2013 Gohap 1029-1 Action for an objection against the judgment

2013 Du2121-1 (Consolidation) Lawsuits of Demurrer to Judgment

1. Hexa stropha shing Comping (Hebeti Sirit Speing);

Commonpa ny Limited

2. The International Convention on Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage, 1992;

Commonens, 192)

1. Jeollabuk-do;

2. High Military Forces:

3. Sub-committee:

4. Gunsan-si.

11. Military Armed Forces:

13. Mine-gun

18. New Security Forces:

24. Jeonnam-do

28. Jindo-gun

February 4, 2015

February 17, 2015

1. With respect to the case of Seosan Branch 2008 Book 1, the above court's ruling on the defendants' limited claims (referred to the list Nos. 1 and 2008 book Nos. 1 and 2008 book No. 2008 book No. 14, the court's ruling of the court's ruling of the limit of liability in the attached Form Nos. 1 and 2013 shall change the corresponding amount to the corresponding amount stated in the "amount of change" column of the above ruling of the court's ruling of limitation of liability to the defendants.

2. Of the costs of lawsuit, the part arising between the plaintiffs and the defendant Jeonnam-do shall be borne by the above defendant, and the part arising between the plaintiffs and the above defendants except the above defendants shall be borne by each party.

The claim against the remaining Defendants except for Defendant Jeonnam-do: With respect to the case No. 20081 of the Daejeon District Court's Seonam-do, the above court shall change the amount corresponding to each of the relevant circumstances to 0 won in the "amount of the decision of the competent court's assessment" in the attached Form No. 1 for the limited claims of the Defendants (as stated in the table of limited creditors: No. 1420, Jan. 14, 2013) and the "amount of the decision of the competent court's assessment of the assessment amount."

The purport of the claim against Defendant Jeonnam-do is as shown in the Disposition above.

I. Basic facts

1. The occurrence of the oil pollution accident of this case

① At around 07:06 on December 7, 2007, the oil tanker 146,828 tons of the Samsung Heavy Industries, which was towed by two tugboats at the sea of the 6-day southwestwest-gun, Taenam-gun, Chungcheongnam-do, Southwest-do, and the 6-day coastwise, and the oil tanker 146,848 tons of Hong Kong's shipping at the anchor of Samsung Samsung Samsung 1 (hereinafter "the oil tanker of this case"), and the collision with the oil tanker Nos. 1, 3 and 5 of the oil tanker of this case (hereinafter "the oil tanker of this case"). As a result, the oil tanker of this case was transported to three cargo holds, including approximately 10,900 tons (12,547) of crude oil, which was loaded in the oil tanker of this case, was leaked at sea (hereinafter "the accident of this case").

② On the same day after the occurrence of the instant accident, immediately after approximately 15 hours after the strong wind of Northwest, the outflow oil was pushed down to the coast of the port of the west-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, west-gun, west-gun, west-do, the coast of the port of the west-gun, west-do, the south-west coast, the south-west coast. On the following day, on December 8, 2007, the outflow was flowed over about 18 km from the 4th day after the occurrence of the instant accident, to the coast of the west-gun, west-gun, west-gun, west-gun, west-gun, west-gun, west-gun, west-gun, west-gun, west-gun, west-gun, west-gun, west-gun, west-gun, west-gun, west-gun, west-do, west-do.

③ Since December 10, 2007, flown into the coast and flown into the outer sea due to the effects of tidal wave, repeated flow into the coast and the outer sea due to the effects of tidal wave, and flown into the north wind, the 9th day from the accident occurred to the west-gun, Chungcheongnamcheon-gun, the 11th day from December 17, 2007, and the 30th day from the 27th day from the 27th day from the 2008 Jeju-do to the 31st day from the 30th day from the 31st day from the 30th day from the 306th day from the 306th day from the 306th day from the 306th day from the 2007 Jeju-do.

2. The Defendants, the local governments of Jeollabuk-do and Jeonnam-do, participating in the pest control work of local governments, performed pest control work to remove oil flowing into their jurisdiction after the instant accident, and subsequently, paid various expenses by purchasing pest control goods or leasing vehicles, vessels, etc.

3. Reasons to the objection of this case

A. Commencement of limitation of liability procedure of this case

① Under Article 6 of the former Guarantee of Oil Pollution Damage Compensation (wholly amended by Act No. 9740, May 27, 2009; hereinafter the same) and Article 9 of the former Act on the Procedure for Limiting the Liability of Shipowners, Etc. (wholly amended by Act No. 9833, Dec. 29, 2009; hereinafter the same), the Plaintiff, the owner of the oil tanker of this case, filed an application for the commencement of the limitation of liability procedures with the Daejeon District Court Seosan Branch 2008 Book1 on January 15, 2008.

(2) In addition, an international organization established under the International Convention on the Establishment of the International Fund for Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage, 1992 for the purpose of providing compensation for oil pollution damage to the extent of insufficient protection under the International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage, 1992.

Plaintiff 192 International Fund for Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage (hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiff International Fund”) filed an application for participation in the procedure for limiting liability on February 4, 2008 pursuant to Article 36 of the former Guarantee of Compensation for Oil Pollution Pollution Damage Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiff International Fund”). ③ Upon the Plaintiff Company’s application, the Daejeon District Court rendered a decision to commence the procedure for limiting liability on February 9, 2009, and simultaneously appointed A as a manager.

B. Judgment, etc. on reporting and examining the Defendants’ subordinate limitation claims

① On the other hand, on June 19, 2008, the Republic of Korea held the Special Countermeasure Committee on Oil Pollution Accident in Switzerland and decided that the claims of the State and local governments shall be subordinate to the claims of the State and local governments in accordance with Article 11 of the Enforcement Decree of the Special Act on the Support for Residents in Damage Caused by Oil Pollution in Switzerland and the Restoration of the Marine Environment, etc., in order to facilitate prompt payment of compensation to victims, and declared on June 23, 2008 that the 41st Enforcement Committee of the Plaintiff International Fund held on June 23, 2008, shall be subordinate to the State and local governments

② Accordingly, the Defendants reported each of the corresponding amounts stated in the “Report and Assessment Amount List” in the “Report and Assessment Amount List” to the limited liability court as above, as subordinated limited bonds.

③ On January 14, 2013, the limited liability court rendered a judgment on the assessment of each of the pertinent monetary amounts stated in the “amount of the court’s assessment decision on liability limitation” as to the Defendants’ reported claims. The Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit of demurrer against the judgment on the instant assessment on February 5, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, significant facts, and the court's inquiry of liability limitation case appraiser B on October 18, 2013, the whole purport of the pleading as a whole.

I. As to the limited claim of Jeollabuk-do

1. Judgment on reporting and assessing limited claims by the defendant;

On April 2, 2009, the Defendant reported total of KRW 116,577,040 as indicated below to the limitation court, and on January 14, 2013, the limitation court rendered a judgment on the circumstance that the Defendant’s reported claim is assessing the amount as indicated below as subordinate limited claim.1)

A person shall be appointed.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, significant facts, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 (including each number), and Eul evidence 1 (including each number), the result of the appraiser B's reply on October 18, 2013 to the fact inquiry of this court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. As to the oil cost of an air-going ship

A. Organization of issues

The Defendant’s consumption details of official oil and the consumption details acknowledged by the Plaintiffs in the process of the instant objection suit are as follows.3)

A person shall be appointed.

The part of the dispute between the plaintiffs and the defendant is the oil cost of the Jeonbuk 207.

B. Facts of recognition,

During the period from October 12, 2007 to 2008, 5, and 15, the Defendant operated 207 north-207 of the previous line of fishery guidance as indicated below, and the fuel consumption is a total of 14,401 liter.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

[Ground of recognition] Eul's statement No. 1-5 of evidence No. 1-5 and the purport of the whole pleading is the parties' assertion.

(1) Plaintiff International Fund’s assertion

The operation as of March 7, 2008-207, May 9, 2008, and May 15, 2008, when it cannot be deemed that the oil remains on the sea any longer. Thus, the relevance to the accident of this case cannot be recognized.

(2) The defendant's assertion

Since the 207 North Korea's activities on the field of oil damage area were conducted on each of the above dates, this part of the operation is also related to pollution response measures.

(d) Markets:

In light of the fact that the operation order of the above three-time operation of the Jeonbuk 207 only stated the purpose of departure as the "non-legal guidance and control on fisheries", and the fact that the above three-time operation of the preceding three-time operation of the three-time operation of the three-time operation of the three-time operation, the preceding three-time operation order does not additionally implement maritime preventive activities until January 10, 2008 at the time of the operation of the three-time operation, but rather, it is difficult to readily conclude that there is no evidence that proximate causal relation exists between the above three-time operation of the three-time operation of the three-time operation of the above three-time operation. In light of the fact that there is no evidence that there was a pure causal relation between the above three-time operation of the oil and the on-site operation of the island area (the year in March 7, 2008, May 9, 2008, etc.).

E. Sub-committee

Therefore, the assessment amount of this part of the reported claim should be 29,196,870 won ( = 16,860,780 won prior to North Korea) + 7,020,390 won prior to North Korea901 + 5,315,700 won prior to North Korea.

A. The plaintiff International Fund's assertion

With respect to the total amount of KRW 1,980,00 for employees on board three of the official ships among these expenses, the work of the official ships above the official ships was completed at around 18:00 each day and the entry and departure port was located at the Gunsan City, there is no need for night night watch. Thus, the above expenses for night watch cannot be recognized as a reasonable cost.

B. Determination

According to the evidence submitted by the Defendant, it can be acknowledged that the employees on board set forth in the preceding North Korea 207, the preceding North Korea 901, and the preceding North Korea 902 were on duty by one employee on a shift of duty for each official line for 22 days from December 10, 2007 to December 31, 2007, and that the total sum of KRW 1,980,000 ( = 30,000/day x 22 days x 3 days) was paid.

Furthermore, according to the reasoning of the Defendant’s expenditure of the expenses, in light of the fact that most of the above official lines completed preventive observation activities around 18:00 each day, it is insufficient to recognize that the above employee’s night duty was reasonable, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, the assessment amount of this part of the reported claim should be 7,854,000 won in total (- - meal cost of KRW 2,134,000 + KRW 720,000 in day duty + KRW 5,000 in departure equipment).

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the assessment amount of subordinated limitation claims reported by the defendant should be changed to the sum of KRW 73,293,910 as shown below.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

Ⅲ. As to the claim against the defendant 2. The High Military Court

1. Judgment on reporting and assessing limited claims by the defendant;

On April 2, 2009, the Defendant reported the total of KRW 6,252,100 as the limited claim, and reported the total of KRW 1,496,830,000 as the limited claim on August 17, 2012. Accordingly, on January 14, 2013, the limited liability court tried to assess the Defendant’s reported claim amount as described below as the subordinate limited claim.

A person shall be appointed.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, significant facts, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 2, Eul evidence 2 (including each number), the fact inquiry of this court, the result of the appraiser B's reply on October 18, 2013, the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The Supreme Court Decision 201Da17038, 2011Da17045, Jun. 28, 2012) held that the subject matter of the instant judgment or the subject matter of the instant lawsuit, which is subject to the instant judgment, is whether the administrator, etc., has any claim exceeding the estimated amount as limited claims (see Supreme Court Decision 201Da17038, 2011Da17045, Jun. 28, 2012). However, in a case where only the limited creditor, who stated an objection to the part acknowledged in the judgment of assessment among the claims, files a lawsuit of objection against the claims, the subject matter of the lawsuit is limited to the part recognized in the judgment of assessment among the claims

In this case, among the claims reported by the Defendant, the portion of the cost for image improvement in the oil damaged area was not recognized as limited claims on the assessment report, and the Defendant did not file a lawsuit of objection against this, while only the Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit of objection against the cost for the purchase of pest control goods and the cost for the creation of regional resources for oil damaged area, the subject matter of the lawsuit in this case is limited to the cost for the above pest control goods and the cost for the creation of resources for the oil damaged area.

Therefore, among the claims reported by the defendant, the subject of this Court's adjudication is limited to claims in the assessment court.

Since the above part is limited to the above part, the above part is considered to be limited.

3. As to the purchase cost of the pest control goods

A. The plaintiff International Fund's assertion

Since the details of the pest control work and the details of the goods used are not known, this part of the assessment amount shall be changed to zero won.

(b) Fact of recognition;

① During the period from December 31, 2007 to January 5, 2008, the Defendant collected 32,600 g, e.g., 32,600 g by using 1,846 annual personnel, including public officials, residents, etc. to conduct marine and coastal pest control operations. The details of pest control goods used for the above pest control operations are as follows (see, e.g., the Defendant’s ledger of receipts and payments).

A person shall be appointed.

(2) The expenses and amount used for the purchase of the above pest control goods shall be as specified in the following table:

A person shall be appointed.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of No. 2 (including a paper number), the whole purport of the pleading, and the whole purport of the pleading of No. 2 (including a paper number)

According to the above facts, within the aggregate of KRW 6,254,300 for the purchase cost of the pest control goods, the sum of KRW 6,252,100 reported by the defendant is recognized as having proximate causal relation with the accident of this case.

set forth in subsection (1).

4. As to the cost of creating resources in an area damaged by oil

(a) Facts of recognition;

(1) During the period from 2010 to 2013, the defendant implemented a project to create resources in areas damaged by oil for the purpose of creating resources for coastal fish stocks and increasing fishermen's income, and the detailed details of the project, total operating expenses, and project expenses shall be as listed in the following table:

A person shall be appointed.

② The Defendant reported the limited liability court’s total of KRW 1,00,000 as indicated in the following table in terms of the expenses for the creation of resources for oil damage areas from 2010 to 2015 (the actual expenses from 2010 to 2012, and the estimated expenses from 2013 to 2015), and the limited liability court assessed the total of KRW 437,50,000 as listed in the following table as the limited liability court.

A person shall be appointed.

[Reasons for Recognition] Clear fact, Eul's statement No. 2 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

B. Parties’ assertion

(1) Plaintiff International Fund’s assertion

The fishery seeds release business is a business that has been implemented in accordance with the "Guidelines for the Implementation of the Project for the Purchase and Release of Fishery Seeds and Seedlings" of the Ministry for Food, Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries for more than two hundred years before the occurrence of the accident of this case, and this part of the expenses are not

In addition, there is no ground to view that the number of birdsball and fish culture in the fishing ground within the jurisdiction of the defendant due to the accident of this case has decreased, and this part of the cost is not recognized as a causal relationship with the accident of this case.

In addition, it is difficult to regard the portion of the project cost appropriated as the State subsidy as the damage incurred to the defendant.

(2) The defendant's assertion

Although the cost that was disbursed to create resources in accordance with the previous government implementation guidelines was in normal condition at the time, the amount of the project performed after the occurrence of the instant accident was considerably larger. Therefore, it cannot be deemed that there was no causation in light of the rise in the need to create resources after the instant accident. In particular, considering the fact that the need to create resources became more serious after the instant accident, it cannot be deemed that there was no causation. In full view of the purport of the arguments in the items 28 and 29 of the evidence Nos. 2-28 and 29, the research institute for fisheries in Jeollabuk-do had released approximately KRW 340,000 for the purpose of "fishery resources and increase of fishermen's income in coastal fishing grounds", around 205, approximately KRW 340,000 for the purpose of raising fishery resources and fishermen's income, the Defendant discharged approximately KRW 76,000 for the same purpose at around 206.

According to the above facts of recognition, this part of the expenses reported by the defendant are for the purpose of increasing the income of fishery resources and fishermen through the formation of fishery resources, and its contents are the same as those already implemented before the accident in this case. Therefore, it is difficult to recognize that there is a proximate causal relation with the accident in this case, and there is no evidence to acknowledge this differently.

In addition, even if the cost of expenditure was increased after the accident of this case, as alleged by the Defendant, even if there is no proof that there was a need to create fishery resources by using more costs than the previous one after the accident of this case, it cannot be readily concluded that the increased cost of this case constitutes damage that is recognized as proximate causal relation with the accident of this case.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the assessment amount of subordinated limitation claims reported by the defendant should be changed to the sum of KRW 6,252,100 as shown below.

A person shall be appointed.

IV. As to the limited claim of the Defendant 3. Down-gun

1. Judgment on reporting and assessing limited claims by the defendant

On April 2, 2009, the Defendant reported a total of KRW 168,695,800 as indicated below to the limitation court, and on January 14, 2013, the limited liability court rendered a judgment on the assessment of the Defendant’s reported claims as subordinate limited claims on the following amount as stated below. 9)

A person shall be appointed.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, significant facts, Gap evidence 3, Eul evidence 3 (including each number), and Eul evidence 3 (including each number), the result of the appraiser B's reply on October 18, 2013 to the fact inquiry of this court, the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. As to the purchase cost of the pest control goods

(a) Facts of recognition;

After the accident of this case, the Defendant purchased the pest control goods as indicated below.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Eul No. 3 (including a serial number), the purport of the whole pleadings

B. Parties’ assertion

(1) Plaintiff International Fund’s assertion

Since the Korea Marine Environment Management Corporation takes charge of the pest control work of the subordinate military forces after January 9, 2008, it is difficult to recognize the necessity for the defendant to purchase the pest control goods in 2008.

(2) The defendant's assertion

Around December 2007, pest control work was urgently required, and the available budget was very lacking. Accordingly, the price was paid with related documents at the time of securing the next budget after the purchase of goods on credit. Therefore, most of the pest control goods actually purchased at the end of December 2007.

In addition, it was difficult to secure pest control goods due to the relationship between pest control and the temporary progress of pest control work at the time, and no pest control plan was issued by the government or related agency, so it was impossible for the defendant to predict the appropriate amount of the goods required for pest control work, and there was no choice but to purchase a large number of goods available in the situation at the time.

Therefore, if the accident of this case did not occur, the purchase cost of the above pest control goods should not be spent, and the cost for the remaining small quantity should also be recognized as the cost for the prevention and removal measures. However, as seen earlier, since the pest control work performed by the Haan-gun, a public official mobilized on January 14, 2008, it is difficult to recognize that the cost for the pest control goods purchased after January 2008 constitutes the cost for the reasonable prevention and removal measures, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it (the defendant's assertion that the purchase time of the loan is the actual time of the purchase of the goods is for December 2007).

D. Sub-committee

Therefore, this part of the assessment amount should be KRW 41,626,100 in total for the purchase cost of pest control goods purchased in 2007.

3. As to the truck, schere sirens (from May 2008 to August 2008) and the personnel expenses of residents in the upper drawings (after April 2008)

A. The parties' assertion

(1) Plaintiff International Fund’s assertion

The cost of this part shall be assessed in KRW 0, inasmuch as there is no evidence to acknowledge the relevance with the instant accident.

(2) The defendant's assertion

위도면 주민 인건비는 2008년 4월 이후에도 타르가 강풍이나 조류에 의하여 수시로 해안가에 밀려왔고 기온 및 수온 상승으로 기존의 해안가 암반 사이에 있던 타르 덩어리들이 녹으면서 주변을 오염시키는 상황이 발생하여 위도면 주민들을 동원하여 일명 '갯닦기' 작업을 시행한데 소요된 비용이다. 트럭 및 굴삭기 렌탈료는 2008년 5월부터 2008년 8월까지 위도면 해안가에 밀려 온 타르를 주워담은 마대를 운반하는데 동원된 차량 및 굴삭기 비용이다.

B. Determination

This part of the limitation claims reported by the Defendant are related to the coastal pest control work that was enforced from April 11, 2008 to November 3, 2008, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that additional pollution has occurred in the above drawings during the above period.

Therefore, this part of the circumstances should be 0 won each.

4. On personnel expenses for public officials mobilized for pest control operations:

A. The details reported by the Defendant and the details recognized by the Plaintiffs regarding the costs are as follows: (a) the details reported by the Defendant to the limitation of liability court and the details acknowledged by the Plaintiffs are as follows.

A person shall be appointed.

B. Parties’ assertion

(1) Plaintiff International Fund’s assertion

From January 10, 2008, the Korea Marine Environment Management Corporation was in charge of the pest control work of Buan-gun. Since the defendant did not specify the satellite and inputs for the government officials' input from January 10, 2008, the labor cost of public officials after January 10, 2008 cannot be recognized.

(2) The defendant's assertion

Since the Korea Marine Environment Management Corporation has implemented pest control work on a preferential basis only in the above-do area, it has implemented pest control work under the direction of the public officials belonging to the defendant.

From January 14, 2008, the Defendant mobilized public officials belonging to the Defendant from January 2, 2007 to January 14, 2008 and performed coastal pest control operations. The number of mobilizations by department is as listed below.

A person shall be appointed.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence No. 3, Evidence No. 3, Evidence No. 3 (including additional number), and the purport of the whole pleading

(d) Markets:

The following circumstances revealed by the evidence revealed, i.e., the Korea Marine Environment Management Corporation, from January 9, 2008 to its sub-Gun area; (ii) it appears that the Defendant had no choice but to take charge of the eradication work in the area where the land was changed; and (iii) public officials who participated in the eradication work after January 10, 208 to 208, except two public officials belonging to the Maritime Affairs and Fisheries on January 13, 2008; and (iv) public officials belonging to the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries are not deemed to have participated in the eradication work in areas other than the changing area (this is supported even at the place of meal provision as seen earlier); and (iv) the Plaintiff’s International Fund still did not have reasonable causal relation with the Defendant’s demand for eradication work in the area where the National Park Management Center was changed from February 15, 2008 to 208 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Do2816, Feb. 26, 20192).

E. Sub-committee

Therefore, this part of the circumstances should be the sum of 45,080,000 won.

5. As to the food expenses and the cost of meals for public officials in the Army and Navy ( February 2, 2008)

A. The parties' assertion

(1) Plaintiff International Fund’s assertion

The cost of this part (=food cost of KRW 970,00 + food cost of KRW 198,000) is the cost paid in February 2008 by the Korea Marine Environment Management Corporation after commencement of the pest control work in the area of the father-Gun. Therefore, it is difficult to recognize rationality.

(2) The defendant's assertion

From January 4, 2008 to January 14, 2008, meal expenses of 970,000 won are food expenses incurred by public officials belonging to the defendant in performing pest control operations in the areas of variable bathing beaches and neighboring areas, and food expenses of 198,00 won are food expenses spent when employees belonging to the Jeonju District Prosecutors' Office work together with the public officials belonging to the defendant and residents of the Jeonju Prosecutors' Office on January 14, 2008.

(b) Markets:

First of all, considering the health stand, the above evidence, and evidence No. 3-10-1 of the evidence No. 3, food expenses 970,000 won, based on the overall purport of the pleadings, it can be acknowledged that the 194 public officials belonging to the defendant are food expenses provided to the above public officials at the time of performing pest control operations in the neighboring areas from January 4, 2008 to January 14, 2008. As seen earlier, since the pest control operations of the public officials belonging to the defendant during the above period are reasonable, the above food expenses 970,000 won as expenses for pest control measures and the proximate causal relation with the accident of this case is recognized. Thus, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

Next, comprehensively taking account of the aforementioned evidence and evidence as well as evidence Nos. 10-2 of the evidence No. 3 as to the ordinary food expenses, 198,000 won for the ordinary food expenses provided to 180 civilians who participated in the pest control work on Jan. 14, 2008, when considering that the Korea Marine Environment Management Corporation did not perform pest control work on the land area, it is recognized that the participation of civilians in the pest control work during the above period is reasonable, and thus, the above simple food expenses No. 198,000 won for the prevention measures constituted damage for which proximate causal relation with the accident of this case is acknowledged. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion in this part is without merit.

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, this part of the assessment amount should be the sum of KRW 1,168,000 (i.e., meal cost of KRW 970,000 + food cost of KRW 198,00).

6. As to the waste disposal expenses

A. The parties' assertion

(1) Plaintiff International Fund’s assertion

This part of the cost shall not be recognized unless there is a submission of data to verify the volume of actually disposed wastes.

(2) The defendant's assertion

The cost of this part shall be the volume of wastes not collected from the above map to be taken out to the land.

is the cost borne by the Defendant.

B. Determination

In full view of the above evidence and evidence No. 3-11 of evidence No. 3-2, the defendant, at around January 2008, requested the Catex Co., Ltd. to remove and dispose of tar flowing into the above map, and carried the wastes collected from the above map out of the above drawings into land for the purpose of collecting and disposing of tar, and during this process, the defendant paid 90,000,000 won in total of the ships used for the above company's collection (5 tons) and transportation vehicle (19 tons).

In addition to the above-mentioned facts, when January 2008 was in force from the above-mentioned map, the above-mentioned freight of KRW 900,000 shall be deemed as the expense for prevention and removal measures and the proximate causal relation with the accident of this case. Thus, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit (in light of the characteristics of the island where it is restricted in means of transportation and the shipping fares are irrelevant to the quantity of the transported wastes, so long as it is acknowledged that the ship was used in shipping wastes to land and shipping wastes to land, the mere reason that the quantity of the actually disposed wastes is not verified does not obstruct the recognition of this part of the expense as limited claims).

Therefore, this part of the assessment amount should be a sum of KRW 900,000.

7. As to the cost of manufacturing and installing containers for storing pest control goods

A. The part of the cost of organizing the issue is KRW 13,705,000, total of the expenses incurred by the Defendant in manufacturing and installing four containers for storing pest control goods (three ports, one above-mentioned ports). In this regard, the Plaintiff International Fund may use the container for other purposes after the completion of the pest control work, and thus, it is appropriate to pay royalties, not the purchase price. The amount is the sum of the rent for one month ( = 300,000,000 x 4). The Defendant asserts that the amount should be the sum of the rent for one month ( = 300,000,000 x 4). Accordingly, it is understood that the Defendant currently has the custody of the pest control goods (the claim that the period of one month or more should be recognized). Accordingly, this part is whether the payment period of the fee can be recognized for more than one month.

(b) Markets:

In light of the above-mentioned period of self-prevention (from December 25, 2007 to January 14, 2008) of the defendant, the above-month period is deemed reasonable, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the reasonableness of the above-month period, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

Therefore, this part of the assessment amount should be KRW 1,200,000.

8. With respect to oil expenses (Korean War 202)

A. The parties' assertion

(1) Plaintiff International Fund’s assertion

Of the navigation details of the official ships north 202, 208, the navigation of April 1, 2008, belonging to the Defendant, did not have any evidence to acknowledge the relevance to the instant accident, and this part of the circumstances should be the sum of oil costs until January 4, 2008.

(2) The defendant's assertion

On April 1, 2008, a civil petition was filed for an additional entry of tar into an area of the Do, requiring a pest control work, and the transportation and distribution of goods necessary for pest control work to the government line was made to the government line, and in order to grasp the current status of tar additionally introduced, tar collected in an effort to conduct preventive observations on the neighboring sea and marking on the sea using the government line.

(b) Markets:

According to the anti-port 202 of the former North Korea's 202, the fact that the former North Korea loaded the pest control equipment on April 1, 2008 and performed tar observation activities in the inshore of the Do is recognized (no evidence exists to acknowledge that the collection of tar was made). Considering that the contents of the above anti-port stuff are abstract, and the point of the operation is after the completion of the pest control operations on the above map by the Korea Marine Environment Management Corporation, the above facts alone are insufficient to readily conclude the cost required for this part of the operation under the preceding North Korea's 202, and there is no evidence to prove otherwise.

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, this part of the assessment amount should be the sum of the oil cost up to January 4, 2008 to KRW 4,275,495 ( = 3,087 liter X 1,385).

9. As to the outer markets and deck equipment

A. The parties' assertion

(1) Plaintiff International Fund’s assertion

Since there is no evidence to know the degree and degree of contamination in the preceding North Korea 202, this part of the assessment amount shall be zero won.

(2) The defendant's assertion

In February 2008, the defendant put an official ship into the sea to collect tar Does, and collected tar Does, and the hulls were changed from the outside of the hulls, and thus, it was inevitable to detect and color oil. However, the above work was carried out together while conducting regular repair of the official ship.

B. Determination

According to the evidence submitted by the Defendant, on December 2, 2007, the Defendant entered into a service contract between the Han Engineering Co., Ltd. and the Han Engineering Co., Ltd. for the repair work of 202 won in the price of KRW 19,557,000, and the repair work of 202 from December 26, 2007 to February 11, 2008 was executed between the repair work of 202,00, and the Defendant reported this part of the limited claim, which is the amount equivalent to the length of the hull and deck seal cost of the repair work of 2,934,200 won in the above repair cost. However, it is insufficient to find that the above recognition alone alone causes damage to oil in the course of marine pollution response, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, this part of the circumstances should be zero won.

10. Conclusion

Therefore, the assessment amount of subordinated limitation claims reported by the defendant should be changed to the sum of KRW 99,519,595 as shown below.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

5. As to the claim against the defendant 4. The defendant 1

1. Judgment on reporting and assessing limited claims by the defendant;

On April 2, 2009, the Defendant reported a total of KRW 307,801,470 as indicated below to the limitation court, and on January 14, 2013, the limited liability court rendered a judgment on the assessment of the Defendant’s reported claim as subordinate limited claim on the condition that the amount as listed below is considered as subordinate limited claim.

A person shall be appointed.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, significant facts, Gap evidence No. 4, Eul evidence No. 4 (including each number), Eul evidence No. 4 (including each number), the result of the appraiser B's reply on October 18, 2013, the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. As to the rent of a fishing vessel

A. The plaintiff International Fund's assertion

It is not possible to recognize the relevance between the usage fee of fishing vessels reported and the pest control work due to the submission of the certificate of shipment, the entry report, the pest control implementation area, and the data containing the work contents. On the other hand, this part of the claim is overlapping with the claim number 39.1 of the Center at the time of military production.

(b) Fact of recognition;

The Defendant mobilized the fishing vessel immediately after the instant accident and carried out marine pollution response operations, and the details of the mobilization of the fishing vessel reported by the Defendant with limited claims in relation to the above marine pollution response operations are as listed in the following table. Meanwhile, the date marked on the date of mobilization as follows is the portion for which the captain already received the user fee for the fishing vessel incurred from the captain’s participation in marine pollution response operations on the date.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

[Ground of recognition] The evidence No. 4, No. 4, and No. 4 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings.

The above facts and the evidence revealed as follows: ① the time when the Defendant used the fishing vessel to take marine pollution response measures was found to have been necessary to urgently cope with the oil leaked from the accident to the sea area under the jurisdiction of the Si of Gun, and ② the maritime pollution response operations using such fishing vessel appears to have been necessary to prevent the spread of pollution at the early stage when oil flows into the Gun, and to protect neighboring fishing grounds from pollution; ③ the above 83 fishing vessels were mobilized to take emergency response measures in the island, coast, and the sea area of Gun, as seen above, the Defendant’s report related to the marine pollution response measures on December 21, 2007 (No. 4-17-1), and ④ the Plaintiff International Fund recognized the rationality of the mobilized fishing vessel as the cost of the marine pollution response measures for the above period (the Plaintiff’s claim number 39.1) and even recognized the reasonable causation of the cost of the previous fishing vessel as the cost of the marine pollution response measures.

However, as recognized earlier, with respect to the mobilization of fishing vessels from Nos. 21 to 25 on December 17, 2007, the Republic of Korea (the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs) has already paid the Defendant the amount equivalent to the above substitute payment by subrogation, and reported the amount equivalent to the above substitute payment by the limited court to the limited claim (the No. 5828). Thus, the amount equivalent to this portion of the user fee should be deducted.

D. Sub-committee

Therefore, this part of the assessment amount should be 35,075,000 won in total for fishing vessels from Nos. 1 to 20 of the above table ( = 462,50 won/day x 68 days + 362,50 won/day x 10 days).

3. As to the transportation cost of pest control personnel

(a) Facts of recognition;

During the period from December 26, 2007 to December 28, 2007, the Defendant transported human resources to perform pest control operations in the year from the Gunsan to the year from the Si of Gun. The details are as follows.

A person shall be appointed.

[Reasons for Recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 4, Eul evidence No. 4 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

B. Parties’ assertion

(1) Plaintiff International Fund’s assertion

In relation to this part of the cost, the human resources on board the excursion ship are not public officials belonging to the defendant, but police and military personnel, so they should be treated as volunteers.

Whether the expenses of volunteers shall be compensated for or not shall be determined according to whether the expenses incurred appropriately in a specific case.

However, in this case, in view of the fact that a large number of volunteers were unable to assist the prevention and removal work, and that there was a classification of volunteers and the allocation of work areas for them when they came to be "place equipped with uniforms and equipment", and that there was no need to mobilize persons in the area with several white km away from technical perspective to carry out the prevention and removal work, it is difficult to view that the transportation cost occurred for the section until the arrival of the above "place equipped with uniforms and equipment" is within a reasonable scope.

(2) The defendant's assertion

This part of transportation costs constitute inevitable expenses caused by the instant accident, and even if based on the manual for claiming compensation by the Plaintiff International Fund, they constitute compensation costs.

The following circumstances revealed by the evidence revealed as follows: ① The year was the island with the largest pollution caused by the instant accident within the jurisdiction of the Gunsan City (the year began with the oil from December 16, 2007 and continued to be implemented until April 8, 2008). The time when the Defendant’s human resources were mobilized was the urgent time immediately after the oil was discharged in the year; ② it appears that the limited number of human resources inside the island was difficult to cope with oil pollution caused by the instant accident in the circumstance of serious pollution; ② it appears that the participation of outside human resources, such as the land, was inevitable and sufficiently foreseeable; ③ In order to move from the island to the region of the island to the region of the island, there were no other means to require the movement of the ship from the land area to the land area, and there was no reasonable causal relation between the Plaintiff’s own and the leased public officials of Jeollabuk-do to participate in the instant accident for the same reason as the Plaintiff’s rent for the year of December 17, 2007.

D. Sub-committee

Therefore, this part of the assessment amount should be the sum of 7,500,000 won.

4. As to the purchase cost of the pest control goods

A. Details of the defendant's purchase of goods and whether to recognize the plaintiffs

After the accident of this case, the defendant purchased various pest control items as listed below, and whether the plaintiffs' reasonable cost is recognized is as listed below (whether or not the plaintiffs are admitted or not).

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

[Reasons for Recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 4, Eul evidence No. 4 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

B. Plaintiff International Fund’s assertion

The purchase portion after January 2008 cannot be recognized, Mask and dry from the purchase portion in December 2007 should not be directly related to the pest control work, and all kinds of Tongs (containers) and logs should be limited to 80% of the claimed volume.13)

C. Determination

First of all, there is no evidence to find out how the above pest control goods have been used with respect to the purchase since January 2008.

Furthermore, it can be known that the Plaintiff International Fund used Mask and dry for pest control operations even if it is based on the 'Report on Response to Oil Outflow Accident' (No. 4-16-19) of the 'Report of the Maritime Disaster and Safety Countermeasure Headquarters' (No. 4-2) 'Report on Response to Oil Outflow Accident') 'Report of the Maritime Disaster and Safety Countermeasure Headquarters') · the purchase cost for this portion is the cost of preventive measures and proximate causal relation with the accident in this case.

set forth in subsection (1).

Next, there is no evidence that the amount exceeding the above 80% recognized by the plaintiffs is reasonable expenditure.

D. Sub-committee

Therefore, this part of the circumstances shall be the sum of KRW 95,502,740 as shown below. c. 14)

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

5. As to the purchase cost of the smoking medication

A. The plaintiff International Fund's assertion

Since there is no evidentiary document for the purchase of smoking, this part of the expenses shall not be recognized.

B. Determination

In full view of the above evidence and evidence No. 4-1, 19, and Eul evidence No. 4-1, 17-1, 17-1, and 12 of the evidence No. 4-16-1, 17-1, and 17-12 of the whole pleadings, the defendant purchased at Y from Y on December 16, 2007 to 38,280,000 won ( = 400 Y X95,70 won) in total, and then used it for eradication work. The expenses in this part constitute reasonable cost of preventive measures in light of time and quantity, for which proximate causal relation with the accident of this case is recognized.

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, this part of the assessment amount should be KRW 38,280,000.

6. As to the oil cost of an air-going ship

A. The plaintiff International Fund's assertion

It is not recognized that there is no material containing the number of transport by ship, the area of use of pest control materials, and the content of work for each ship, and that this part is related to the pest control work.

B. Determination

In full view of the purport of the entire arguments in the statement No. 4-14 of the evidence No. 4, it is recognized that the defendant No. 209 and No. 503 of the official ship belonging to the defendant had engaged in the following activities:

Details of operations referred to in the preceding North Korean 209

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

Details of operations referred to in the preceding North 503

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

According to the above facts, this part of the cost of preventive measures is the cost of preventive measures and the cost of reasonable preventive measures is deemed to have proximate causal relation with the accident in this case.

Therefore, this part of the assessment amount should be 51,696,400 won in total ( = Jeonbuk-209 28,111 x 1,480 won + 6,819 x 6,819 x 1,480 won).

7. As to the purchase and removal expenses of pents and pents

(a) The details of this part of the report shall be as follows:

A person shall be appointed.

B. Plaintiff International Fund’s assertion

This part of the cost is difficult to be recognized as long as the evidentiary materials are not submitted.

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the statement No. 4-19-19 and No. 4-17-12 of the evidence No. 4-16-19 and the whole purport of the argument, the defendant may recognize the fact that the defendant installed 3,000 meters of the luminous 3,000m of the pentle and the pentle 480m of the pentle around December 2007 on the neighboring sea of the Y, and the purchase cost of the pentle and its installation equipment is 15,01,700 won in total, and the purchase cost of the pentle is 12,74,000 won in the pentle. According to the above facts, according to the above facts, this part of the expenses are reasonable preventive measures and

D. Sub-committee

Therefore, this part of the assessment amount should be 27,755,700 won in total ( = 15,011,700 won such as installation cost of luminous gate + 12,744,00 won in purchase cost of Oral gates).

8. As to the waste disposal cost

(a) The details of this part of the report shall be as follows:

A person shall be appointed.

B. Plaintiff International Fund’s assertion

This part of the cost is difficult to be recognized as long as the evidentiary materials are not submitted.

In full view of the purport of evidence No. 4-1 in the statement No. 4-9-1, the defendant disposed of a total of 32,070 km of oil wastes on December 2007, and incurred KRW 10,726,070 at the expense. According to the above facts, the expenses in this part constitute reasonable cost of pollution response measures, which is recognized as proximate causal relation with the accident of this case.

D. Sub-committee

Therefore, this part of the assessment amount should be the sum of KRW 11,239,070 ( = waste disposal expenses + KRW 10,726,070 + 513,000).

9. On the purchase cost of office supplies

(a) The details of this part of the report shall be as follows:

A person shall be appointed.

B. Plaintiff International Fund’s assertion

This part of the cost is not necessary for the pest control work, and it is difficult to recognize it.

The current state of pollution and the situation plate of the situation of pollution are required for the defendant to grasp the current state of pollution and conduct pollution response operations, and they correspond to the expenses additionally disbursed due to the accident of this case. Therefore, it shall be deemed that proximate causal relation with the accident of this case

The written letter of offline excess and volunteer audit shall not be deemed to have a proximate causal relation with the accident of this case, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

D. Sub-committee

Therefore, this part of the assessment amount should be KRW 894,00 for the current status of pollution and the production cost of the situation board.

10. As to the meal cost

(a) The details of this part of the report shall be as follows:

A person shall be appointed.

B. Plaintiff International Fund’s assertion

The amount of emergency duty personnel's allowance for marine pollution response work is not known due to the lack of identification of the list of persons subject to meal service and the details of duties by date, and there is no relevance with the response work, and there is no part related to the response work of volunteers after January 2008 among the remaining items.

B. Determination

On the other hand, there is no evidence to confirm the specific contents of the work with respect to the portion exceeding the above amount recognized by the plaintiffs, and the evidence presented by the defendant without further review as to the remainder is difficult to readily conclude that this part of the cost constitutes the cost of reasonable prevention and removal measures.

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, this part of the assessment amount should be KRW 2,405,00, which is the amount recognized as the above plaintiffs.

11. Conclusion

Therefore, the assessment amount of subordinated limited claims reported by the defendant should be changed to the sum of KRW 270,347,910 as shown below.

A person shall be appointed.

VI. As to the limited claim against Defendant 11. Hean Military Department

1. Judgment on reporting and assessing limited claims by the defendant

On April 29, 2009, the Defendant reported a total of KRW 209,075,810 as a limited claim (the first reported amount was KRW 213,55,810, but the reported amount was 4,480,000 as a resident labor cost of July 26, 2012.).

A person shall be appointed.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, significant facts, Gap evidence No. 11, Eul evidence No. 11 (including each number), and Eul evidence No. 11, the fact inquiry of this court, the result of the appraiser B's reply on October 18, 2013, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. As to the costs of marine environment purification work

(a) Facts of recognition;

On July 9, 2008, the Defendant entered into a technical service contract with the Korea Marine Survey Technology Association, setting the project period from July 16, 2008 to August 14, 2008, to August 6, 2000, and setting the contract amount of KRW 6,600,000 with respect to the "business of purifying the marine environment in areas damaged by tar". On August 25, 2008, the Defendant entered into a service contract by setting the project period as KRW 157,80,000 with Sejong Construction Co., Ltd. with respect to the "business of purifying the marine environment in areas damaged by tar" in relation to the "business of purifying the marine environment in areas damaged by tar".

[Grounds for recognition] Each entry of No. 11 (including paper numbers) of Eul and the purport of the whole pleadings.

B. Plaintiff International Fund’s assertion

The evidence submitted by the defendant alone does not reveal the content of the marine environment purification project that the defendant performed, and it is difficult to recognize that the cost of the defendant spent is related to the accident of this case.

There is no evidence to acknowledge that the marine environment purification business conducted by the defendant is related to the accident of this case. Thus, the assessment amount of this part of the reported claim should be zero won.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, regarding the defendant's subordinate limitation claims, the sum of KRW 8,564,80 should be assessed as shown in the following table.

A person shall be appointed.

VI. As to Defendant 13. Young Military Limited Claim

1. Judgment on reporting and assessing limited claims by the defendant

On April 28, 2009, the Defendant reported a total of KRW 181,792,160 as indicated below to the limitation court. On January 14, 2013, the limitation court rendered a judgment on the circumstance that the Defendant’s reported claims are assessed as subordinate limited claims as indicated below. 15)

A person shall be appointed.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, significant facts, Gap evidence 13, Eul evidence 13 (including each number), and Eul evidence 13 (including each number), the result of the appraiser B's reply to the fact inquiry of this court on October 18, 2013, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. As to the purchase cost of the pest control goods

(a) Facts of recognition;

From December 31, 2007 to January 9, 2008, the Defendant mobilized the number of residents as shown below to implement coastal pest control operations.

A person shall be appointed.

[Ground of recognition] The Gap evidence Nos. 13 and Eul evidence Nos. 13 (including each number), the whole purport of the pleading

Of the items reported by the Defendant as the purchase cost of pest control goods, the number of disposable work clothes 9,200, 4,760 Gacls, and 6,870 Gacls 6,870 is excessive compared to the number of inputs. As such, the number of inputs should be reduced in consideration of the number of inputs. The reasonable cost of pollution response is 63,970,760 won among the total cost of 85,108,200 won reported by the Defendant.

C. Determination

Considering the number of residents mobilized for pest control operations as above, the evidence submitted by the defendant alone is insufficient to recognize that the amount exceeding the above 63,970,760 won, which the plaintiffs acknowledged, constitutes a reasonable expense, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

D. Sub-committee

Therefore, this part of the assessment amount should be the above 63,970,760 won.

3. As to the cost of meals, the cost of meals, and the cost of bathing

A. The details of this part of the report and the plaintiffs' recognition amount are as listed below.

A person shall be appointed.

B. Plaintiff International Fund’s assertion

Expenses incurred in relation to the disbursement of the white water Eup, Masan-si, and the Scong-si are the food expenses and the simple food expenses of the residents mobilized for the pest control operations, and personnel expenses have been paid to residents, and these expenses include food expenses and the simple food expenses, so this part of the expenses should be excluded from compensation. In addition, the expenses related to public officials and volunteers after January 10, 2008 should be proved that their input was inevitable, and there is no evidence to acknowledge this.

C. Determination

First of all, it is necessary to prove that there is a need to provide meals and meals in addition to personnel expenses for residents who received personnel expenses for health expenses and for residents who received personnel expenses for white water Eup, salt dynasium, and fallen dynasium.

Next, in order to recognize that the expenses for disaster management and the red farming Eup constitute the expenses for reasonable prevention and removal measures, the contents of the prevention and removal measures implemented in relation to the disbursement of the expenses should first be proven, and there is no evidence to acknowledge this.

D. Sub-committee

Therefore, this part of the assessment amount should be above 22,067,660 won.

4. As to the equipment rent

A. Details of this part of the report and the amount recognized as the plaintiffs

This part of the report and the amount recognized by the plaintiffs are as follows:

A person shall be appointed.

B. As to the marine fishery division

(1) The parties' assertion

1) Plaintiff International Fund’s assertion

The rent part of a fishing vessel used on June 19, 2008 is difficult to be recognized as a limited claim unless specific details and necessity are proven in that the rent part of the fishing vessel used on June 19, 2008 is about five months after the pest control work is completed.

B) Defendant’s assertion

The ship used on June 19, 2008 is a cost directly related to the pest control work, which was used for the purpose of establishing the second pest control plan after investigating the pollution area caused by re-entry of tar into the island, such as an island, such as the remote island.

(2) According to the statement No. 13-7 through 10 of the card No. 13-10, the defendant leased a fishing vessel on June 19, 2008 for the purpose of investigating the polluted area against the discharge of island, such as the remote-sloping island, and establishing the second pest control plan, but there is no evidence to acknowledge that the above measures were reasonable. As to the remote-sloping part, there is no evidence to support that the above measures were reasonable.

(1) Details of the Defendant’s report and amount recognized as the Plaintiffs

In relation to this part, the details reported by the defendant and the amount recognized by the plaintiffs are as follows:

A person shall be appointed.

(2) A Party’s assertion as to the portion of vessel usage fees and DK usage fees

1) Plaintiff International Fund’s assertion

Considering that the pest control work ends on January 4, 2008 in the case of the falling-month, it is difficult to recognize the necessity for exceeding the portion of the user fee for the two-day fishing vessel of DJ and the part of the user fee for the one-day fishing vessel of DK.

2) The defendant's assertion

Since the opening of a road for the prevention of tar and its surrounding rearrangement work has been conducted for 20 days from January 6, 2008 to January 25, 2008 in the Songdo Island, which is an island annexed to the Nakdong River, the use fee of equipment from January 25, 2008 should also be included in the compensation subject.

In full view of the purport of evidence Eul evidence No. 13-14 of the argument, it is found that as a result of ascertaining the state of pollution and the current state of pollution in islands and coastal areas within the jurisdiction for three days from January 8, 2008 to January 10, 2008, it was confirmed that the coast on the north north of the dispatchingdo Do tar tar tar tar tar tar tar tar tar tar tar tar tar tar tar tar tar tar tar tar tar tar tar tar tar tar tar tar tar tar tar tar sn. 4.9 km. According to the above fact of recognition, it is reasonable to deem that there was a need for the work (this exceeds the scope of the equipment used on January 18, 2008 and January 28, 2008).

Therefore, this part of the circumstances should be the sum of 3,200,000 won.

(3) As to the part of the DL royalty

(A) Plaintiff International Fund’s assertion

This part of the cost shall not be recognized as limited claims unless the necessity and efficiency of road expansion works are proven. In-house plates

Since there is no evidence to acknowledge that the road construction works were necessary in the small evisgs, this part of the circumstances should be zero won.

D. Sub-committee

Therefore, this part of the circumstances should be the sum of 31,780,000 won as shown below.

A person shall be appointed.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant's subordinate limitation claims should be assessed in total of KRW 117,818,420 as shown in the following table.

A person shall be appointed.

M, Defendant 18. Limited Claims of the New Military

1. Judgment on reporting and assessing limited claims by the defendant;

On May 1, 2009, the Defendant reported a total of KRW 530,622,488 (the first reported amount was KRW 704,302,488, but the reported amount was excluded from the reported amount on July 26, 2012) as limited claims. On January 14, 2013, the limited liability court tried to assess the Defendant’s reported amount as described below as subordinate limited claims.

A person shall be appointed.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, significant facts, Gap evidence No. 18, Eul evidence No. 18 (including each number), and Eul evidence No. 18 (including each number), the result of the appraiser B's reply on October 18, 2013, the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. As to the purchase cost of equipment

A. The Defendant reported the amount of money as indicated below with limited bonds to the expenses incurred in relation to the pest control work (the part against which the Plaintiffs dispute the part dealt with).

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

B. As to the purchase cost of pest control goods

(1) Plaintiff International Fund’s assertion

In the case of smoking parcels purchased in January and February 2008, evidential data is insufficient, and in the case of smoking parcels used in June and July 2008, it shall not be recognized as a limited claim unless it is proved that the use thereof is necessary in light of the pollution and control period in the area of the new Gun.

In addition, the purchase of goods purchased after the local government's pest control period has expired at the guidance Eup, fluoral surface, fluoral surface, or the private pest control business entity, Dongyang Co., Ltd. started pest control operations in the relevant region shall not be recognized as a limited claim because it is unnecessary to purchase them

(2) Comprehensively taking account of the timing to purchase a smoke bag purchased between January 28, 2008 and February 3, 2008 and the level of progress of the pest control work, etc., the purchase price of a smoke bag purchased by the Newanan-gun Office from January 28, 2008 to February 3, 2008, which can be seen as the cost of reasonable preventive measures and proximate causal relation with the instant accident (However, there is no evidence that the purchase price of a smoke bag purchased after June 208 and the purchase price of the goods purchased after the expiration of the self pest control period from each Eup/Myeon).

Therefore, this part of the circumstances should be the sum of 90,305,240 won as shown below.

A person shall be appointed.

C. As to the cost of food and the cost of food service

(1) Plaintiff International Fund’s assertion

Of this part of the reported amount, the portion exceeding KRW 7,368,300 of the Newanan Military Administration shall not be recognized as a limited claim because there is no data showing the current status of the pest control work related to the use of food expenses, or there is no data showing the current status of the pest control work related to the use of food expenses.

The food expenses of a guidance Eup, a supporting drawing, a Myeon, a Myeon, a Myeon, a Myeon, a Myeon, a Myeon, a Myeon, a Myeon, a Myeon, a Myeon, a Myeon, a secret Myeon, and a pressure Eup are already included in the personnel expenses that a resident receives. Therefore, it cannot be recognized as a limited claim because the subject is a volunteer or a resident is not known. In light of the control period, the part that exceeds the total food expenses of 4,143,150 won until January 14, 2008 shall not be recognized.

There is no evidence to acknowledge that the expenditure exceeding the amount recognized by the International Fund is related to the other party to the expenditure, the use of food expenses, and the prevention work.

Therefore, this part of the circumstances should be the sum of 11,511,450 won as shown below.

A person shall be appointed.

D. As to the fees for the use of vehicles and equipment

(1) Plaintiff International Fund’s assertion

Among these expenses, the transportation expenses of public officials and volunteers are not subject to compensation, and the remaining expenses shall not be recognized as being unable to verify the details of the eradication work, or shall be reduced partially in consideration of the rationality of the period.

(2) Determination:

In order to recognize vehicles and equipment as the cost of reasonable prevention and removal measures, the contents of the work with which the vehicles and equipment were put should be proved first, and there is no evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, this part of the assessment amount should be KRW 1,651,280 in total of the amounts acknowledged by the plaintiffs as shown below.

A person shall be appointed.

E. Sub-committee

Therefore, this part of the circumstances should be the sum of 114,008,048 won as shown below.

A person shall be appointed.

3. Regarding expenses for prevention activities of volunteer fire brigades

A. From August 3, 2008 to August 8, 2008, the Defendant reported 46,200,000 won as limited bonds if the Defendant spent 46,20,000 won as activity expenses. The Defendant reported the amount equivalent to the above activity expenses as limited bonds.

B. Plaintiff International Fund’s assertion

There is no evidence to know where the above volunteer fire fighters performed any work.

C. Determination

Since there is no evidence to acknowledge the working date, place, and work contents of the above volunteer fire fighters reported by the Defendant, this part of the assessment amount shall be zero won.

4. As to the additional pest control expenses

A. The Defendant reported the content of the Defendant’s report with limited claims on the cost of pest control operations conducted in 2009 as indicated below.

A person shall be appointed.

B. Plaintiff International Fund’s assertion

In the course of a field investigation on the coast and the wingshore of fishing intention conducted from April 3, 2009 to April 9, 2009, tarball discovered at the time was found not to have properly disposed of, but to have caused waste bags left alone. Therefore, the above contamination that occurred in the 2009 from the dura and Dorari of a map Eup does not have a proximate causal relation with the accident of this case.

The pest control work that was conducted on the non-face was conducted more than 16 months after the accident in this case, and since there was no data to grasp the cause and contents of the pollution, the tarb discovered at that time cannot be deemed to be an oil leaked due to the accident in this case.

In light of the fact that the time additional discovery of Ttarball was after a considerable period of time after the instant accident, and the result of the on-site investigation conducted around April 2009, the evidence alone submitted by the Defendant is insufficient to readily conclude that there exists a proximate causal relation with the instant accident, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise, this part of the circumstances should be zero won.

5. As to the cost of collecting and disposing of marine waste contaminated by tar

A. The Defendant reported the following facts: (a) conducted a marine waste collection and disposal business within the jurisdiction of the second half of 2008; and (b) reported the total of KRW 105,000,000 as limited bonds in terms of the expenses.

B. Plaintiff International Fund’s assertion

Waste collected by the Defendant is a waste which has been left abandoned in the past, irrelevant to the accident of this case.

C. Determination

Since there is no evidence to acknowledge that the garbage collected by the Defendant was related to the pollution caused by the instant accident, this part of the circumstances should be zero won.

6. As to the removal cost of tar pollution Kim Jong-type

(a) Facts of recognition;

Between August 2008 and November 2008, the Defendant carried out the work of removing the items of Kim Farming ground as part of "the project to purify the fish farm in an area damaged by the damage of 2008 Sinan-gun, new-gun 2008" from the branch lines of the fishing village village fraternity in Dolsan-si, the majority of Dolsan-si branch lines of the fishing village fraternity in Dolsan-si, the branch lines of the Dolsan-do Masan-si fishing village fraternity, and the expenses in relation

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

[Grounds for Recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 18 and Eul evidence Nos. 18 (including each number), the whole purport of the arguments and arguments

At the time of the on-site investigation into this part of the Kim cam farm conducted from January 12, 2008 to January 21, 2008, oil pollution was not discovered in many fishing village fraternities, branch lines of fishing village village fraternity, and deep-sea fishing village village fraternity branch lines. Here, grade B refers to an area where the pollution situation is insignificant and that does not interfere with the Kim-type after it was discarded once. Accordingly, there was no need to remove this part of the item.

C. Determination

There is no evidence to prove that there was a need to remove the item due to the instant accident in the four fishing village fraternities that the Defendant carried out the business of removing the item, and the amount of this part should be changed to zero won.

7. As to the cost of creating useful resources for sandbars/fishing grounds

(a) Facts of recognition;

From May 16, 2008 to June 1, 2008, the Defendant entered 20 tons of the white shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot

There is no evidence to acknowledge that the scambling was contaminated to the extent that the scam was dead and that the scam was dead.

C. Determination

Since there is no evidence to prove that the Defendant died of the shellfish due to the instant accident in the dives of shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot

8. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant's subordinate limitation claims should be assessed in total of KRW 114,008,048 as shown in the following table.

A person shall be appointed.

IX. As to the limited claim against Defendant 24. Jeonnam-do

1. Judgment on reporting and assessing limited claims by the defendant

On May 7, 2009, the Defendant reported a total of KRW 213,337,010 as indicated below to the limitation court, and on January 14, 2013, the limited liability court rendered a judgment on the assessment of the Defendant’s reported claim as the subordinate limited claim.

A person shall be appointed.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, significant facts, Gap evidence No. 24, Eul evidence No. 24, Eul evidence No. 24 (including each number), the fact inquiry of this court, the appraiser B's claim No. 10, 18, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. As to personnel expenses

A. The details reported by the Defendant as personnel expenses are as follows.

A person shall be appointed.

B. Parties’ assertion

(1) Plaintiff International Fund’s assertion

Considering that the pest control work was implemented by June 2008 in the Jeonnam-do area, it is deemed necessary to operate a situation room to support the pest control work. However, there is no data to verify the duties of individual public officials reported by the Defendant, and there is no validity of personnel expenses after July 2008, and thus, this part of the limited claims should be assessed as zero won.

(2) The defendant's assertion

The defendant is not a situation room, but a dedicated team called "Seonam Oil Damage Restoration Support Team", and the defendant was engaged in the necessary support work in the maritime unit of Jeonnam-do under the jurisdiction of Jeonnam-do due to the accident of this case, and since its support work continues until February 4, 2009, this part of the situation amount should be maintained as it is.

C. On the other hand, in order to consider that the personnel expenses reported by the Defendant constitute oil pollution damage caused by the instant accident, the relationship between the duties performed by the public official who was subject to the disbursement of personnel expenses and the instant accident should be proved. However, the evidence submitted by the Defendant alone is insufficient to recognize it and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the amount of these circumstances should be changed to zero won without further examination on the remainder.

3. As to the operating expenses

A. The particulars of the Defendant’s report are as follows: (a) the disbursement and amount of the Defendant’s credit reported as operating expenses.

A person shall be appointed.

B. Parties’ assertion

(1) Plaintiff International Fund’s assertion

In the case of expenses related to the prevention measures of volunteers conducted around January 2008, it is difficult to recognize rationality unless it is proved that there was no other alternative in addition to the input of volunteers.

(2) The defendant's assertion

On January 4, 2008, when the Countermeasure Committee was held, there was an urgent situation where it was not possible to devise countermeasures at the level due to the introduction of tar Doo-do into the sea area of Jeonnam-do, and the commendation to a person who contributed to the pest control activities should be paid as a matter of course as a matter of course since the performance of public interest. In addition, even though the private pest control entity was invested from December 31, 2007, since the private pest control entity was provided mainly with volunteer support, it was relatively excluded from the areas of interest, and since there was a situation where it was no choice but to provide preferential support at the Do level, this part of the situation should also be maintained.

First of all, it is difficult to recognize that the expenses incurred in relation to the production of various printed materials, commendation tickets, etc., and the expenses incurred in the purchase of gift, only the evidence, such as the evidence of disbursement, submitted by the defendant, etc., constitute damages that are recognized as proximate causal relation with the instant accident

Next, in order to recognize the rationality of the prevention and removal measures with respect to the expenses related to volunteer service activities performed on January 3, 2008 and January 4, 2008 in the Newanan Military Guidance Eup, the details of the volunteer's work should be proved first, and there is no evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, this part of the assessment amount should be changed to 0 won without further examining the remaining issues.

4. As to the domestic travel expenses

(a) Facts of recognition;

The date and main objectives of the business trip related to the claims reported by the defendant as domestic travel expenses are as specified in the following table:

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence No. 24, Evidence No. 24, Evidence No. 24 (including each number), the whole purport of the pleading

(1) Plaintiff International Fund’s assertion

Among the details of domestic travel expenses reported by the Defendant with limited bonds, it appears to be a business trip unrelated to the purpose of preventing and reducing contamination caused by the instant accident or preventing secondary contamination, except for the business trip related to on-site prevention work, and there is no evidence to recognize the contents of the work. Therefore, this part of the circumstances should be changed to zero won.

(2) The defendant's assertion

Since the business trip of the public officials belonging to the defendant is for the verification of additional occurrence of tar and the investigation of oil damage, there is no reason to exclude them from compensation.

To recognize the Defendant’s business travel expenses as a limited claim, the contents of the work performed at the time of the business trip should be proved first, and further, it should be proved that there is a proximate causal relation with the instant accident.

However, among the business trips reported by the Defendant, it is difficult to view that there is a proximate causal relation with the instant accident in itself on the business trip name. Among the business trips reported by the Defendant, the items related to the pest control work, preventive observation activities in the affected area, attendance at the pest control measures conference, etc. among the business trips reported by the Defendant are likely to have a proximate causal relation with the instant accident, but the evidence submitted by the Defendant alone only can be recognized as the date and time of the business trip and the extent of the business trip. Since there is no evidence to acknowledge the specific business contents, this part of the circumstances should be changed to zero won.

5. Sub-committee

Therefore, the assessment amount of subordinated limited claims reported by the defendant should be changed to 0 won in total as shown below.

A person shall be appointed.

X. As to the limited claim of the defendant 28. Jindo-gun

1. Judgment on reporting and assessing limited claims by the defendant;

On May 7, 2009, the Defendant reported a total of KRW 751,027,590 as indicated below to the limitation court, and on January 14, 2013, the limitation court rendered a judgment on the circumstance that the Defendant’s reported claims are assessed as subordinate limited claims.

A person shall be appointed.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, significant facts, Gap evidence 28, Eul evidence 28, Eul evidence 28 (each entry of each number, the appraiser B of the case of limitation of liability for the fact inquiry of this court, the result of the response of 18.18.

2. The subject matter of the instant judgment or the subject matter of the lawsuit of demurrer against the judgment is whether the custodian, etc. has any claim exceeding the estimated amount of the limited claim (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Da17038, 201Da17045, Jun. 28, 2012; Supreme Court Decision 2011Da17038, 201Da17045, Jun. 28, 2012; Supreme Court Decision 2011Da17045, Jun. 28, 2012; Supreme Court Decision 201Da17045, Jun. 28, 2012; Supreme Court Decision 201Da17045

In this case, among the claims reported by the Defendant, the joint project cost for village fishing grounds was not recognized as limited claims in the judgment of assessment, and the Defendant did not file a lawsuit for objection, while only the Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit for objection against the remaining part of claims recognized in the judgment of assessment, the subject matter of the lawsuit in this case is limited to the remaining part.

Therefore, among the claims reported by the defendant, the subject of this Court's adjudication is limited to claims in the assessment court.

Since the above part is limited to the above part, the above part is considered to be limited.

3. As to the purchase cost, etc. of pest control goods

(a) Facts of recognition;

During the period from January 1, 2008 to January 8, 2008, the Defendant: (a) mobilized public officials and residents belonging to the Jindo-do Office, the Dog-si, and the tidal drawings to perform coastal pest control operations; and (b) the working day and the number of human resources invested therein are as listed below:

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

[Ground of recognition] The written evidence No. 28 and No. 28 (including each number) and the purport of the whole pleadings. The Defendant reported the following amount as subordinate limit claim at the expense incurred in relation to the above pest control work.

A person shall be appointed.

On the other hand, the time when vehicles, vessels, and buses are mobilized among the above items reported by the defendant are as follows.

A person shall be appointed.

The expenses paid by the defendant with respect to the vehicle, vessel, and bus lease of the above tide drawing and the amount recognized by the plaintiffs are as follows:

A person shall be appointed.

[Grounds for Recognition] The respective descriptions and arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 28 and Eul evidence Nos. 28 (including each number) are the whole purport of the pleading. The plaintiff International Fund's assertion

(1) With respect to the equipment used from January 9, 2008, the following day after the pest control period of Jindo-gun, evidential data is insufficient.

② Since the EMF participated in pest control operations on January 6, 2008 and was paid KRW 70,000 for personnel expenses, the above personnel expenses of KRW 70,000 shall be deducted from the vessel rent on January 6, 208.

D. Determination

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Eul evidence 28-2-1, 3 (each point of time for the prevention of oil pollution) 18, Eul collected 20 km from the window on January 7, 2008: (i) seven residents and four volunteers; (ii) nine public officials participating in the pest control work on the window on January 8, 2008; (iii) eight residents and 40 volunteers; (iv) public officials and 9 public officials participated in the pest control work on the window on January 8, 2008; and (v) collected 15 km from the window on January 9, 2008; and (iv) one ton truck of EEC on the same day took part in the pest control work on the same day to collect tar; and (v) collected tar truck on January 9, 2008 tones 30 tones and 20 km on the same day; and (v) collected tar truck on the same day.

According to the above facts, user fees of each ton truck mobilizedd for the collection of tar from the window on January 9, 2008 through the domination of tar shall be deemed as expenses for prevention and removal measures, which constitute damages for which proximate causal relation with the accident of this case is acknowledged. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge the contents of the work mobilized at the above temporary border with respect to the truck used from January 10 to January 17, 2008, and the usage fees of the vessel, the bus, and the bus.

Furthermore, with respect to bus rent, as recognized earlier, the bus rent used from January 7, 2008 to January 9, 2008 by volunteers are the service fee of buses used to move to the work site within the window, and in view of the fact that the window window is an area for the island and is inevitably required to transport the work manpower entering the outside to the site unless the pest control work is performed on its own inside the island, it shall be deemed that the proximate causal relation with the accident of this case is recognized.

On the other hand, on January 6, 2008, the above personnel expenses of 70,000 won should be deducted from the EF's vessel rent.

Therefore, this part of the assessment amount is the sum of the vehicle rent of KRW 2,250,00 ( = the plaintiffs' recognized amount of KRW 1,950,000 + vessel rent of KRW 300,000 on January 9, 2008) and vessel rent of KRW 930,000 in total, and bus rent of KRW 60,00 in total.

E. Sub-committee

Therefore, this part of the circumstances should be the sum of 35,269,990 won as shown below.

A person shall be appointed.

4. As to the substitute payment for the pest control work

A. The Defendant reported the same amount as indicated below to the lower-ranking claim for the expenses incurred in relation to the above pest control work.

A person shall be appointed.

B. Plaintiff International Fund’s assertion

This part of the report should be recognized as KRW 86,130,000 if the report is not duplicate.

According to the records, the defendant claimed the above pest control costs on 57.1 No. 57.1, and the plaintiffs recognized the expenses for pest control costs of 86,130,000 won, and the defendant paid the defendant the above amount of 86,130,000 won on September 29, 2008 by the former Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs (the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs) on behalf of the defendant on September 29, 2008, and reported the above amount to the limited liability court on May 7, 2009 (the creditor list No. 125828). Accordingly, the above amount of 86,130,000 won out of the cost for pest control should be deducted, and on the other hand, with respect to the amount exceeding the above amount of 86,130,000 won, the evidence submitted by the defendant alone alone is insufficient to recognize its rationality.

Therefore, this part of the circumstances should be zero won.

5. As to the pest control work cost on the pelvis of the pelvis drawing

(a) Facts of recognition;

On February 2, 2009, Jindo-gun discovered tar from the coast of Chodogdogdogdogdogdogdogdogdog on the Chonam-gun's Chonam-gun, and collected tar from February 17, 2009 through February 18, 2009, after collecting tar by 11 residents of Madoggdog during this frame, it transferred 6 May 2009 and disposed of 130 g of waste oil to the corporation and Gaggg, through the natural environment limited company through the result of waste test. The Jindo-gun reported the amount of money, as shown in the following table, to the expense incurred in relation to the above pest control work:

A person shall be appointed.

[Grounds for Recognition] The Gap evidence Nos. 28 and Eul evidence Nos. 28 (including each number), the whole purport of the pleading, and the whole purport of the pleading. The plaintiff International Fund's assertion

This part of the pest control work was carried out 14 months after the accident of this case. In Jindo-gun, about 20 days after the accident of this case was discovered, and about 20 days after the accident of this case was supported by Jindo-gun, and about 2,31 members of the company were mobilized from January 1 to February 4, 2008 to 2,31 members of the company were collected from the coast. Thus, this part of the claim expenses cannot be viewed as the occurrence of the accident of this case.

(c) Markets:

On February 2, 2009, after a considerable period of time has elapsed since the pest control work was completed in Jindo-gun, Jindo-gun, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the above tar discovered on the coast from the Chodogdogdogdogdogdogdogdogdogdogdog on February 2, 2009, was oil leaked due to the accident in this case. Thus, this part of the situation should be zero won without any need to further examine the remainder.

6. Conclusion

Therefore, the assessment amount of the defendant's junior reported claims should be 35,269,990 won in total as shown in the following table:

A person shall be appointed.

X. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the judgment of this case concerning the defendants' limited claims is unfair, so it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all as to change the assessment amount of the defendants' limited claims to each corresponding amount stated in the "Report and Statement of Amount of Assessment" in the attached Form.

The presiding judge and assistant judge;

Judges, Dogsung and a full-time leave unable to affix a name or seal

The presiding judge

Judges

Judges Lee Sung-hoon

1) Meanwhile, the limited liability court does not specify the amount granted for each damage claim in relation to the costs of pollution response in the assessment court.

the amount to be granted by each damage claim (the amount to be granted by each damage claim shall be specified only in the verification document of the appraiser in the field of pollution response), and not more than

Of the total damage claims reported by high-priced, the plaintiffs will examine all of the disputes over the instant objection suit.

2) The Plaintiffs did not recognize the initial costs of this part as limited claims, and added this part of the costs to limited claims during the instant objection suit process.

As recognized (see preparatory documents, e.g., August 26, 2014).

3) At the time of reporting the instant limited claim, the Defendant calculated the amount of damages based on the amount of fuel purchase at the time of reporting the instant limited claim.

The assessment of the amount of damages based on B stated that it is an error in the statement (the preparatory brief dated March 26, 2014).

4) The Plaintiffs’ report figures 8817 liters are errors.

5) The Plaintiffs’ report figures 230 liters are errors.

6) Fuel consumption amounting to 11,958 K 1,410 won by January 10, 2008

7) The defendant does not report two brooms of plastic bags purchased on December 18, 2007 and 500 rainwater purchased on January 2, 2008 as limited bonds.

C. In addition, on January 2, 2008, the purchase cost of the armed arms purchased was KRW 741,00,000, and the defendant calculated KRW 740,000 and reported.

8) The Defendant, purchased on January 2, 2008, applied the unit price of an armed rioted on 650 square meters, which is not KRW 1,140,00, not KRW 1,120 (cases of 500,000) and KRW 1,200 (130,000,000).

The report was made as a bond.

9) Meanwhile, the limited liability court does not specify the amount granted for each damage claim in relation to the costs of pollution response in the assessment judgment.

the amount to be granted by each damage claim (the amount to be granted by each damage claim shall be specified only in the verification document of the appraiser in the field of pollution response), and not more than

Of the total damage claims reported by high-priced, the plaintiffs will examine all of the disputes over the instant objection suit.

10) Although the date of purchase of this part of the product is regarded as December 27, 2008, the Plaintiffs are erroneous.

11) = [20,00 won per 19 tons of transport vehicle x two times X-2] + [5 tons of transport vehicle x 50,000 won per five tons of transport vehicle x two times x one unit]

12) Before this part of the claim, the Defendant filed a claim number with the Switzerland Center, 39.1 fishing vessel usage fee, and the Plaintiffs accordingly.

On the other hand, on September 29, 2008, the Republic of Korea paid the above KRW 118,637,500 on behalf of the Si of Kunsan, and later paid the above KRW 118,637,50 on behalf of the Si of Kun, 2009.

5.7. Limited Liability Court reported the above money as its limited claim (No. 500: 125828).

13) Meanwhile, there is no mentioning that the Defendant’s disease control clothes 4,000 that the Defendant purchased from DF was the report of the Plaintiffs’ assessment business entity, and the Plaintiffs are the same.

No position is expressed in relation to it.

14) Meanwhile, there are parts that are inconsistent with the expenses actually paid by the Defendant among the purchase costs for December 2007.

amount shall be calculated according to the actual expense of the Corporation.

15) On the other hand, the limited liability court does not specify the amount granted for each damage claim in relation to the costs of pollution response in the assessment judgment.

as the amount of award has been determined by each damage claim (the amount of award for each damage claim shall be specified only in the verification document of the appraiser in the field of pollution response); and

Of the entire damage claims reported by the Defendant, the plaintiffs will examine all of the disputes over the instant objection suit.

16) This part of the resident labor cost was recognized in the assessment judgment as the limited physical right of Dongyang, and the limited right of KJE Co., Ltd.

17) = Amount recognized as the plaintiffs + KRW 9,857,000 + total of KRW 30,672,000 for the purchase of smoking guns in January 2, 2008

18) See also the management ledger of lusium and glass vehicles attached to a claim report.

A person shall be appointed.