All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. Whether a maritime lien is established, whether a certain claim is secured by a maritime lien, and the scope of the subject matter of a maritime lien is the law of the country of registry pursuant to Article 60 subparag. 1 of the Act on Private International Law, i.e., the law of the country where the shipowner registered or recorded the ship, and the law of the country to which the ship belongs, is the governing law (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da39617, Jul. 12, 2007). The same applies to cases where a ship is registered as a bareboat in a country other than the country of registry

(2) On November 27, 2014, in light of the record, the legal principle as seen earlier, the law applicable to maritime lien on the instant vessel is not the Cambodia’s bareboat Registration Act, but the “The People’s Republic of China Act” which is the “ownership registration law,” and under the “the People’s Republic of China’s Republic of China’s Republic of China’s Republic of China’s Maritime Law,” the instant oil payment claim, like the Commercial Act of the Republic of Korea, is not secured by maritime lien.

The court below held otherwise that the Cambodian State Act constitutes “the law of the country of registry” as stipulated in Article 60 subparag. 1 of the Private International Act on the ground that the instant vessel was registered as a bareboat charter in Cambodia, and held that the Cambodian State should apply the law of the Republic of Korea in accordance with Article 8(1) of the Private International Act on the ground that the instant vessel was a country where the instant vessel was a bareboat charter for convenience and that there was no relation with the oil supply contract that caused a maritime lien as claimed by the Defendants and that there was the most closely connected with the Republic of Korea. However, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the governing law, but it was just in its conclusion that the instant oil payment claim was not

3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against them.