[1] Whether the part of the Korean Maritime Safety Tribunal's ruling on the cause of a marine accident is subject to a lawsuit seeking revocation of a judgment under Article 74 (1) of the Act on the Investigation of and Inquiry into Marine Accidents (negative)

[2] Whether the Maritime Safety Tribunal may make a recommendation for correction to the persons involved in a minor vessel by negligence (affirmative)

[1] Article 74(1) of the Act on the Investigation and Inquiry of Marine Accidents / [2] Articles 5(2) and (3), and 51 of the Act on the Investigation and Inquiry of Marine Accidents

[1] Supreme Court Decision 99Do16 delivered on June 9, 200 (Gong2000Ha, 1675) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 2003Do20 delivered on April 16, 2004 (Gong2004Sang, 818) Supreme Court Decision 2004Do58 Delivered on October 26, 2006 (Gong2006Ha, 2006)

Plaintiff

President of the Central Maritime Safety Tribunal

September 25, 2008

The Korean Maritime Safety Tribunal Ruling No. 2006-3 of the Central Maritime Safety Tribunal Decision No. 2006-4 of May 4, 2006

1. Of the instant lawsuits, the part of the Korean Marine Safety Tribunal on May 4, 2006 seeking revocation of the part concerning the causes of marine accidents in the judgment No. 2006-3 of the Korean Marine Safety Tribunal rendered on May 4, 2006.

On May 4, 2006, the Korean Maritime Safety Tribunal Decision 2006-3 of the Central Maritime Safety Tribunal was revoked.The Korean Maritime Safety Tribunal Decision 2006-3 of the Central Maritime Safety Tribunal shall be revoked. The Korean Maritime Safety Tribunal Decision 2006-3 of the Central Maritime Safety Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the "Korean Maritime Safety Tribunal") shall be revoked. The Korean Maritime Safety Tribunal Decision 2006-3 of the Korean Maritime Safety Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the "Korean Maritime Safety Tribunal") shall not direct shipbuilding by the captain, but shall conduct

1. The occurrence of the marine accident in this case and details of adjudication;

The following facts are not in dispute between the parties:

A. The naval fleet 75 Box (the discharge tonnage of 1,273t) went to the inshore and inshore waters around 08:30 on the same day at Pyeongtaek-si Port. Around 11:32 on the same day, the sea area of the waste transport line 1 (the gross tonnage of 1,957t) was loaded about 2,650 tons at the north port of Incheon, and came to the west-si (the area designated for waste discharge) sea area, which was the area designated for waste discharge. At the same time, the sea area was limited to about 30 meters in sight at about 775 p.m., which was sailing at about 15 knots and about 11 p.m., which was sailing at about 11:32 p.m. at about 36:56 p. 56 p.m. and about 126:150 p.m. at the speed of 11:50 p.m. (the sea accident).

B. At the time of the instant marine accident, 775 crew members, including the Plaintiff, the watchkeeping officer, and the watchkeeping officer, were on board 105 crew members, who were the captain, and 10 crew members, including the captain Nonparty 2 and the second mate Nonparty 3, were on board.

C. On May 4, 2006, the Korean Maritime Safety Tribunal rendered a judgment on May 4, 2006 on the marine accident of this case: “The case of this collision is one of the vessels with restricted visibility at a safe speed of 775 at the safe speed; “The case of this collision occurred due to his neglect to observe the radar at the safe speed of 75; however, the luminous 1 did not properly operate the restricted visibility in the restricted range of visibility, such as not bound by the luminous 1 at a safe speed and not taking active action to avoid collision. Nonparty 3’s 4th mate’s services related to the marine accident shall be suspended for one month. Nonparty 2 shall reprimand the Plaintiff involved in the marine accident. If the visibility is restricted during flight, the plaintiff made a safe speed consistent with the circumstances and conditions of the restricted visibility under Article 27 of the Maritime Traffic Safety Act; ② The ruling on the cause of the occurrence of the cause of the disciplinary action against another vessel during navigation by thoroughly guiding and supervising the workers at the search room on the voyage (hereinafter “the ruling on the cause of correction”).

2. Judgment on the inquiry into the cause of the instant judgment

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 (hereinafter “Maritime Accident Inquiry Act”) shall have the nature of a lawsuit against cancellation of an administrative disposition, and thus, the contents of the judgment subject to a lawsuit shall have the effect of forming and limiting the rights and obligations of the people, such as exercising public authority by an administrative agency. Among such rulings, a judgment on the cause of a marine accident cannot be deemed an administrative disposition because it does not have the effect of forming or confirming the rights and obligations of the people, unlike a judgment on disciplinary action or recommendation against a person involved in a marine accident, and thus, it cannot be deemed an administrative disposition as it does not have the effect of forming or confirming the rights and obligations of the people (see Supreme Court Decision 9Do16, Jun. 9, 200, etc.).

Therefore, among the instant rulings, the part seeking the cancellation of the causes of marine accidents of this case, shall be deemed unlawful as a revocation suit filed with respect to matters which are not subject to revocation litigation.

3. Judgment on the corrective recommendation part among the judgment of this case

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The ruling of this case is based on the fact that No. 1 was detected by the radar 1 at around 11:23 on the date of the marine accident in this case, and the course was changed to 232 on the same day, and the course was changed to 11:25 on the same day on the 4 minutes before the marine accident in this case, and the course was changed to 270 on the 11:28 on the same day on the same day on the 4 minutes before the marine accident in this case. However, the sea light 1 did not change the course to 270 on the 270 roads, so the failure on the side of No. 1 of the sea light, and even if the sea light 1 only takes action for cooperation, the conflict could be avoided. Therefore, the part of the ruling of this case on the corrective recommendation, which was issued on the premise that the negligence of No. 775 on the 60

(b) Markets:

1) The Maritime Safety Tribunal at each level may make a ruling to recommend or order correction or improvement to a person involved in the cause of a marine accident other than a marine officer or a pilot (Article 5(2) and (3) of the Marine Accident Inquiry Act), and the matters to be corrected or improved at this time must be related to the cause of a marine accident. However, while the Marine Accident Inquiry Act adopts the principle of free evaluation of evidence (Article 51 of the Marine Accident Inquiry Act) and has no provision regarding admissibility of evidence, the cause of a marine accident is an indefinite concept, and there is no choice but to determine the cause of a marine accident at the Korean Maritime Safety Tribunal, which is an administrative agency. In particular, in the case of a ruling to recommend correction or improvement, the relationship between the matters to recommend correction or improvement and the matters to be corrected is not always bound by a strict framework, but rather, the relationship between the matters to be corrected or improved and the matters to be corrected and related to a ship can be objectively determined by the Supreme Court at least 200 square meters from the perspective of ensuring safety and safety of a marine accident in the future.

2) Recognized facts

이 사건 변론에서 채택·조사한 관련 증거들에 의하면, ① 775함은 알루미늄합금조 대한민국 해군 제2함대사령부 소속 군함으로 2005. 6. 27. 08:30경 함장 원고를 포함한 승조원 105명이 승선한 가운데 임무수행차 평택 군항을 출항하여 연평도 근해 해상으로 향하였는데, 출항당시 안개가 끼어 시계가 1,000야드 정도였고, 같은 날 10:55경 장안서 부근 해역을 항해할 무렵에는 시계가 불과 30m 정도로 극히 제한되었으며, 당시 이와 같은 상황에서 레이더를 3~5마일 레인지로 작동하던 전탐사가 레이더가 비구름 및 파고 등 해면반사파의 영향을 받아 성능이 저하되자 함교에 이를 보고하였으나, 원고는 자함의 침로유지에 필요한 최저속력으로 감속하거나 진행을 멈추지 아니한 채 함교에 저시정 연안항해 요원 5명 및 좌·우현 윙 브릿지에 경계원 4명 등을 증강배치하고 무중신호를 울리며 항해를 계속하였고, 같은 날 11:22경 원고는 목적지를 향하여 침로를 243도에서 284도로 변경하였고, 침로변경에 따라 775함은 자함의 선수 우현 약 40도 방향 약 1.7마일 거리에서 남서진하고 있던 해광1호와 충돌의 위험을 안고 접근하게 되었으며, 한편 전탐사는 775함이 침로를 위와 같이 변경하기 전부터 레이더 화면에 해광1호의 영상이 나타나고 있었으나 레이더 관측 소홀로 충돌의 위험을 알지 못하고 해광1호에 관한 정보를 함교에 보고하지 아니하여, 같은 날 11:32경 15노트의 속력으로 계속 항해하다가 해광1호에 충돌하게 된 사실, ② 해광1호는 강조 폐기물운반선으로서 같은 날 07:10경 선장 소외 2를 포함한 선원 10명이 승선하고 폐기물 약 2,650t을 적재하여 인천 북항에서 출항, 폐기물 배출 지정해역인 서해 병(병)해역으로 향하였는데, 같은 날 09:50경 묵통도 부근 해상을 지날 무렵부터 짙은 안개가 끼어 시계가 극히 제한되었으나 안전속력으로 감속하지 아니하고, 경계원을 추가배치하지 아니하고 무중신호도 울리지 아니한 채 항해를 계속하다가 같은 날 10:15경 선장 소외 2는 침로를 210도로 변경하여 계속 항해하였고, 같은 날 11:15경 선장 소외 2는 2등항해사 소외 3에게 항해당직을 인계하였고, 같은 날 11:23경 소외 3은 자선 선수 좌현 약 65도 방향 약 1.5마일 거리에서 775함을 처음 레이더로 탐지하였으나, 상대선이 자선과 같은 방향으로 진행할 것으로 오인하여 미리 자선의 침로유지에 필요한 최저속력으로 감속하지 아니하다가 같은 날 11:25경 침로를 232도로 변경하고 같은 속력으로 항해를 계속하다가, 같은 날 11:32경 775함과 충돌하게 된 사실, ③ 당시 해광1호 좌현 선수부가 775함 우현 중앙부에 충돌하여 775함은 상갑판상 우현 외판 1개소가 굴곡·파공되고 상갑판하 우현 외판 3개소가 함몰·파공되었고, 주기관 조종반 및 발전기 원격제어반 등이 크게 손상되었으며, 해광1호는 좌현 선수 블워크가 약 12m 파손된 사실, ④ 당시 775함은 짙은 안개로 시계가 극히 제한된 상태임에도 안전속력을 준수하지 않고 충돌직전까지 약 15노트의 과도한 속력으로 항해를 계속하고 레이더를 작동시키고 있었음에도 레이더 관측을 소홀히 하여 충돌직전까지 상대선과의 충돌위험을 전혀 인지하지 못하여 충돌을 피하기 위한 동작을 취하지 못하는 등 운항을 부적절하게 하였고, 해광1호는 짙은 안개로 시계가 극히 제한된 상태임에도 안전속력을 준수하지 않고 충돌직전까지 약 11노트의 과도한 속력으로 항해를 계속하고, 선장이 직접 조선지휘하지 아니하고 레이더의 체계적인 관측능력이 거의 없는 2등항해사가 경계원 없이 혼자 항해당직을 수행함으로써 레이더 경계를 소홀히 하여 상대선을 불과 1.5마일 거리에서 처음 발견하였고, 양 선박이 매우 근접한 상태를 피할 수 없었음에도 즉시 자선의 침로유지에 필요한 최저속력으로 감속하지 아니하고 상대선과의 급박한 충돌의 위험이 있는 상태에서 진행을 멈추는 등의 적극적인 피항동작을 취하지 아니하고 약 11노트의 속력으로 항해를 계속하면서 무중신호를 울리지 아니하여 상대선에게 자선의 존재를 알리지 못하는 등 운항을 부적절하게 한 사실이 인정된다.

3) Appropriateness of the corrective recommendation

As seen above, at around 11:23, around 11:23, the day of the marine accident of this case, he first detected about 775 mar from the radar at about 11.5 mar, and continued sailing at about 11:25 on the same day without speeding about 11:25 mar and without speeding about 11:32 on the same day. There was a collision between 775mar and 270mar prior to the marine accident of this case. However, even if the plaintiff had not changed the course at about 275mar prior to the marine accident of this case, the plaintiff's failure to observe the radar and proceeded to the speed of about 15 mar, which was at about 243mar, while changing the course from 10 minutes prior to the collision to 284mar to the direction of 10 minutes prior to the marine accident of this case, the plaintiff's failure to observe the vessel's safe visibility at the time of the marine accident of this case.

Therefore, in light of the process of the marine accident in this case, the necessity of the recommendation of the corrective measures, and the contents of the recommended corrective measures, there is no error in the adjudication on the corrective measures in this case, which is recognized by the Korean Maritime Safety Tribunal as necessary from the point of view that the Korean Maritime Safety Tribunal is promoting the prevention of similar marine accidents and the safety of the marine accident in the future.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, since the claim for the cancellation of the causes of the adjudication of this case among the lawsuits of this case is unlawful, the claim for the cancellation of the remaining corrective recommendation portion shall be dismissed as it is without merit. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices

Justices Kim Young-ran (Presiding Justice)