2014Nu524 Revocation of the Central Maritime Safety Tribunal Ruling

A

President of the Central Maritime Safety Tribunal

1. Sco Co., Ltd.;

2. Construction of sccos;

July 2, 2015

July 23, 2015

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the costs incurred by participation.

Of the Korean Maritime Safety Tribunal's ruling on August 29, 2014, the part of the disciplinary decision against the plaintiff (Class 1 ship company's business suspension three months) shall be revoked.

1. The occurrence of the instant accident and the details of adjudication;

A. On June 11, 2012, around 16:31, a cargo vessel C (hereinafter referred to as “instant vessel”) abutting on the third line of the raw material section of the opticalyang Port No. 3 at the time of leisure water had an accident of contact with the center part of the raw material section 3 at the time of the instant vessel (hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). At that time, the Plaintiff, who is the first-class pilot, was on board the instant vessel and directed pilotage as the main vessel, and D, the captain, was on board the vessel.

B. In relation to the instant accident on August 29, 2014, the Korean Maritime Safety Tribunal rendered a ruling to the effect that “The instant accident was caused by the inappropriate direction of the vessel’s operation while C was approaching C’s approach to mooring at the seat No. 3 of the luminous raw material wharf. The Plaintiff, who was involved in a marine accident, shall be suspended from working for three months.” (hereinafter referred to as “instant ruling”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Entry No. 1 of Eul and the purport of the whole pleading

2. Whether the ruling of this case is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

At the time of the instant accident, the Plaintiff did not commit any negligence against the Plaintiff with respect to the instant accident, since the Plaintiff took the best measures appropriate for the situation by appropriately using the towing boat, taking into account the surplus water depth of the raw material wharfs of the opticalyang Port. Rather, the instant accident is attributable to the fact that the captain D provided false information to the Plaintiff regarding the vessel’s draft 1). The Defendant’s Intervenor, Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “ Intervenor Posco Construction”) did not properly resist the dredging vessel, etc. as the contractor of the instant accident, so that it does not interfere with the operation of the instant vessel, and the Defendant’s Intervenor Posco Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “ Intervenor Posco”) did not place the loading engine located at the port raw material wharfs of the Masco as the captain and the operator of the Wsco.

Nevertheless, the part of the ruling of disciplinary action against the plaintiff among the ruling of this case which was judged to be negligent by the plaintiff should be revoked as it is unlawful.

(b) Fact of recognition;

(1) The specifications of the instant vessel

The instant vessel is 148,431 tons in gross tonnage, 31.89 meters in length (321.95 meters in front), 58.00 meters in width, 29.50 meters in depth, and 266,141 tons in weight of goods. The instant vessel is a cargo emphasizing the U.S.-type vessel (U.S.).

(2) Power-free port raw material storage and access route

① The raw material section of the luminous port is in the length of 1,800 metres, 5 lines are constructed, and the fluor may move along 3.5 meters from the inner wall of the wharf with the 8 series of unloading machines (CSU) to the center of the tin. The Intervenor’s Poco has been located at the center of the tin when approaching the vessel for mooring.

② The raw material wharfs of the optical port are accessible from the luminous port(3) route and paragraph(4) route, and the distance from the luminous port’s 3 line to the end of paragraph(3) from the luminous port’s 1,600 meters from the luminous port’s 1,600-meter distance.

No. 3, in the event of the instant accident, a vessel of which length is 400 meters and minimum depth is 21.5 meters or less and which is less than 250,000 tons of goods (DWT) was designed to be connected to a vessel. However, on December 14, 2004, the Intervenor Posco was able to use a wharf with a reply given by the Administrator of the Regional Maritime Affairs and Port Office to the effect that it is possible to use the wharf even without taking measures, such as the reinforcement of a separate wharf facility, if it is less than 298,00 tons of goods and 340 meters in length, 19.5 meters or less.

(3) Management of mining ports raw materials.

(1) According to the implementation of the wharf operating company system, an intervenor scco has leased facilities, such as mining raw materials and wharfs, from the Commissioner of the Regional Maritime Affairs and Port Office, for a period of five years (from June 1, 2009 to May 31, 2014) during which the contract period is fixed, and has been performing duties such as loading and unloading, cargo equipment and removal, maintenance and repair of facilities, and designation and management of the open storage.

② From January 1, 2006, the Intervenor entered into a port transport business agreement with the Plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as “StEL”) to operate a wharf in the form of direction, supervision, and education concerning the operation and safety of the wharf including the loading and unloading equipment.

(4) The current status of the dredging work at the sea front of the luminous raw materials at the port;

① On January 18, 2012, the Intervenor Spanco entered into a contract with the Intervenor on January 27, 2012, with the approval of the implementation plan for the harbor construction project on the expansion and dredging of the water zone of Wanyang, which was the contractor, on January 27, 2012. On February 20, 2012, the Intervenor Spoco entered into a subcontract with the Hanjin Industries Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “ Hanjin Industries”) on February 20, 2012.

Among the conditions of approval for dredging works, there was a sufficient safety distance and the conditions of keeping information lines and means of communication so as not to impede traffic safety, in relation to traffic routes, traffic vessels and raw material mooring vessels. However, at the time of the instant accident, the Intervenor Scco construction did not place information lines.

② On February 2, 2012, the Intervenor’s Poco Construction confirmed “a plan to install dredging work and anti-deposit prevention facilities (final plan), including the order of dredging work areas and the design for the installation of anti-deposit prevention facilities, through meetings in which the Intervenor Poco, the Intervenor Poco, the supervising team, etc. are present.” In the process, at the third execution plan council held February 9, 2012, there was an agreement that “the Intervenor Poco Construction notified the Intervenor Poco Construction at the time of entry into or departure from the port of entry with an emergency contact network at the time of anticipated interference with the pumps dredging vessel, and the Intervenor Poco Construction first provides that “the Intervenor Poco Construction will give priority to providing for the prevention of accidents during the navigation accident.”

The dredging Corporation was planned to proceed with a total of three areas. From April 10, 2012 and around May 25, 2012, the dredging work for Zone 1 was completed, and the dredging for Zone 2 was completed until June 5, 2012. From June 7, 2012, the dredging work for Zone 2 began with the dredging for Zone 2 and was under way at the time of the instant accident.

(5) The dredging operations at the time of the entry of the vessel of this case and the location of the unloading machine

① On June 11, 2012, the date of the instant accident, the dredging boat operator of Hanjin Industries, who carried out dredging work in Zone Two (2), was in the currency of the Intervenor Spanco control room from 12:00 to 14:00, and had the dredging boat moved from 14:00 to 15:00, and thereafter, he started dredging work from 15:00 to 15:00. At that time, the location of dredging boat was 500 meters from 3 lines, and the ship was located at a distance of 540 meters from 5.0 meters from 50 meters from 3 lines, and the ship was located at a distance of 540 meters from 540 meters from 5. The standard work manual of SeoELel determined that the mooring vessel was located at the center of the mooring line, but at the time of the instant accident, the vessel was at a location different from 2nd 4th tin at that time.

(6) Specific details of the instant accident

① Around May 13, 2012, the instant vessel was living in the Republic of South Africa, loaded 24 seafarers, including captain D, on board 261,140 tons of steel ray, and did not notify the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff of the application of the ferries dredging standards to the field of safe boarding of a vessel at least 19.44 meters long and 20.05 meters long as the vessel gets out of the port boundaries of the port of leisure and arrived at D-1 anchorage on June 10, 2012 (this time’s vessel’s draft length was 19.6 meters and 19.62 meters long as the vessel’s draft length was 19.6 meters). On June 11, 2012, the Plaintiff did not notify the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff of the application of the ferries dredging standards to the field of safe boarding of a vessel.

② The captain D loaded 252,317 tons of steel tin on a ferry card, based on the load on the port of departure, and provided them with each of the 19,50 meters 19,50 meters her draft of the stem on board, without verifying the actual fault of the Plaintiff on board for pilotage.

The maximum permitted limit of 19.50 meters from the draft line No. 3 of the raw material part of the mining port scheduled for mooring the instant vessel. At the time, the actual draft line of the instant vessel was more than 0.16 meters, but the vessel was more than 0.16 meters, but the Plaintiff did not explain or consult about the vessel’s navigation dredging operations and pilotage plan, etc. while starting pilotage under the circumstance of being unaware of such fact.

③ At around 16:06, the Plaintiff directed the instant vessel, while sailing under paragraph 3, was engaged in five vessels, including H, G, H, I, and J, to the portmen of the instant vessel at around 16:06. The Plaintiff did not explain the instant vessel to the captain of the instant vessel at the right angle of the third tin line, taking into account the following factors: (a) the Plaintiff was approaching the instant vessel at the right angle of the third tin line at an appropriate distance from approximately 170 meters to the port side of the instant vessel; and (b) had the vessel take the direction of the third tin line at the right angle; (c) had the vessel take the direction of the third tin line at the right angle to the port side of the instant vessel at approximately 170 meters to the port side of the instant vessel to ensure the safe mooring of the vessel; and (d) did not explain the vessel to the captain of the instant vessel or the captain of the instant vessel.

④ On the other hand, when the distance from the wharf of 16:19 to the player is about 1,500 meters, the Plaintiff began to stop the engine at a speed of about 5 knotss, 000 degrees, and started to proceed with the engine only by the force. The Plaintiff started to proceed to the direction close to the 3 line at a speed of about 16:20 degrees, 03 degrees and speed of 4.8 knotss, which deviate from the breadth of paragraph (3) of this Article.

At around 16:22, the Plaintiff continued to resist without taking any measures to reduce the power generation, even though the distance from the wharf to the fore is at a speed of 4.5 p.m. at a speed of 1,000 meters.

⑤ While the instant vessel proceeds in a string on the right side of the vessel, at around 16:24:0, the 16:24 degrees 06 degrees her beamed, the Plaintiff used the instant vessel at a speed of 740 meters from the player to the 3rd her seat, and at a speed of 4.2 knots, the Plaintiff used the instant vessel at a speed of 4.2 knots with the steering gear to turn on the port side. At around 16:25, the instant vessel began to sail on the port side and suspended the engine. At this time, the instant vessel was approaching the wharf at a speed of 610 meters from the player to the wharf, but did not take necessary measures, such as the use of an engine for speed reduction.

⑤ The Plaintiff used the main engine to the port of the instant vessel back to the speed of 350 meters in order to reduce speed by approaching the distance from the stem of the instant vessel to the wharf at around 16:27 to the port of the instant vessel, but the speed still remains 3.9 knots.

After all, the Plaintiff used the main engine back to the backway with a distance from 16:28 to 240 meters from the fore of the fore of the fore of the fore of the fore of the fore of the fore of the fore of the fore of the fore of the fore of the fore of the fore of the fore of the fore of the fore of the fore of the fore of the vessel.

As the instant vessel was not well at the port side, the Plaintiff, at around 16:29, was under the direction of the towing vessel at a distance of at least 170 meters from the fore to the wharf, used the extreme speed engine along with the foreshore. The speed was at least 3.4 knots.

While the instant vessel approaches 3.4 p.m. at the speed of 3.4 p.m., the 1st class navigator placed on the player according to the arrangement of the arrival department reported to the Plaintiff that “ship shall rapidly approach the wharf.” At around 16:30, the Plaintiff, upon receipt of the report, used an exclusive back-up engine at a distance of 75 meters from the wharf, continued to proceed with the power, and the instant accident occurred to contact the center part of the 3rd line of light-sea raw material wharf No. 31, Jun. 11, 2012.

7) In the instant accident, the instant vessel was damaged by the outer board, deck storage, athletes’ outer board, player deck, player storage, and first stressing, etc. on the part of the athletes’ repair, and the instant vessel No. 3 of raw material wharfs.

There were approximately 10 degrees of damage caused by the mar-type shocking materials, 6 meters on the wharf, and aggregate of the continuous loading and unloading strings, leaving the strings, and leaving the strings.

[Ground of recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 6, 7, Eul evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence No. 1 through 6, Eul evidence No. 1 to 6 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

C. Determination

(1) In light of the Plaintiff’s status as revealed in the above facts and the circumstances of the instant accident, etc., if a large-type vessel, such as the instant vessel, enters a wharf, it shall be accelerated so that the vessel may receive assistance from a tugboat at a distance of 1,00 to 1,500 meters prior to the wharf, so that its navigation speed by force does not exceed 2 km. However, the Plaintiff did not properly control the wind power of the instant vessel at a distance of about 1,500 meters from the stem of the instant vessel to the wharf at an excessive speed of about 1,500 meters and about 3.4 knots at about 170 meters, thereby causing the instant accident. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s negligence in the course of performing his duties on the occurrence of the instant accident is sufficiently recognized, which constitutes grounds for disciplinary action against the Plaintiff.

(2) The Plaintiff asserts to the effect that “the instant accident is not caused by the Plaintiff’s negligence, but by the Plaintiff’s breach of the captain’s duty to provide information, the Intervenor’s breach of the duty to avoid navigation, such as dredging vessels, and the Intervenor’s breach of the duty to manage safety, such as unloading vessels.” However, the Plaintiff’s negligence on the occurrence of the instant accident is recognized as the Plaintiff’s occupational negligence, as seen earlier, and such negligence is recognized as grounds for disciplinary action against the Plaintiff regardless of whether the captain or the Intervenor’s negligence is recognized.

(3) Therefore, in light of all the circumstances such as the circumstances surrounding the instant accident and the Plaintiff’s negligence, etc., which can be known by the above recognition, the part of the judgment on disciplinary action with the content of suspending the Plaintiff’s business for three months is a proper disciplinary decision. Therefore, the part of the judgment on disciplinary action against the Plaintiff in the instant judgment is lawful, and the Plaintiff’s assertion disputing this is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

The presiding judge shall receive the award of merit;

Judges Kim Gin-jin

Judges, Superintendent of the National Assembly

(i)the distance from the water surface to the nearest point of the ship;