2012J 138 Litigations for cancellation of the Korean Maritime Safety Tribunal ruling

A

President of the Central Maritime Safety Tribunal

October 25, 2012

November 29, 2012

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The part of the Central Maritime Safety Tribunal Decision B dated June 5, 2012 with respect to the disciplinary decision against the plaintiff shall be revoked.

1. Occurrence of marine accidents of this case and details of adjudication;

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or may be acknowledged in Gap evidence 1-2 by integrating the whole purport of the pleadings.

A. On November 10, 201, C (the gross tonnage of 21 ton, the captain D) obtained five ton catch from other fishing vessels on the northwest-west 10 through 15 to 15 miles on the northwest-west 10 on the northwest-west 10 on November 10, 201, and was sailing at about 8 knots at about 01:30 on the same day after departing from the place and departing at about 01:30 on the same day. On November 10, 2011, on the northwest-west 4.2 miles, Y-do, Incheon Spo-gun on November 10, 201, at approximately 4.2 miles on the northwest-west Do, Incheon (the gross tonnage of 37.21 ton, 126.93 ton, and 00 ton) on the northwest-west 126.02 ton of the instant vessel, each of which conflict between the two O-west-west vessel and the vessel.

B. On June 5, 2012, with respect to the instant marine accident, the Korean Maritime Safety Tribunal held that “this collision case occurred because C neglected the radar boundary during night navigation and caused C to be anchored to the fishing net anchor, or that it neglected the anchored duty without disclosing the anchorage, etc. prescribed by E. It is also a kind of neglect. The 6th class mate’s services of a person involved in a marine accident shall be suspended for one month. The Korean Maritime Safety Tribunal made a ruling on the identification of the cause of the accident, made a disciplinary action (hereinafter “instant ruling”), while the Korean Maritime Safety Tribunal made a ruling on the identification of the fact that “the plaintiff involved in a marine accident shall be reprimanded,” and that “the rate of the causes of the accident on both sides shall be allocated to C 70% and E 30%.”

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff asserts that the Korean Maritime Safety Tribunal did not reprimand the plaintiff after allocating 30% rate of provision of the accident to E, the plaintiff's side, while finding the causes of the marine accident of this case in the judgment of this case.

In full view of the purport of the arguments in the statement No. 1, No. 1-2, No. 2-2, and No. 2-4, the plaintiff at the time of the marine accident at the time of the marine accident at the time of the marine accident at the time of the marine accident at the time of the marine accident at the time of the accident at the time of the accident, while the plaintiff at the time of the captain, without turning on the anchorage, was anchored in the ship at the bottom of the ship, while the plaintiff at the time of the ship at the port, without turning on the anchor, was carrying on the water in the breath of the ship at the lower deck, 2, a white, etc.

In light of the above facts, the marine accident of this case is deemed to be concurrent by negligence, which caused the plaintiff to anchor while neglecting his duty of care without disclosing the anchorage, etc. in violation of duty of care, and thus, it does not seem that the defendant's disciplinary action against the plaintiff by the judgment of this case against the plaintiff in consideration of the degree of negligence, etc., and therefore, the plaintiff's assertion in this part is without merit.

Meanwhile, the Plaintiff’s assertion may be deemed to include the purport that the part concerning the distribution of the rate of the provision of the cause of the accident among the reasons for the instant judgment is unreasonable. However, the judgment made on the grounds of the instant judgment is not subject to a revocation lawsuit, and the judgment made on the grounds of the instant judgment does not become final and conclusive as the Plaintiff’s liability ratio in civil litigation, etc. related to the instant marine accident in the future. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Chang-suk

Justices Yang Chang-soo

Justices Park Poe-dae

Justices Ko Young-han