(영문) 대전지방법원 서산지원 2015.5.29.선고 2013가합1029-2 판결

1. Of the judgment under circumstances rendered on January 14, 2013 by the said court with respect to the Daejeon District Court’s Seosan Branch case 2008 1.208 1.

A. Defendant 12. Jinjin-si, Defendant 14. Republic of Korea (the Jurisdiction: the 2.m. headquarters in the Navy), Defendant 15. Civil Bureau in the Navy (the jurisdiction of the Navy: the 2m. headquarters in the Navy), and Defendant 29. Republic of Korea (the jurisdiction of the Republic of Korea: the Marine Corps headquarters) on limited claims (the claims reporting number: the claims reporting number is the same as the stated in the annexed sheet in the annexed sheet) of the annexed sheet of the same Table, each of the circumstances stated in the "amount modified" column of the same Table; and

B. Defendant 21. Authorization of the part of the limited claim(claim Report No. : Claim Report No. : Claim No. 1: the same is the same as the stated in the annexed sheet No. 1) of the Republic of Korea (Jurisdiction of the Navy).

2. Of the costs of lawsuit, the part arising between the plaintiffs and the defendant 12, Jin-si, defendant 14. Korea (Jurisdiction: Jeju Navy No. 2.), defendant 15. Korea (Jurisdiction: Maritime Navy No. 2.), and defendant 29. Korea (Jurisdiction: Maritime Headquarters) shall be borne by each party, and the part arising between the plaintiffs and the defendant 21. Korea (Jurisdiction: Maritime Operations Headquarters) shall be borne by the plaintiffs.

Purport of claim

With respect to the Daejeon District Court's Seosan 2008 Book 1 shipowner, etc., the amount of each of the circumstances stated in the attached Form No. 1 for the Defendants' limited claims (claim Report No. : Claim Report No. : Claim No. 1: the same shall apply to the claim No. 1 of the attached Form No. 2) shall be changed to 0 won, respectively.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

1. The occurrence of the oil pollution accident of this case

A. From 207, 12, 7. T-5 on the south coast of Samsung Heavy Industries Co., Ltd. to 11,828 tons of Samsung Heavy Industries Co., Ltd., the towing line of 'T-3' was cut to 1007, 12, 17.06 on the south coast of 1,000, 7.00 Southwest coast of 5,000 Northwest coast of 1,000, 146,000 East coast of 5,000,000 1,000,0000,000 1,000,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000,000 1,000,000,000,000 1,000,000,000,000 1,000,00.

C. Since December 10, 2007, the outflow oil came to go into and flow out of the coast due to the influence of tidal currents, and came to remain under the influence of the wind of the North Korean wind, the nineth day after the accident occurred, from December 15, 2007, to the sea in front of the west-gun, Chungcheongnamcheon-gun, the first day after December 17, 2007, and the last day of the 31th day before the end of the west-do, the last day after the 31st day after the Jeju-do.

2. After the occurrence of the instant accident, the Defendant’s Navy affiliated with the Republic of Korea participated in the pest control work to remove oil flowed from the Japanese belt in the Yannam-gun, Boan-si, and island area, and Defendant Jin-si 1) performed pest control work to prevent pollution in its jurisdiction.

3. Circumstances leading up to the instant objection lawsuit

A. Commencement of limitation of liability procedure of this case

(1) In accordance with Article 6 of the former Guarantee of Oil Pollution Damage Compensation (wholly amended by Act No. 9740 of May 27, 2009; hereinafter the same shall apply), the Plaintiff, the owner of the oil tanker of this case, filed an application for the commencement of the limitation of liability procedures with the Daejeon District Court Seosan Branch 2008 Book 1 on January 15, 2008 pursuant to Article 9 of the former Guarantee of Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage (wholly amended by Act No. 9833 of Dec. 29, 2009; hereinafter the same shall apply).

(2) In addition, an international organization established under the International Convention on the Establishment of the International Fund for Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage, 1992 for the purpose of providing compensation for oil pollution damage to the extent of insufficient protection under the International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage, 1992.

In February 4, 2008, Plaintiff 1992 International Fund for Oil Pollution Damage Compensation (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff International Fund”) participated in the procedures for limiting liability.

(3) On February 9, 2009, the Seogu District Court rendered a decision to commence proceedings for limiting liability and appointed a lawyer as a manager at the same time, upon the Plaintiff’s request, the proceedings for limiting liability began.

B. Judgment, etc. on reporting and examining the Defendants’ subordinate limitation claims

(1) Meanwhile, on June 19, 2008, Korea held the Special Countermeasure Committee on Oil Pollution Accident in Switzerland and decided that the claims of the State and local governments shall be subordinate to the claims of the other petitioners in accordance with Article 11 of the Enforcement Decree of the Special Act on the Support for Residents in the Oil Pollution Accident in Switzerland and the Restoration of the Marine Environment, etc. in order to facilitate the prompt payment of compensation to the victims, and declared that the 41st executive committee of the Plaintiff International Fund held on June 23, 2008 shall be subordinate to the national and local government's pollution response expenses and recovery expenses.

(2) Accordingly, the Defendants reported each corresponding amount stated in the “amount reported” column in the attached Form No. 3 as the expenses for pest control as above to the limited liability court as subordinate limited bonds.

(3) On January 14, 2013, the limited liability court rendered a judgment on the assessment of each of the pertinent monetary amounts stated in the "determined Amount" column for the Defendants' reported claims as subordinated limited claims, and the Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit of demurrer against the assessment judgment of this case on February 5, 2013 [the grounds for recognition: the fact that there is no dispute; the fact that there is no dispute; the fact that there is substantial fact that there is no dispute; the fact inquiry result of the fact inquiry of the appraiser B of this court on October 18, 2013; the purport of the entire pleadings]

II. Criteria for Recognition of Subordinated Claims

1. Details of subordinated bonds;

As seen above 1. 3. b.(1)(b), the claims of the State and local governments against which the State and local governments are entitled to a compensation lower than the claims of other applicants are subordinate claims.2) In this case, subordinate claims claimed by the State and local governments including the Defendants are divided into those related to pollution response activities, those related to pollution response activities, and those other than pollution response include personnel expenses, environmental purification work and environmental improvement work expenses, and economic revitalization project expenses.

2. Criteria for judgment;

A. The Republic of Korea joined the International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage in 1992 (hereinafter referred to as the "Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage in 1992") and the International Convention on the Establishment of the International Fund in 1992 (hereinafter referred to as the "International Fund Convention in 1992") with respect to civil liability and compensation for oil pollution accidents caused by oil tankers, etc., and revised the Guarantee of Oil Pollution Damage Compensation Guarantee Act in 1997 to accept these Convention as domestic law. Therefore, the scope of compensation for oil pollution damage caused by oil pollution accidents caused by oil tankers, etc. shall be determined in accordance with the above two Convention and the Guarantee of Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage.

B. Paragraph 6 of Article 1 of the Civil Liability Convention relating to Pollution Response in 1992 includes expenses for preventive measures (expenses for preventive measures) in pollution damage that can be compensated, and Paragraph 7 of Article 1 provides that "preventive measures (preventive measures)" means any and all reasonable measures taken by any person to prevent or reduce pollution damage after the accident occurred.

Article 1(2) of the International Fund Convention in 1992 provides that "ship", "person", "owner", "oil", "pollution damage", "preventive measure", "accident" and "the Organization" shall have the same purport as Article 1 of the Civil Liability Convention in 1992." The meaning of "pollution damage" and "preventive measure (preventive measure)" of Article 1(6) of the Civil Liability Convention in 192 shall also apply to the International Fund Convention in 192.

Article 2 subparag. 4 of the former Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage Guarantee Act, in force at the time of the incident, provides that " pollution damage from a ship means any loss or damage caused outside the ship by contamination resulting from the outflow or discharge of oil from the ship, and additional loss or damage caused by the prevention and removal measures. In such cases, the loss or damage to the environment other than loss of profit from the environmental damage shall be limited to expenses incurred in relation to the recovery of the damage or damage caused by such damage." Article 2 subparag. 6 of the former Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage Guarantee Act provides that "any reasonable measure taken by a party or a third party in order to prevent or mitigate the pollution damage after the occurrence of the accident."

As seen above, the Civil Liability Convention 192, the International Fund Convention 1992, and the former Oil Price Guarantee Act limits oil pollution damage caused by a reasonable measure for prevention and removal activities to the cost required for reasonable prevention and removal measures. As such, the scope of compensation for the cost of prevention and removal measures is limited to the cost required for prevention and removal measures out of the cost of prevention and removal incurred by the party or a third party, and such 'combinedness' includes both ‘the rationality of measures' and ‘the rationality of cost' as to whether the nature of prevention and removal work is reasonable. The 'reasonable of measures' is related to whether the nature of prevention and removal work is reasonable, and is subject to objective criteria based on the circumstances at the time of taking measures, such as the place of the accident, season, weather conditions, type, form, and quantity of the leaked oil.

It should be determined, and "the rationality of cost" means that the amount of prevention and removal cost should be reasonable, and where the amount is unreasonable than the ordinary market price, the portion exceeding the market price is not reasonable.

C. The Civil Liability Convention in 192, the International Fund Convention in 1992, and the former Guarantee of Oil Pollution Damage Guarantee Act do not provide for detailed provisions regarding the scope of damage to be compensated except for claims other than pollution response as to pollution damage with respect to claims other than pollution response. As such, the issue of whether there exists a proximate causal relation between oil pollution accident and the damage suffered by creditors is the basis for determining whether there exists a proximate causal relation between oil pollution accident and the damage suffered by creditors (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Da36733, Apr. 28, 2004). The existence of such proximate causal relation should be determined by comprehensively taking into account the probability of the occurrence of the result, the mode of the illegal act, and the nature of the benefits from the infringement (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da1162, May 11, 207).

1. Judgment on reporting and assessing limited claims by the defendant;

On April 28, 2009, the Defendant reported the total amount of KRW 526,956,580 as limited bonds.In this regard, around 201, the Plaintiff reported the total amount of KRW 943,230,570 as limited bonds, and the total amount of KRW 3,689,139,150 as stated in the table in the table in the table in the table in 2012 as limited bonds, and on January 14, 2013, the court held a judgment on the circumstance that the Defendant’s reported claims are assessed as subordinate limited bonds. In this regard, the amount recognized by the Plaintiffs for each item by himself is as listed in the table in the table in the following table.

A person shall be appointed.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, significant facts, Gap evidence No. 12, Eul evidence No. 12, Eul evidence No. 12, 52, and 65, the fact inquiry results of the appraiser B in the limited liability limitation case of this court on October 18, 2013, the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Where a limited creditor subject to the instant judgment did not file a lawsuit of demurrer against a claim recognized in the judgment of assessment, while only a shipowner and others stated an objection and file a lawsuit of objection against the part acknowledged in the judgment of assessment among reported claims, the subject matter of lawsuit is limited to the part recognized in the judgment of assessment among reported claims.

In this case, among the claims reported by the Defendant, the items of the Village Fishing Environment Improvement Project (2013 to 2019) and the personnel expenses of the Marine Environment Pollution Response Group (201.9 to 2015.12) are not recognized as limited claims in the assessment judgment, and the Defendant did not file a lawsuit of objection against this part, while only the Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit of objection against the part acknowledged in the assessment judgment among the claims reported by the Defendant, the subject matter of the lawsuit in this case is limited to the remainder other than the above two items.

In addition, since only the plaintiffs filed a lawsuit of objection, it is impossible to recognize the amount exceeding the assessment decision amount in the lawsuit of this case pursuant to Article 203 of the Civil Procedure Act. As to the control field, the plaintiffs' own recognition of the same amount as the assessment decision amount is unnecessary.

Therefore, the above two items among the claims reported by the defendant in a field other than pest control measures, are related to the case of food and fishery products, publicity of excellent agricultural and fishery products products, promotion of the village fishing ground environment improvement project (2010 to 2012), the personnel expenses of the Marine Environment Pollution Response (2008 to 2009), and the personnel expenses of the Marine Environment Pollution Response (201 to 8, 201).

3. Determination on expenses for food gathering and public relations of fishery products, and expenses for publicity of excellent agricultural and fishery products products;

A. The parties' assertion

The plaintiff International Fund asserts that the relationship between each of the above events and the accident of this case cannot be recognized, since there was no pollution caused by the accident in the area within the jurisdiction of the defendant, and that the defendant held that the causation is recognized since the defendant managed the above events in order to minimize the economic loss of the fishery industry caused by the accident of this case and disbursed the corresponding amount.

B. Determination

According to the evidence evidence Nos. 66 through 70 of Eul 12, the defendant participated in the Cheongnam-do and 6 coastal fishery products promotion trial held jointly by Cheongnam-do on April 18, 2009, and disbursed 7,201,000 won in total for the incidental installation cost and the purchase cost of fishery products. The defendant participated in the FOD WEK 2009 Seoul Food Industry EXPO from November 19, 2009 to November 22, 2009 and paid 16,90,000 won in total for the participation cost, additional installation and operation cost, and agricultural products purchase cost, etc.

However, the following circumstances acknowledged by considering the overall purport of the arguments:

(1) In other words, the quantity of tar collected at the coast as a whole within the Defendant’s jurisdiction was deemed to be merely about 12 km, including oil waste, and it was found late between February and March 2008 after the accident of this case, and ② the Defendant’s participation in each of the above events was about one half or two years after the accident of this case. In light of the fact that the Defendant’s participation was about one half or two years after the accident of this case, the evidence alone submitted by the Defendant is insufficient to acknowledge that the expenses incurred in each of the above events constituted damage in proximate relation with the accident of this case, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, the assessment amount of the limited claim should be zero won.

4. Determination on the cost for improving the village fishing ground environment (from 2010 to 2012)

A. The parties' assertion

The plaintiff International Fund asserts that there was no pollution due to the accident in this case in the region within the defendant's jurisdiction, and that the project to improve the village fishing ground environment was implemented to prevent the deterioration of the village fishing ground and to improve the fishing ground environment from the accident in this case, the project cost is irrelevant to the accident in this case. Accordingly, the defendant filed a civil petition with the purport that the catch of fishery resources is decreased after the accident in this case, and that the causal relationship is recognized as it was paid to minimize the loss caused by the accident.

B. Determination

According to the evidence Nos. 53 to 62 of Eul 12, the fact that the defendant spent 247,952,000 won as the expenses for the improvement of the village fishing ground environment in 2010, and the fact that the defendant paid 219,00,000 won each by concluding a service contract with the Korea Fishing Village Fishery Harbor Association in relation to the improvement of the village fishing ground environment in 201 and 2012.

However, the following circumstances acknowledged by considering the overall purport of the arguments:

① In other words, the quantity of tar collected from the entire coast within the Defendant’s jurisdiction was deemed to be merely about 12 km, including oil waste, and that was found late from February to February of 3, 2008 after the accident in this case, ② the project to improve the village fishing ground environment was implemented after the lapse of about 2 years from the time of the accident; ③ the project to improve the village fishing ground environment was implemented after the lapse of 2 years from the time of the accident; ③ the contents of the project are items to be implemented to improve the fishing ground environment ordinarily by dredging, projecting, spraying, spraying of low quality improvement chemicals and fishing ground partition, development of fishing ground traffic, removal of waste fishing gear materials, etc., the evidence submitted by the Defendant alone is insufficient to recognize that the cost of improving the village fishing ground environment paid from 2010 to 2012 constitutes damage in proximate relation with the accident in this case, and there is no other evidence to

Therefore, the assessment amount of the limited claim should be zero won.

5. Determination on personnel expenses of the Marine Environment Pollution Response (from 2008 to August 201)

A. The parties' assertion

The plaintiff International Fund asserts that since there was no pollution due to the accident in this case in the region within the defendant's jurisdiction, there is no justification to establish the accident response team, and that there is no reason to pay personnel expenses. Accordingly, the defendant establishes the Marine Environment Pollution Response Team in accordance with the notification of the Ministry of Government Administration and Home Affairs and Chungcheongnam-do, and so the defendant establishes the Marine Environment Pollution Response Team in order to carry out the work related to the accident in this case,

B. Determination

In full view of the purport of the arguments in Eul evidence Nos. 49, 50, 51, 70, 72, 73, and 78, the Government of the Republic of Korea declared an area where damage was caused within the defendant and Chungcheongnam-do as a special disaster area on December 11, 2007, after the occurrence of the instant case, the Government of the Republic of Korea organized the Marine Environment Pollution Response Group under five or six of its employees, and notified Chungcheongnam-do of the establishment of an appropriate exclusive organization within the standard scope in consideration of the size of damage, work volume, etc. for prompt management of the accident and recovery from damage. The defendant, among its employees, may recognize the total amount of KRW 249,11,370, 370, 209, 2009, and 301, 2016, 17, 2006, 2016, 207, 2006, 17, 2006, 2016

However, in order for the above personnel expenses reported by the Defendant to constitute oil pollution damage caused by the instant accident, they should be proved to be related to the affairs performed by the public official who was subject to the expenditure of personnel expenses and the instant accident. In light of the following circumstances, which are acknowledged by comprehensively taking into account the overall purport of the arguments, i.e., the following: (i) no materials were submitted concerning the specific duties performed by the employees belonging to the Marine Environment Pollution Response Group; (ii) the quantity of tar collected within the entire sea area of the Defendant was deemed to be merely about 12 km including oil wastes; and (iii) the Defendant was found to have delayed from February to March 3, 2008 after the instant accident until February 3, 2008; and (iv) the control work performed by the Defendant with respect to the instant accident was entirely removed on or around December 207 at the Dondo located within the jurisdiction of Dondo in order to prevent the contamination of fishing facilities, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the damage occurred after March 2008.

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, the assessment amount of this part of the limited claims should be KRW 61,156,920, which is the aggregate of the amount paid by the employees of the Marine Environment Pollution Response in January, 2008, as remuneration for February, February, and March, 2008 (EP 15,737,730 won + KRW 12,65,800 + + KRW 10,546,780 + KRW 14,288,200 + ETS 7,928,410).

6. Conclusion

The assessment amount of subordinated limited claims reported by the Defendant must be changed to the sum of KRW 76,90,770 as shown in the following table:

A person shall be appointed.

IV. Judgment on the limited claims of the Republic of Korea (Jurisdiction No. 2 of the Navy)

1. Judgment on reporting and assessing limited claims by the defendant;

On April 27, 2009, the Defendant reported the limited amount of KRW 1,070,820,000 as a total to the limitation court. On January 14, 2013, the limitation court rendered a judgment on the circumstance that the Defendant’s reported claims are assessed as subordinate limited claims, such as the amount indicated below’s “amount of assessment” as to the Defendant’s reported claims. In this regard, the amount recognized by the Plaintiffs by item is as indicated in the column “amount recognized by the Plaintiffs” as follows.

A person shall be appointed.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, significant facts, Gap evidence 14, Eul evidence 14, Eul evidence 14, Eul evidence 14, 2, 4, and 5, the result of fact inquiry conducted on October 18, 2013 about appraiser B of the limited liability limitation case of this court, the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Organization of the issues;

The dispute between the plaintiffs and the defendant is the ship fuel cost (in transit), vehicle fuel cost (in transit), clean water fee, pilotage fee, pilotage fee, and pilotage fee item (e.g., sounded part). In the case of naval vessels, gasoline (cars and IBS), oil treatment chemicals, smokeing soft, personal equipment/goods items, each quantity of use claimed by the defendant, unit price and unit price recognized by the plaintiffs, but there is a difference between the above table and the amount recognized by the defendant, by calculating the amount of each item by rounded off the amount of each item on the ceiling, and therefore, the amount recognized by the plaintiffs shall be calculated without any half-proof.

3. Judgment on the costs of ship fuel and the costs of vehicle fuel;

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in evidence Nos. 3-1, 14, 6, and 7 (including each number), evidence Nos. 14-1, 14-6, and 7 (including each number), the Defendant’s assertion as to the excess portion is without merit, inasmuch as there is no evidence to acknowledge the fact that the Defendant paid the aggregate of KRW 88,69,254, and KRW 498,870 in the course of the above pest control work, while the Defendant’s assertion as to the excess portion is without merit.

4. Determination of the clean water use fee and pilotage fee

Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire arguments in the statements in subparagraphs 3-2 and 3 of Article 14-3, the Defendant’s performance of pest control measures as described in the above paragraph 3-2 and 5,496,530 won (i.e., KRW 4,96,850 + KRW 49,680), 5,911,532 won (i.e., KRW 5,374,120 + KRW 537,412) out of pilotage expenses, may be recognized. However, the Defendant’s assertion on the excessive portion is without merit, inasmuch as there is no evidence to acknowledge the fact of disbursement for the excessive portion.

On the other hand, in relation to the value-added tax (49,680 won + 537,412 won), the plaintiff International Fund asserts that even if the value-added tax is included in the price paid by the defendant to the other party, it does not constitute the defendant's damage since it is ultimately the amount paid or should have been paid again to the defendant.

In principle, if the victim has paid expenses due to the tort and the amount includes value-added tax, it shall be deemed that the victim suffered losses equivalent to the expenditure cost including the value-added tax. However, if the victim is a taxpayer under the Value-Added Tax Act and can deduct or refund the amount equivalent to the value-added tax from his/her own output tax amount, the amount equivalent to the value-added tax should be deducted from the amount of damages because it does not actually return to the victim's burden (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Da47328, Jul. 27, 1993). In this case, the defendant is not a taxpayer under the Value-Added Tax Act, and the amount of the value-added tax may not be deducted or refunded because he/she is not a taxpayer under the Value-Added Tax Act, but the limited creditor determined the amount of the value-added tax through the judgment of the liability limitation court on the claims reported by the limited creditor, payment and deduction of the value-added tax is a completely different procedure, and whether the limited creditor constitutes the country that

In light of the fact that the amount of damages varies, the above assertion by the Plaintiff International Fund is without merit.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the assessment amount of the lower-ranking claim reported by the Defendant should be changed to the sum of KRW 976,885,486 as stated below.

A person shall be appointed.

5. Determination on limited claims of the Republic of Korea (Jurisdiction No. 2 of the Navy)

1. Judgment on reporting and assessing limited claims by the defendant;

On April 27, 2009, the Defendant reported a total of KRW 10,789,520 to the limitation court, and the limitation court rendered on January 14, 2013 the judgment on the assessment of the Defendant’s reported claim as the lower limit claim amount as stated in the following table. In this regard, the amount recognized by the Plaintiffs by each item as the lower limit claim is as indicated in the following table.

A person shall be appointed.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, significant facts, Gap evidence 15, Eul evidence 15, Eul evidence 15, Eul evidence 1 and 2, the fact inquiry results of the appraiser B of the limited liability limitation case in this court, and the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Determination

The fact that the 2nd naval Headquarters under the defendant's control was carried out by inserting soldiers and naval vessels under its control from the date of the accident to January 31, 2008 is as stated in the above 4th paragraph (3). In full view of the whole arguments in Eul 15th 3 and 4, the whole purport of arguments is as follows: ① the 2ndal headquarters in the Navy around December 2007, the 6,640,00 won and the 4thal boom boom booming booming 20 won from Pyeongtaek-si, the 4,149,520 won (general type, concentration) and the 2ndal 2ndal 2nd 3rd 2nd 2nd 5th 2nd 5th 209, the defendant was informed to the President of the Korea Marine Environment Management Corporation of the above 4th 2nd 5th 2nd 5th 205th 2nd 4th 2009.

However, in the case of goods received from Pyeongtaek-si, there is no evidence to prove that the defendant is liable to pay the corresponding amount or has suffered the same amount of damage, and rather, according to the evidence No. 15 No. 5, it is recognized that Pyeongtaek-si notifies the defendant that it is unnecessary to settle the amount of goods after completing self-consumption treatment.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the assessment amount of subordinated limited claims reported by the defendant should be changed to KRW 4,149,520 as shown below.

A person shall be appointed.

VI. Determination on limited claims of the Republic of Korea (Jurisdiction: Maritime Operations Headquarters)

1. Judgment on reporting and assessing limited claims by the defendant

On April 30, 2009, the Defendant reported the total amount of KRW 299,641,711 as limited claims to the limitation court. On January 14, 2013, the limitation court rendered a judgment on the assessment of the Defendant’s reported claims with the same amount as that stated in the following table as subordinate limited claims. In this regard, the amount recognized by the Plaintiffs themselves by item is as indicated in the following table.

A person shall be appointed.

[Ground of recognition: Facts without dispute, significant facts, Gap evidence 21, Eul evidence 21, Eul evidence 1, fact inquiry results of the appraiser B of the limited liability limitation case of this court on October 18, 2013, judgment as to the whole 2.

Although there is no dispute between the parties with respect to the items of naval fuel (transporting) and lubric oil consumption expenses (ship), even if the amount of value added tax is included in the amount paid by the defendant to the counter to the transaction in relation to the Cheong Water Use Fee, pilotage dues, and tugboat rental fees, this is ultimately the amount paid or must have been paid to the defendant, and thus, the above argument is without merit. However, on the grounds as seen in Section 4 of TV No. 4 above, the above argument is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the assessment amount for subordinate limited claims reported by the defendant should be maintained in accordance with the assessment amount.

VI. Determination on limited claims of the Republic of Korea (Jurisdiction of the Marine Corps)

1. Judgment on reporting and assessing limited claims by the defendant;

On April 29, 2009, the Defendant reported a total of 34,500,470 won as limited claims to the limitation court, and on January 14, 2013, the limitation court rendered a judgment on the circumstance that the Defendant’s reported claims are assessed as subordinate limited claims in the following table.

In this regard, the amount recognized by the plaintiffs for each item is as indicated below in the column of "amount recognized by the plaintiffs."

A person shall be appointed.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, significant facts, Gap evidence 29, Eul evidence 29, Eul evidence 1; fact inquiry results of the appraiser B of the limited liability limitation case of this court on October 18, 2013; purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Determination

A. 11) Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of arguments in Eul evidence Nos. 2 through 4, and 6 through 16 of Eul 29, the Marine Corps headquarters established under the defendant performed pest control operations in Boan-si Island (such as Hodo, dialogue, external year, etc.) and in the islands in the Yan-gun Islands (such as financial resources) in the 2008 from Jan. 2, 2008 to Jan. 31, 2008. (2) The defendant's assertion that the above pest control operations exceeded 10,882,73 won [6,117,705 won (-9,000 won x 680 won x 680 won), and that the defendant's assertion that the above pest control operations were conducted in excess of the above 30,882,733 won (the defendant's allegation that the defendant's Marine Corps had not additionally been admitted to the above amount exceeding 30,530,010 won and 258.

B. Determination on bus rent

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the above evidence, approximately 400 soldiers belonging to the First Marine Corps of the Marine Corps of the defendant under the above paragraph (a) of the above paragraph were moved from the first Marine Corps of the first Marine Corps of the Republic of Korea to the port of navigation during the process of the pest control of the port entry into the above paragraph (1), and were on board a ship at the first Marine Corps of the Republic of Korea, and moved to each pest control area. A part of the soldier's forces were returned to the same way after the pest control operations were conducted in the same way, and there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge that the portion of the bus charges exceeding the above amount was paid as bus charges of KRW 4,560,00 [= 4,560,000 in total as the bus charges leased during the above process = 3,80,000 (380,000 won per Do 380,000) + 760,000 won per the statement in subparagraph 5 of this paragraph.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the assessment amount of the lower-ranking claim reported by the Defendant should be changed to the sum of KRW 21,136,864 as stated below.

A person shall be appointed.

I. Conclusion

Therefore, among the assessment judgment of this case, the part of the judgment of this case as to the limited claims of Defendant 12. Jin-si, Defendant 14. Republic of Korea (the jurisdiction of the Navy No. 2.), Defendant 15. Republic of Korea (the jurisdiction of the Navy No. 2.), and Defendant 29. Republic of Korea (the jurisdiction of the Navy No. 2.), is unfair, and the part as to the changed claims of the above Defendants is changed to the corresponding amount as stated in the attached Table No. 2. 21. The part as to the limited claims of the Republic of Korea (the jurisdiction of the Navy No. 2. 3. 3. 1. 1. 1. 21.

Judges

The presiding judge, judge and deputy judge

Judges Cho Jae-chul

Judges Superintendent General

Note tin

1) Act on the Establishment, etc. of Si in the urban and rural complex form, Cheong-do, Chungcheongnam-do (Law No. 10993, Aug. 4, 201)

Pursuant to what was enforced on January 1, 2012, Jin-gun was abolished on January 1, 2012, and the jurisdiction of members of Jin-gun was over the country.

The Si of the urban and rural complex complex city was established.

(ii) Enforcement Decree of the Special Act on the Support for Residents in Damage Caused by Helle Oil Pollution Accidents and the Restoration of the Marine Environment

§ 11(1) The State or local governments shall compensate for damage to the International Fund in accordance with the Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage Guarantee Act; or

In case of claiming compensation, other claimant's claims for compensation or compensation under the same Act.

may be subordinate to the powers.

3) On the other hand, the limited liability court's award amount for each damage claim in relation to the cost of pollution response in the assessment judgment.

In general, the amount of award has been comprehensively determined without determining the amount of award(the amount of award for each damage claim);

Sector is specified only in the certificate of expert witness in the field.

4) The limited liability court does not specify the amount granted for each damage claim in relation to the costs of pollution response in the assessment judgment.

In order to ensure the convenience of judgment, an appraiser in the field of the prevention of limitation of liability cases has determined the amount comprehensively;

The amount of award by each damage claim specified in the certificate was stated in the certificate.

5) The Plaintiffs initially recognized only KRW 839,612,014 as limited claims, and KRW 49,057,240 in the course of the instant objection suit

further recognized (see the reference document of May 22, 2015).

6) The former Prevention of Marine Pollution Act (amended by the Marine Environment Management Act, Jan. 19, 2007; hereinafter the same shall apply) has been repealed.

As the Marine Environment Management Act enters into force, the Korea Marine Pollution Prevention and Removal Association is dissolved on 2008, 1,21.

(KOEM and Korea Marine Envor Management) all rights and obligations of the Korea Marine Pollution Prevention Association and any reorganization thereof.

The Marine Environment Management Corporation shall be the Korea Marine Environment Management Corporation.

7) The Plaintiffs recognized only the initial KRW 6,452,250 as limited claims, and 1,442,860 in the course of the instant objection suit

Additional recognition (see preparatory documents dated May 12, 2015).

8) The limited liability court does not specify the amount granted for each damage claim in relation to the cost of pollution response in the assessment court.

In order to ensure the convenience of judgment, an appraiser in the field of the prevention of limitation of liability cases has determined the amount comprehensively;

The amount of award by each damage claim specified in the certificate was stated in the certificate.

9) The Plaintiffs did not recognize this part of the initial costs as a restrictive right, and KRW 4,103,532 in the course of the instant objection suit

was recognized (see preparatory documents dated May 12, 2015).

10) The Plaintiffs did not recognize the initial costs of this part as limited claims, but did not recognize them as limited claims. 4,560,000 in the process of the instant objection suit.

In addition, the Court recognized the original additional charges (see preparatory documents dated May 12, 2015).

11) There is no dispute between the Parties with respect to the items of replacement costs attached to the naval repair.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제203조

-부가가치세법

-선박소유자 등의 책임제한절차에 관한 법률 제9조

-유류오염손해배상 보장법

-유류오염손해배상 보장법 제2조 제4호

-유류오염손해배상 보장법 제6조

-충청남도 당진시 도농복합형태의 시 설치 등에 관한 법률

-해양오염방지법

-해양환경관리법