2017Nu21357 Revocation of attachment disposition

Ro-man Ro-man, Inc.

Busan Regional Maritime Affairs and Fisheries Office

Busan District Court Decision 2016Guhap20747 Decided March 30, 2017

August 9, 2017

September 13, 2017

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

1. Purport of claim

On February 5, 2016, the attachment disposition issued by the Defendant on February 5, 2016 against the Plaintiff’s Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries and the Korea Ocean Industry Association is revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

1. Quotation of the first instance judgment

The reason why this Court is used in relation to this case is as follows, except for the use of the parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel with the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance. Thus, it is citing it as is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the

[Supplementary Use]

2) Even when the attachment of a vessel is executed by the disposition on default, the attachment of the vessel becomes null and void due to the decrease of the vessel, and it cannot be deemed that the attachment of the vessel becomes null and void as a matter of course by the claim on the depreciation compensation. Thus, the attachment of the vessel prior to the decrease of the vessel was again made by the agency which issued the disposition on default due to the disposition on default on the depreciation compensation again by the agency which issued the disposition on default on the depreciation compensation on the vessel prior to the decrease of the vessel, and the priority pursuant to the disposition on default on the vessel prior to the decrease of the vessel pursuant to the legal principles on subrogation cannot be deemed as maintaining the amount of the depreciation compensation claim (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Da83777, Jul.

Therefore, the Defendant’s seizure of the instant vessel shall be all extinguished due to the decline of the vessel. Therefore, the Defendant’s assertion that the seizure of the said vessel by the Defendant is transferred, and its validity is maintained in accordance with the subrogation doctrine on security rights, such as mortgage. In addition, even if the Plaintiff was to receive the depreciation compensation from the burden of seizure on the instant vessel in accordance with the above legal doctrine, it cannot be said that it violates the principle of good faith or the principle of equity.

2. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.

The presiding judge, judges and grandchildren;

Judges Kim Jong-chul

Judge Guo- Provision