In accordance with the English Marine Insurance Act and the English courts' precedents, the burden and extent of proof that the loss incurred to the subject matter was caused by the insured risk.

영국 해상보험법 및 영국 법원의 판례에 의하면, 피보험자가 보험금의 지급을 청구하기 위하여는 피보험자는 보험사고가 발생한 사실, 그 보험사고가 부보위험으로 인한 것이라는 사실, 즉 특정한 부보위험이 손해발생의 근인(근인, proximate cause)이라는 사실에 관한 입증책임이 있고, 여기서 근인이라 함은 '지배적인(dominant)', '유효한(effective)', 또는 '직접적인(direct)' 원인을 말하고, 시간적으로 반드시 최후의 것(the last in point of time)임을 요하지 아니하며, 결국 무엇이 근인이 되는가는 전반적인 관점에서 광범위한 상식에 따른 법원의 사실인정(It is for the court to decide the proximate cause as a question of fact)의 문제인데, 위와 같은 요증사실은 사고원인에 관한 가설의 개연성을 형량하였을 때(balance of probability), 보험사고가 부보위험에 의하여 일어났을 개연성(probability)이 그렇지 않을 개연성보다 우월(more likely than not the loss arose because of an insured peril)할 정도로 입증되어야 하고, 만일 부보위험과 미부보위험 또는 부보위험에서 제외되는 위험(a non-insured or an excepted peril)이 동등한 정도로 보험사고에 영향을 주었다고 인정되는 경우에는 피보험자의 입증은 실패하게 된다.

[1] Article 3 of the English Marine Insurance Act, Article 6 (1) 2, (2) 3, and 5 of the English Institute Time Clauses - Hulles 1983)

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Domin, Attorneys Park Jae-young and 1 other, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Dong Fire & Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. (Attorneys Han Han-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Bosung Refriger Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Sejong, Attorneys Kim Chang-joon et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Busan District Court Decision 99Da5586, 10151 Decided January 10, 2001

1. The part of the lower judgment regarding the principal lawsuit shall be revoked.

2. With respect to an accident that was sunken on the sea of the 150-math day of the 14:32 on July 29, 1998 by the vessel of the 510-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-

3. Of the original judgment, the part against the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) regarding the counterclaim is revoked, and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff)’s counterclaim corresponding to the revoked part is dismissed.

4. The Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff’s appeal is dismissed.

5. The costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant-Counterclaim plaintiff by aggregating the principal lawsuit and the counterclaims in the first and second instances.

1. Purport of claim

Main claim: Paragraph (2).

Counterclaim: The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant; hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiff") shall pay to the defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff; hereinafter referred to as "the defendant") 2,500,000 US dollars and 9.46% per annum from March 29, 1999 to the date of this decision, and 25% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

2. Purport of appeal

Plaintiff: The same shall apply to orders.

Defendant: Revocation of the part against the Defendant regarding the counterclaim in the original judgment, and the Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant 2,500,000 US dollars an annual amount of 25% from January 11, 2001 to the date of full payment.

1. Basic facts

The following facts are not disputed between the parties:

(a) On October 19, 197, the Plaintiff entered into an insurance contract with the Defendant for the vessel 510 East-ho Lake (hereinafter referred to as the “instant vessel”) with the same content as the attached list (hereinafter referred to as the “instant insurance contract”).

(b)The Association Time Clauses - the Clauses applicable to the above insurance contract (Huls - 1/10/83; hereinafter referred to as "Insurance Terms and Conditions") provide that this insurance is subject to the laws and customs of the United Kingdom, and that it is possible for him to cover risks as security in Article 6, to cover the sea, river, lake, or other waters available for navigation, to cover the unique risks of seafarers in the sea, river, lake, or other sea, and to cover 6.1.1), fire, explosion, 6.1.2), general crew or pilot's negligence in general, high-class general crew or pilot's negligence in the case of the master, senior crew or pilot's negligence in the case of the master, senior crew or pilot's negligence in the case of a high-class master's liability for warranty.6.2.6.3.6.6.6.6.6.6.6.6.6.6.6.6.6.6.6.6.6.6.6.6.3.6.6.6.6.

C.However, the vessel of this case was sunken at around 14:32 on July 29, 1998, at approximately 49°05 on the south, west 60°48 on the northwest of the Sonland (hereinafter referred to as the "the accident point of this case") around 150 on the northwest of the west.

2. Determination on the duty to pay insurance proceeds

A. The party's assertion on the principal lawsuit and counterclaim

(1) The plaintiff failed to prove that the sinking of the ship of this case was caused by a specific insured risk under the above insurance contract, and even if the cause of the sinking of the ship of this case was caused by an insured risk (the fault of the captain, crew, etc. or the negligent conduct of the captain, etc.), the sinking of the ship of this case caused the sinking of the ship of this case by flooding the engine room through the defendant's implied or public offering due to the occurrence of fire, and this constitutes the cause of exemption of the insurer's liability, which constitutes a part of the mother, and the plaintiff did not have the obligation to pay the insurance money based on the insurance contract of this case, and the plaintiff asserted that there was no obligation to pay the above debt by the main lawsuit.

(2) Accordingly, the Defendant’s counterclaim is the cause of the counterclaim of this case. The instant vessel: (a) the sea water flowing into the hull due to explosion caused by fire, which is an insured risk under Article 6 of the above insurance clause, has sunken the engine room by inundation; (b) the sea water, sewage, and hazardous oil waste, which was taken into the engine room from the panty treatment office to the engine room; or (c) the sea water and sludge, which was taken in the engine room in the engine room (Bilge, sewage and hazardous oil waste) and slotg (Slurt, which was set up in the ship in the workplace so that the water can easily flow out and flow out) caused the sinking of the vessel by entering the vessel into the engine room through the catch input, which was left open to the engine room, which is an insured risk under Article 6 of the above insurance clause; and (d) even if the Defendant intentionally caused the sinking of the vessel in this case to cause damage to the insurer, which is the captain of this case, the insurer of this case.

(b) Applicable law and burden of proof;

앞에서 본 바와 같이 이 사건 보험계약의 내용을 이루는 보험약관에 영국법 준거조항과 그 부보위험이 열거되어 있으므로 보험자의 책임문제는 영국의 법률과 관습에 의하여 결정되고, 영국해상보험법 및 영국법원의 판례에 의하면, 피보험자가 보험금의 지급을 청구하기 위하여는 피보험자는 보험사고가 발생한 사실, 그 보험사고가 부보위험으로 인한 것이라는 사실, 즉 특정한 부보위험이 손해발생의 근인(근인, proximate cause)이라는 사실에 관한 입증책임이 있고, 여기서 근인이라 함은 '지배적인(dominant)', '유효한(effective)', 또는 '직접적인(direct)' 원인을 말하고, 시간적으로 반드시 최후의 것(the last in point of time)임을 요하지 아니하며, 결국 무엇이 근인이 되는가는 전반적인 관점에서 광범위한 상식에 따른 법원의 사실인정(It is for the court to decide the proximate cause as a question of fact)의 문제이다.

그리고 위와 같은 요증사실은 사고원인에 관한 가설의 개연성을 형량하였을 때(balance of probability), 보험사고가 부보위험에 의하여 일어났을 개연성(probability)이 그렇지 않을 개연성보다 우월(more likely than not the loss arose because of an insured peril)할 정도로 입증되어야 하고, 만일 부보위험과 미부보위험 또는 부보위험에서 제외되는 위험(a non-insured or an excepted peril)이 동등한 정도로 보험사고에 영향을 주었다고 인정되는 경우에는 피보험자의 입증은 실패하게 된다.

In addition, even in the sinking accident where the cause is unknown, in principle, the insured must prove that the sinking accident is caused by the insured risk, and if it is not proved, the insurer shall not be obliged to pay the insurance money.

C. Facts of recognition

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of the whole purport of arguments or arguments by evidence Nos. 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, evidence No. 10-1, 2, evidence No. 11 through 20, evidence No. 21 (Evidence No. 23, evidence No. 22, evidence No. 1-5, 21, 26, evidence No. 1-38, 39, 42, 46, 48 through 59, 63 through 71, 75, 79, evidence No. 7, and evidence No. 10-2, evidence No. 11 through 20, evidence No. 21, No. 21, 25, 28, 29, 2636, 37, and 77, evidence No. 1-2, and evidence No. 1-7, No. 67, No. 367, No. 367, No.

(1) Structure and operation status of the instant vessel

(A) The instant vessel was purchased from Non-Party dong Co., Ltd. on August 30, 1995 an amount of KRW 775,00,00 from Non-Party dong Co., Ltd. for the purchase of KRW 330,00,00 from Non-Party 1,00 to Busan Ship with a 2,000 foot diesel engine built in Japan in 1974, and continued to fish in the South, West-west Islands located in and near the Republic of Korea. However, on January 14, 1998, 333 seafarers, including the master fluor, on board, on board, on board the ship, and 1,000 U.S. 1, 198, 100 U.S. 1, 300 U.S. 1, 196, and 1,000 U.S. 1,000,000 U.S. 1,000

(b)the structure of the hull;

이 사건 선박의 선체는 선수 선교형으로서 모두 5층의 갑판선이며, 제1층은 대부분 이중저(더블보텀, Double Bottom) 탱크로 연료유, 윤활유 등의 기름탱크이며, 제2층은 선수로부터 제1, 2, 3번 어창, 기관실, 청수창 및 유조창용인 제5번창의 순서로 배치되어 있고, 제3층은 선수로부터 갑판장창고, 공장(Factory Space), 급냉동실, 처리실(일명 준비실), 어망창고, 타기실 및 유조창이 있으며, 제4층은 폭로갑판으로 선수부에 선원거주구역이 있고 그 뒷부분에 양망기로 쓰는 트롤윈치가 설치되어 있는데, 선미끝단으로부터 선수쪽으로 약 3.5m의 길이로 경사면을 이루는 슬립웨이(Slipway)가 어망을 끌어들이기 위하여 설치되어 있고 슬립웨이의 선내측 끝으로부터 선수쪽으로 약 6.5m 떨어진 곳에 양망시 그물로부터 어획물을 쏟아 넣는 투입구인 피쉬폰드 뚜껑(FishPond Hatch, 가로 1.2m, 세로 1.9m)이 설치되어 있으며, 이 투입구는 선수측이 하방으로 유압에 의하여 비스듬히 열리게 되어 있고 선미 슬립웨이의 외측 끝단으로부터 피쉬폰드까지의 거리는 약 10m이며 거주구역의 선미측 끝부터 양망기까지 거리는 약 4m이고, 제5층에는 선원 거주구역 상부에 선교가 위치하고 있다.

(C) the process of disposing of fish;

위 선박에서 그물로 건져 올린 어획물은 피쉬폰드 뚜껑을 열어 처리실 후방에 있는 피쉬폰드로 쏟아 붇고, 이후 컨베이어에 의하여 처리실로 이동시켜 여기에서 물로 씻은 후 냉동 팬(Pan)에 담아 급냉고에 보관해 냉동시킨 다음, 이것을 꺼내어 약간의 해수를 뿌려 순간적으로 고기의 표면에 얼음막을 입히는 이른바 탈팬(탈Pan)과정을 거쳐 냉장설비가 되어 있는 어창에 보관하도록 되어 있는데, 이 탈팬과정에는 기관실에서 잡용수펌프(General Service Pump)를 가동시켜 공급하는 해수를 사용하며, 위 해수는 선원들의 생활용수인 청수의 부족으로 화장실, 세면, 세탁 및 갑판청소 등에도 사용하므로 순수한 탈팬작업에 쓰이는 해수는 분당 약 100ℓ정도만 공급하고 있다.

The panty water supply officer shall sprink the sea water through the hole of approximately 45cm in length, approximately 2.5cm in diameter, in diameter, through the diameter of approximately 2mm, and the sea water used in panpanty work shall be cut back by the floor of the disposal room immediately, and all panpanty work shall be cut back into the water hole installed in the four sphere and after the inside of the disposal room, and shall be discharged out from the lock pumps line installed in the four sphere. The diving pumps are operated in a way that water level in the water tank and is connected to all sphere, while the water level of water level in the water tank is cut off, and on the other hand, burge is cut in an engine room of approximately 4 to 5t per day.

(d)A catch of approximately 15,00 pans, of approximately 225t, was loaded in the fish hold Nos. 950t, approximately 100t, and approximately 38t, in their respective freezings, in the fish hold No. 950t, approximately 100t, and approximately 4;

(2) Occurrence of a fire

From 07:00 on July 29, 1998 (on the date of the accident, hereinafter the same shall apply) to 000 degrees, speeded approximately 3.8 knotss, the vessel was towing at a speed of 000 degrees, and around 3.8 knotss. At around 09:20 on the same day, at around 09:20 on the day when the accident occurred, there was an uncertain fire in the Vietnam crew bedroom located on the foreline of the players. At that time, two seafarers of Vietnam, who were in flight at that place, reported that the NoV NINH was removed from the foreline to the bottom by the floor, and was out of the Korean language as “non-surg”, while on the mission, the captain was on duty, and the captain was on duty, at the time of the accident, at the rate of 2 meters away from the entrance to the foreline, and the fire occurred at the rate of 1 to 2 meters from the foreline.

(3) Fire fighting and crew trends;

Upon the occurrence of a fire, the captain immediately sound an emergency warning on the ship, and ordered the steering gear to draw the steering net on the steering gear, but without putting on the fire site, requested a rescue operation with a wireless telephone (VHF) at a distance of about 7.5 miles near nearby the 500t fishing vessel, which was engaged in fishing at a distance of 500t fishing vessel, and was engaged in fishing at a distance of 7.5 miles near the residential area, such as using a fire hydrant near the steering gear, or closing a passage pushed door for entering the residential area, thereby realizing the spread of the fire.

1. During 1, 200, 200, 3 and 4 crew members, such as 1grout water, have attempted to extinguish fire fighting gear in the above 2000, with the sound of “non-explosion”, but 100,000, 3 and 4 crew members have attempted to extinguish fire fighting gear in the above 2000s, but the fire extinguishing by fire fighting water has not been carried out due to the operation of fire fighting equipment, and 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000,00,00,00,00.

(4) Status of the omission of the ship or the omission of the ship

On the other hand, at around 10:20 on the same day, the first 201-Wing-Wing-Wing-Wing-Wing-Wing-Wing was attempted by the captain of the instant vessel, and the first her failure to her on the port side of the instant vessel. At around 10:30, all 33 crew members of the instant vessel escaped from the instant vessel to the 201-Wing-Wing-Wing-Wing-Wing-Wing-Wing, the instant vessel was observed at the point out of 0.5 days from the instant vessel. By the time the captain was killed, gas, etc. was not explosiond on the back of the instant vessel’

The captain argued that, after the death of the captain, the captain was able to get off the ship, the captain was able to report the fire to the head of the Defendant company, using the wireless telephone (SB) at the communication room at around 10:43 in order to report to the company via the radio telephone (SB) at around 10:43, the captain was able to find out the phone number of the Defendant company at around 11:37 (1) at around 11:37 (the time after 13:0:37 minutes from the date after 13 hours), and reported the occurrence of the fire and the occurrence of the accident, etc. (the time after 4 minutes from the date after 13:37 minutes) to 41 minutes from the date on which the captain got off the ship. In order to report to the company, the captain was instructed by the captain, etc. to the maximum extent possible, on the ground that the captain was on emergency duty.

(5) the Contact and boarding vessel;

After all, the captain of the instant vessel, whose flames caused by the fire of the instant vessel, was fluored by the captain of the instant vessel at around 12:10 and the captain of the instant vessel was fluored by the captain of the instant vessel and re-fluoring the instant vessel, with the head of the instant vessel fluor and the 1st engineer Epis. They were on board the instant vessel, along with the head of the instant vessel fluorian and the fluorianian. They were confirmed from the stairs leading from the deck to the crew bedon deck to the crew bed and entered the engine room to check the presence of a fire only due to a fire on the upper floor, and the captain was fluored by the captain so that the head of the instant vessel fluor and the fluorianianianian were fluored by the engine room.

The captain of Mayang 201, the vessel of this case, promoted several times to return to the loud speaker so that the third person could not return to 20 minutes of the vessel of this case. The Magyang 201, the vessel of this case, was instructed by the captain of this case, who tried to return to the vessel of this case to the vessel of this case, to the vessel of this case, to the vessel of this case, to the vessel of this case, for the vessel of this case, to move to the floor of the engine room through the passage of the engine room. The Magyang 201, the vessel of this case, who was working on the floor of the engine room of the vessel of this case, was reported to the person, who was able to move to the vessel of this case 2 to 3 times as soon as possible, and the Magdong 1 engineer was removed from the engine room of this case, and then the vessel of this case and the vessel of this case were separated from the vessel of this case and the head of the engine of this case and the vessel of this case.

당시 약 30분간의 접선 동안 선수쪽의 화재는 거의 전소되어 선수 앞쪽에 연기와불씨만 조금 남아 있었으며, 트롤윈치 이후부터 선미쪽 기관실까지는 화재가 미치지 아니한 상태였으나 조타기가 소실되어 스스로 운항할 수 없어 예인하여야 할 상황이었고, 위 선박의 처리실 내부 바닥에 물은 고여있지 아니하였으며, 기관실에도 침수 또는 빌지(Bilge)가 고여 있는 현상은 보이지 아니하였고 슬립웨이에서 해수가 갑판으로 올라오거나 혹은 피쉬폰드로 들어가지 아니하였으며, 흘수는 선수 약 3.0m 선미 약 4.2m로 약 1.2m 선미트림(Trim, 선수흘수와 선미흘수의 차이)을 유지하고 있었다.

(6) The sinking of a vessel and the subsequent conditions thereof;

From 13:17 to 13:33, the captain reported the situation of the vessel at the time of the above Contact vessel to the 16 minutes by telephone. After that, the vessel of this case was flooded due to an unexpected cause, the engine room was restored to the aft while the hull was restored to the aft. The vessel was sunken under the speed of 14:32, the aft’s length was frighten, and the vessel was sunken under the speed of 11 minutes at 14:49 to 15:00. The captain reported this fact to the Hadong-dong 11 minutes to the 11st son, the vessel was sunken at the speed of 270°3:0,00,000 from 14:0 to 15:0,000 to 2:3:0,000,000 from 2:0 to 25:0,000 to 3:00,000,0000 to 14:3,00.

(d) Markets:

(1) The sinking by fire or explosion (the insurance clause 6.1.2)

(가)위 선박의 침몰이 화재, 혹은 화재로 인한 폭발로 발생한 선체의 파공으로 선체에 유입된 해수가 기관실을 침수하여 침몰되었는지의 점에 관하여 살피건대, 위 선박에 원인을 알 수 없는 화재가 발생하였고 선장 및 선원들이 이를 효과적으로 진화하지 아니하고 구조선으로 퇴선한 점은 인정된다. 그러나 위 화재만에 의하여 선박이 침몰될 수 있다거나, 또 위 화재로 인한 특이할 만한 폭발이 있었고 그로 인하여 선체에 파공이 생겨 해수가 유입됨으로써 선박이 침몰되는 손해가 발생하였다는 점을 인정할 만한 증거가 없으므로 피고의 위 주장은 이유 없다. 오히려, 앞에서 인정한 사실에 의하면, 재접선 후 퇴선할 당시 선수 쪽의 화재는 거의 전소되어 선수 앞쪽에 연기와 불씨만 조금 남아 있는 정도였고 트롤윈치 이후부터 선미쪽 기관실까지는 화재가 미치지 아니한 상태였으며, 화재발생 후 정재효가 양망기 부근에서 감다가 남겨둔 어구는 대부분 해저에 가라앉아 있어 선체경사에 별다른 영향을 미치지 못하고 다량의 어획물도 화재가 미치지 않은 어창에 냉동된 상태로 보관되어 있어 선수부 중량이 화재로 인하여 특별히 감소되지 아니하였으므로, 화재로 인한 선수부 거주구역의 소실과 기관실의 침수 및 그로 인한 선박침몰은 직접적인 연관이 없는 것으로 인정된다.

(b)In addition, as to the defendant's assertion that the above vessel's 3rd pande 2nd 1st 2nd 2nd 1st 2nd 2nd 1st 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 3rd 2nd 2nd 2nd 3rd 2nd 2nd 2nd 3rd 2nd 2nd 2nd 3rd 2nd 2nd 3rd 2nd 2nd 3rd 2nd 2nd 2nd 3rd 2nd 2nd 2nd 3rd 2nd 2nd 2nd 3rd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd st st 2nd 2nd 2nd st st 2nd 2nd st st st 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd st st 2nd st st 2nd 2nd st 2nd st 2nd 2nd 2nd.

(2) Negligence of a master, senior seafarer, or pilot(s). (6.2.3)

In addition, the Defendant did not abandon the ship if there was no fire, and if there was no organ abandonment of the ship, the fire of this case was the root of the sinking of the ship. If the fire of this case was not the presence of the fire of this case, the Defendant asserts that the abandonment of the ship of this case was caused by the negligence of the crew, who neglected fighting operations and went forward from the early stage, and thus, it also constitutes an insured risk.

In light of the above, even if the captain and all crew members were to have been negligent in leaving the ship without extinguishing the fire at the time of the fire on the fore part of the captain, it cannot be deemed that the act of the captain, etc., without extinguishing fire, was the 's fire-fighting to the engine room' or the act of sinking the ship due to other causes, and there is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise. Thus, the above assertion by the Defendant is without merit.

Rather, according to the facts found earlier, the number of the captain, who did not try fire-fighting at all, was almost true, and the engine room of the Defendant company did not flow out to the extent that the sinking might occur due to decks, etc. (Therefore, it seems that the above vessel was not easily sunken, and in such a case, it seems that the above vessel was able to be towed, together with the head of the engine, the first engineer, etc., and returned to the engine room, and the sinking of the above vessel was commenced, and the above vessel was no longer requested to rescue from the fishery authorities of the Ireland until the vessel was sunken. However, the Defendant asserted that the captain’s actions such as the sinking of the vessel were no more than 1 hour after the sinking of the vessel, and that there was no possibility that the sinking of the vessel could occur before and after the sinking of the vessel by taking account of the vessel’s operating circumstances, such as the sinking of the vessel.

(iii)the master’s bad behavior of a senior seafarer; or (iii)the master’s general crew; or 6.2.5);

만일 선장 우경수 등이 재접선시 고의로 킹스톤 밸브를 개방하여 연결파이프라인의 볼트를 느슨하게 풀어 해수를 유입하게 하는 등의 방법으로 기관실을 침수시켜 침몰에 이르렀다고 하더라도 이는 선장 등의 악행에 의한 것으로서 여전히 부보위험에 해당한다는 피고의 주장에 관하여 살피건대, 보험증권의 해석에 관한 규칙(Rules for construction of policy) 제11조에 의하면, "악행이라는 용어는 선주 또는 용선자에게 손해를 끼치는 선원 선장 및 선원의 고의에 의한 일체의 위법행위를 포함한다(The term "barratry" includes every wrongful act willfully committed by the master or crew to the prejudice of the owner, or, as case may, be the charter)"라고 규정되어 있고, 따라서 '악행'은 선주를 해치기 위하여 한 위법행위를 의미하는 것이므로, 만약 선박소유자가 선장 또는 선원의 행위를 지시 또는 묵인하거나 공모한 경우라면 이는 악행에 해당하지 아니하고, 이러한 경우 공모의 정도는 소극적인 것으로 충분하며, 고의에 의할 것을 요건으로 하므로 과실에 의한 것은 이에 해당하지 아니한다고 할 것이다.

In the instant case, the above fire was not likely to sinking the vessel solely on the ground of the location and spread of the fire, and the quantity and location of the catch to be stored. In light of the structure and condition of the vessel at the time of sinking, weather conditions at the time of sinking, time to the sinking of the vessel, etc., it cannot be the cause of sinking of the vessel. As seen earlier, the sinking of the vessel at issue is highly likely to have been sunken due to mass sinking by the engine, etc., and there was no other specific evidence to prove that the sinking of the vessel at issue caused the sinking of the vessel at the time of sinking by the vessel at issue, such as the sinking of the vessel at the time of sinking, and there was no possibility that the sinking of the vessel at issue would harm the vessel at the time of sinking of the vessel at the time of sinking the vessel at the time of sinking the vessel at the time of mooring the vessel at the time of the vessel at issue. However, it cannot be determined that there was no possibility that the sinking of the vessel at the time of the sinking of the vessel at the time of the vessel at issue.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, with respect to an accident that was sunken at the sea of about 49Do05 minutes South, 14:32 on July 29, 1998 by the vessel of this case owned by the defendant and about 60Do48 minutes in west Ireland, the plaintiff's obligation to pay insurance money to the defendant under the insurance contract stated in the attached list does not exist, and the defendant contests this, the plaintiff's claim is justified, and the plaintiff's claim against the plaintiff to pay insurance money related to the sinking of the vessel of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. Since the judgment of the court below is unfair on the contrary, the part of the judgment of the court below concerning the main claim is revoked and there is no obligation to pay the above insurance money, and the part of the judgment of the court below against the plaintiff as to the counterclaim is dismissed, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Tae-tae (Presiding Judge)