A. Whether a ruling to find the cause of the marine accident by the Central Inquiry Agency is an administrative disposition subject to administrative litigation (negative)

(b) The case holding that the original adjudication that the mate and captain of an oil tanker who did not comply with the navigation method and the navigation method shall be lawful in relation to the occurrence of a collision of ships due to the negligence of the mate and captain of an oil tanker and the occurrence of the collision of ships shall be rendered for nine months and April;

(c) The case holding that the Supreme Court opened a pleading in a lawsuit against a ruling rendered by the Central Maritime Accident Inquiry Agency for fact-finding and decides the propriety of the plaintiff's

A. A lawsuit against a ruling by the Central Maritime Accident Inquiry Agency as referred to in Article 74(1) of the Marine Accidents Inquiry Act is a kind of administrative litigation, which is subject to a lawsuit seeking revocation of an administrative disposition. As such, the contents of the ruling subject to a lawsuit should have the effect of forming and limiting the rights and obligations of the people, such as the administrative acts by the administrative agencies, such as the power-based administrative acts of the administrative agencies. Thus, unlike the ruling by the Central Maritime Accident Inquiry Agency on the ground of the cause of the so-called marine accident under Article 5(1) of the same Act, unlike the ruling of disciplinary action or recommendation under Article 5(2) and (3) of the same Act, the ruling itself cannot be deemed an administrative disposition

B. The case holding that the negligence of the oil tanker's mate and the captain of the oil tanker who did not thoroughly supervise the oil tanker is more severe than the negligence of the captain of the oil tanker, and the judgment of the court below that the captain of the ship was lawful, on the ground that the captain of the ship did not thoroughly supervise the oil tanker's navigation and safety of the oil tanker while navigating a narrow waterway, while the captain of the ship believed and continuously approach the oil tanker's access to the oil tanker, as a matter of course, one of the causes of the collision.

(c) The case holding that the Supreme Court opened a pleading in a lawsuit against a ruling rendered by the Central Maritime Accident Inquiry Agency for fact-finding and decides the propriety of the plaintiff's

(a)(b)Article 5 and Article 74(a) of the Marine Accidents Inquiry Act; Article 2(1)1(b) of the Administrative Litigation Act; Article 77 of the Marine Accidents Inquiry Act;

A. Supreme Court Decision 77Hu21 delivered on September 26, 1978 (Gong1978,1126) (Gong1126) 81Hu4 delivered on January 24, 1984 (Gong1984,375) 88Hu10 delivered on February 23, 1990 (Gong190,780)

Plaintiff 1 et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee and 4 others, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellant-appellee)

The Director of the Central Maritime Accident Inquiry Agency

November 5, 1991

1. Of the instant lawsuits, the Central Maritime Accident Inquiry Agency (No. 91-3), among those on March 7, 191, shall dismiss the suit seeking the cancellation of the Maritime Accident Investigation List among those on March 7, 191.

2. The plaintiffs' remaining claims are dismissed.

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

The judgment of the court below that "this collision is caused by the failure of the oil tanker solar side to take an action of avoidance, such as the suspension of agency, etc. in the restricted visibility of the fishing vessel, under the circumstances in which the resistance of the oil tanker and the correction are restricted in the vicinity of the island during the navigation." However, the court below revoked the part that "the fourth-class mate's service of the plaintiff 1, who is the inquiree, shall be suspended for 9 months."

1. At around 18:00 on July 27, 1990, the Central Maritime Tribunal rejected the Plaintiff’s 5th mate’s 5th mate’s work at the 5th mate’s 4th mate’s work at the 5th mate’s 4th mate’s work at the 5th mate’s 4th mate’s work at the 5th mate’s 4th mate’s 4th mate’s work at the 5th mate’s 5th mate’s 1991.3, the case of this collision is due to the failure of the 5th mate’s 196th pilot’s 16th mate’s 16th pilot’s 16th pilot’s 196th pilot’s 16th pilot’s 196th pilot’s 196th pilot’s 5th pilot’s 196th pilot’s 26th pilot’s 196th pilot’s 196th pilot’s 26th pilot’s 1.

2. First of all, we examine the legitimacy of the claim seeking ex officio revocation of the Maritime Accident Finding List under Paragraph (1) of the order of the original ruling.

A lawsuit against a ruling rendered by the Central Maritime Tribunal as stipulated in Article 74 (1) of the Maritime Trial and Appeal Act is a kind of administrative litigation, and is subject to a lawsuit seeking revocation of an administrative disposition. Therefore, the contents of the ruling subject to a lawsuit should be the contents that form and limit the rights and obligations of the people, such as the administrative agency's power-based administrative act. "this collision is caused by the failure of an oil tanker to take an action to avoid active action, such as an engine suspension, within the restricted visibility of Article 5 (1) of the Maritime Trial and Appeal Act, due to the absence of a prior boundary and the absence of an appropriate safe navigation in the vicinity of the island under the circumstances in which the arrival and correction of the oil tanker is restricted. However, unlike the ruling or recommendation of Article 5 (2) and (3) of the Maritime Trial and Appeal Act, the part of the ruling subject to a lawsuit cannot be seen to be unlawful because it does not form the rights and obligations of the people or seek revocation of an administrative disposition (see Article 5 (1) of the Maritime Trial and Appeal Act.

3. As to the claim for cancellation of a disciplinary decision among the original adjudication, it shall be considered as a claim;

In light of the above facts, Gap's 1-2, Gap's 6-2, Gap's 6-1, Gap's 1-1, Gap's 13,14, Gap's 16,18, and 19-19's contents of the vessel's 43.51 tons of oil at the time of the accident, Eul's 1-2, Eul's 6-1-6-1's 5-1's 5-1's 6-1's 5-1's 6-1's 6-1's 5-1's 6-1's 6-1's 6-1's 1's 6-1's 5-1's 6-1's 6-1's 6-1's 1's 5-1's 6-1's 1's 5-'s 1's 5-''''''''''''''''''s 1's 1'''''''''s '6-1'''''''''1's '1'6-1'.

Therefore, the accident of this case is one of the causes of the negligence that the lurgism of the above fishing vessel believed and continuously accessed the approach of the above lurgism as a matter of course, but basically, while sailing a pipe of the above lurg through a narrow channel, there was a final responsibility for the safety of the above lurg's mate, who did not thoroughly supervise the above lurg's navigation method and the safety of the above vessel, but the negligence of the plaintiff 1 of the captain who did not thoroughly supervise the above lurg's navigation method and the above lurg's failure to comply with the above lurg's navigation method and the above lurg's navigation method. The plaintiffs' error of fact-finding in the judgment of the original disciplinary action against the above 59 Lurg's captain cannot be said to be a grave disciplinary action against the plaintiffs. Thus,

4. Therefore, the lawsuit seeking the cancellation of the judgment to find the cause of original adjudication among the lawsuit in this case shall be dismissed, and the remaining claims of the plaintiffs shall be dismissed, and the costs of lawsuit shall be assessed against the plaintiffs who have lost. It is so decided as per Disposition by the

Justices Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)