[1] Method of determining the meaning and content of foreign laws applicable to legal relations containing foreign elements

[2] The law applicable to the assignment of claims secured by a maritime lien and matters concerning voluntary subrogation (=the law applicable to the secured claim)

[3] Where a claim secured by a maritime lien is a wage claim arising from a seafarer labor contract, the law applicable to the transfer and subrogation of such seafarer’s wage claim (=the law of the country of registry)

[4] The case holding that the binding effect of the precedent that the third party cannot subrogate the creditor's right or remedy when the third party voluntarily repaid the claim secured by the maritime lien without the court's permission in an inevitable situation or without the need to protect his/her right, cannot be deemed to have lost its validity in the Stur Bazidine, which is the country of registry

[1] Articles 1 and 5 of the Private International Act; Article 1 of the Civil Act / [2] Articles 34(1), 35(2), and 60 subparag. 1 and 2 of the Private International Act / [3] Articles 28(2), 60 subparag. 1 and 2 of the Private International Act / [4] Articles 5, 28(2), 60 subparag. 1 and 2 of the Private International Act; Article 1 of the Civil Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 90Meu19470 Decided February 22, 1991 (Gong1991, 1060), Supreme Court Decision 94Da30041, 30058 Decided February 9, 1996 (Gong1996Sang, 871), Supreme Court Decision 2006Da5130 Decided June 29, 2007 (Gong2007Ha, 1171)

Daily Co., Ltd. and six others (Law Firm Samyang, Attorneys Song Woo-won et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

1. The term “the term “the term” means “the term” means “the term” means “the term “the term” means “the term” means “the term” means “the term “the term” means “the term.

Busan High Court Decision 2004Na12639 delivered on June 2, 2005

The part of the judgment of the court below against the plaintiffs against Embbbane Ga Ga, which is the lawsuit taking-off of the defendant Lobane Gaz, is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Busan High Court. The plaintiffs' appeals against the defendant Dr2 4 E. A. are all dismissed. The costs of appeal between the plaintiffs and the defendant Dr2 4 E. E. are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the validity of the ship mortgage of Defendant Mads U.S. 4 E.A.

In determining the content and interpreting the meaning of a foreign law applicable to a legal relationship containing foreign elements, in principle, the foreign law shall be interpreted and applied in accordance with the meaning and content of the foreign law actually interpreted and applied in its own country. If it is impossible to confirm the content because the foreign precedents or materials concerning the interpretation standards have not been submitted during the litigation process, the court may determine the meaning and content of the law in accordance with the general legal interpretation standards (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 90Meu19470, Feb. 22, 1991; 94Da3041, Feb. 9, 1996).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, since the court below acknowledged the facts as stated in its reasoning after compiling the adopted evidence, it rejected the captain of the ship of this case's mortgage Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, 500, 500, 500, 500, 500, 500, 500, 1997, 4,0000, 3,0000,000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,000,0000,000,000,0000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0000,000,0000,000,000,000,000,000.

In light of the above legal principles and the records, the above judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the laws on the merchant ship amendment or in violation of the rules of evidence as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

2. As to the takeover of the seafarer's wage claim by Defendant Madsplas, and the validity of the subrogation of the seafarer's wage claim by Defendant Madsplass

A. Unless there are special circumstances, the maritime lien is specifically recognized by the Act to secure a certain claim, and it is difficult to exist or transfer it independently from the secured claim. Thus, the issue of whether the maritime lien is valid may be discussed only when the transfer of the claim secured by the maritime lien is recognized. Thus, the matters prescribed by the law of the country of registry under Articles 60 subparag. 1 and 2 of the Private International Act are not included in the establishment of the maritime lien, whether a certain claim is secured by the maritime lien, the scope of the claims secured by the maritime lien, the order of the maritime lien, and other matters concerning the transfer and subrogation of the claim secured by the maritime lien. Thus, barring special circumstances, the possibility of transfer of the secured claim, the validity of transfer of the claim to the debtor and a third party shall be based on the governing law of the secured claim under the proviso of Article 34(1) of the Private International Act, and the matters concerning voluntary subrogation of the secured claim shall be based on the law of the country of registry registry under Article 35(2) of the Private International Act.

B. The validity of taking over the seafarer's wage claim of Defendant Madsplass

Examining the legal principles and records of paragraphs (1) and 2-A of the above, the court below recognized the facts as stated in its judgment after compiling the adopted evidence, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the requirements for the assignment of claims under the Inheritance and Gift Tax Act on September 2002 by the Korea de facto Kanstent, the Bank of the Republic of Korea, the Republic of Korea, the Bank of Norway, the Netherlands, the Republic of Korea (hereinafter referred to as the “Korea de facto Kanstent”) around September 2002, when it paid wages to the seafarers of the ship of this case at the request of the Libern, the owner of the ship of this case, the right to wages of the ship of this case was lawfully transferred, and the defendant Rasitian judged that he received the wage again from the Korea de facto Kanit on February 21, 2003, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

(c) To subrogate the seafarer's wage claim of Rabar E.S.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below and the record, matters concerning maritime lien of this case on the ship of this case shall be governed by the laws governing the ship of this case, and matters concerning subrogation of the seafarer's wage claims secured by the maritime lien shall also be governed by the laws governing the ship of this case, and the laws governing the third party's amendment of the laws governing the ship of this case shall be "International Convention of 193" [the International Convention of 1993 193 hereinafter referred to as the "Convention"), Articles 1 through 16 of the Convention of 193" (hereinafter referred to as the "193 Convention"), and Article 10 (1) of the International Convention of 193 provides that the transfer or subrogation of the claims secured by the maritime lien shall be made out of the Act of 193, which shall not be subject to the Convention of 193, and shall not be subject to the Convention of 193, which shall be subject to the Civil Law of the United Kingdom.

Examining the above legal principles and the above facts, Article 10(1) of the International Convention, 193, which was introduced as part of the Act on the Round of 190s, provides that the transfer or subrogation of a claim secured by a maritime lien, is accompanied by the transfer or subrogation of the maritime lien, and does not provide any provision as to the requirements or procedures for the transfer or subrogation of a claim secured by a maritime lien, it is difficult to uniformly define the requirements or procedures for the transfer or subrogation of a claim secured by a maritime lien by the maritime lien by different legal systems in each country, so it is interpreted that the matter is subject to the application of each country’s domestic law. Accordingly, it is difficult to find out that the precedents of the 1917 metricn case, which had precedents of the 1917 metricn case, were in force after the enforcement of the Act on the 1917 Round, and that the precedents of the 1917 Basonn case, which had no record of the amendment of the Act on the 190s.

If so, the court below should have examined whether Rabar E.I.D (hereinafter “Rabar”) is a voluntary third party in the case of 1917 ton, and if so, whether Rabar has obtained the permission of the competent court in the case of the instant vessel before paying wages to some of the seafarers of the instant vessel, and should have deliberated and determined whether Rabar can legally subrogate her seafarer’s wage claim.

On the other hand, the court below concluded that even though Liber did not have a provision requiring the permission of the court in the 1993 International Convention or the 3rd Liberian Amendment, it is possible to lawfully subrogate the seafarer's wage claim by reason of the fact that Liber did not have a provision requiring the permission of the court for the subrogation of maritime lien. In so determining, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the seafarer's wage claim and the subrogation of maritime lien under the 193 International Convention and the 3rdrate Amendment Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misapprehending the legal principles on the interpretation and application of foreign law. The ground of appeal assigning this error is with merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, among the judgment of the court below, the part against the plaintiffs against Embbbbane Ga Ga, which is the lawsuit taking over by Defendant Dhives, is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. The plaintiffs' appeals against Defendant Dr2 are all dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yang Sung-tae (Presiding Justice)