Inquiry Act

Plaintiff’s Attorney Han-soo

The Director of the Central Maritime Accident Inquiry Agency

The Central Marine Accident Inquiry Agency No. 86-8 of the Central Marine Accident Inquiry Agency No. 14 July 14, 1986

The original ruling shall be revoked.

The case shall be remanded to the Central Maritime Accident Inquiry Agency.

The second ground of appeal by the plaintiff's attorney is first examined.

1. The phrase "a person involved in the cause of the marine accident" under Article 5 (3) of the Marine Accidents Inquiry Act, which provides that "the Tribunal may, if necessary, make a ruling to recommend a person involved in the cause of the marine accident other than a marine officer or a pilot," shall mean a shipowner, a shipbuilding businessman, an institution manufacturer, a shipper, a shipper, a port manager, etc. who is in a causal relationship between his act or omission and the occurrence of the marine accident. It shall be interpreted that not only natural person but also legal person shall be designated as a designated person involved in the marine accident.

Article 29 and Article 59 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provide that a corporation shall enter the name, date of birth, address, resident registration number, official name, etc. of a designated person involved in the marine accident in a written appeal or written ruling shall not be construed as not having a qualification as a designated person involved in the marine accident.

2. 피고는, 부산직할시 소재 대선조선소에서 1983.7.27. 진수된 총톤수 341톤 06, 종업제한 제3종의 참치연승 강조어선인 제301 척양호(이 뒤에는 “이 사건 선박”이라고 약칭한다)가 1983.11.30. 부산항을 출발하여 1984.2.13. 조업지인 대서양에 도착하여 주로 스페인령 테네리페항을 중심으로 원양어업에 조업하였는데 1985.7.6. 13:00경 어장을 이동하고자 10놋트의 속력으로 전속 항해중 갑자기 기관진동과 함께 프라이 휘일(Fly Wheel) 사이에서 쉿가루가 날아나오는 것이 목격되어 기관장인 소외인이 주기관을 정지시킨 후 점검한 결과 주기관의 드러스트칼러 및 메탈이 손상되었음을 알게 된 사실, 이 사건 선박의 주기관은 소외 쌍용중공업 주식회사(이 뒤에는 “소외회사”라고 약칭한다)가 일본의 니이가다 철공소로부터 부품을 수입하여 제작한 6엠 28에이 에프 티형, 4사이클, 6기통, 과급기부, 380회전, 1,000마력의 디이젤기관으로서, 그 크랭크축 끝단의 프라이 휠과 선미측의 감속기어 사이에 가이스링거 커플링(Geislinger Coupling)이 연결되어 있어 기관회전의 완충역할을 하도록 있고 그 내부의 선수측에 있는 오일멈춤링(Oil Stop Ring) 중앙에 직경 15밀리미터의 보올트 구멍이 있어 이곳에 내경 3밀리미터의 기름구멍이 가공된 오리피스 플러그(Orifice Plug)를 끼워 잠그게 되어 있는 사실, 니이가다 철공소에서 가이스링거 커플링을 제작하면서 그 내부에 오리피스 플러그를 장치하지 아니한 채 소외회사에게 인도하였고 소외회사는 이를 분해 점검하지 아니하고 다른 기관과 함께 조립하여 이 사건 선박을 건조하는 소외 대선조선 주식회사에게 공급하여 그 내부에 설치하게 함으로써 이 사건 선박의 크랭크축에 과다한 압력이 작용하여 드러스트칼러 및 메탈이 손상된 사실 등을 인정한 다음, 이 사건 해난은 소외회사의 대표이사인 원고가 니이가다 철공소로부터 가이스링거 커플링을 인수한 후 분해검사 등 점검을 통하여 오리피스 플러그가 장치되어 있지 않은 것을 미리 발견하여 장치하였어야 함에도 불구하고 이를 소홀히 한 기관조립상의 점검정비에 관한 과실이 원인이 되어 발생하였다고 판단하여 원고를 “해난의 원인에 관계있는 자”로 보아 원고에 대하여 권고하는 재결을 하였다.

3. However, even based on the facts acknowledged by the defendant, since it is apparent that the main owner of the ship of this case was assembled and manufactured by the non-party company which is a corporation, the non-party company cannot be viewed as the representative director of the non-party company of this case as a person related to the cause of the marine accident of this case.

However, in such a case, when it is recognized that there exists a legal causal relationship between the so-called specific act or omission of the plaintiff, who is a natural person, and the occurrence of the marine accident in this case, the plaintiff may be deemed as a person related to the cause of the marine accident in this case and make a ruling to recommend the plaintiff. However, in light of the records, there is no evidence to find that there was a legal causal relationship between the plaintiff's specific act or omission and the occurrence of the marine accident in this case. Thus, according to Articles 39 and 46 of the Marine Accidents Inquiry Act, and Articles 29, 32, 33, and 59 of the Enforcement Decree of the Marine Accidents Inquiry Act and Articles 29, 36 of the same Act, and Articles 29, 32, 33, and 59 of the same Act, if a person related to the cause of the marine accident is a juristic person, it shall be deemed as a representative of the juristic person or a person designated as a person related to the cause of the marine accident in this case, and thus, it shall be justified.

4. Thus, since the plaintiff's claim is recognized as reasonable in this respect, the plaintiff's claim is revoked in accordance with Article 77 of the Maritime Affairs and Appeal Act without deciding on the first ground of claim by the plaintiff's attorney, and the case is remanded to the Central Maritime Affairs and Appeal Commission. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Jae-sung (Presiding Justice)