The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

For the reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court determined that there is insufficient evidence to view that the Defendant, while participating in the management of C, instructed or participated in the performance of duties in connection with the repair, extension, operation, etc. of B, and that it is difficult to view that the Defendant constitutes “a person who caused the sinking accident” as stipulated in Article 42(2) of the Special Act on Remedies, etc. for Damage Caused by the April 16B

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the liability of a person who ordered the performance of duties under Article 401-2(1)1 of the Commercial Act or the “person who provided cause” under Article 42(2) of the said Special Act, or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, without exhaust all necessary deliberations.

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