In addition, the decision making by the local marine accident judge as the central marine accident judge;

In accordance with Article 11 (1) 4 of the South Maritime Inquiry Act, if the chief commissioner of the Central Maritime Accident Inquiry Agency orders the chief commissioner of the Regional Maritime Accident Inquiry Agency to concurrently serve as a judge of the Korean Tribunal until his/her deputy judges of the Korean Tribunal, he/she shall not be deemed to be illegal.

Article 11(1)4 of the Maritime Accidents Inquiry Act

The inquiree

The Director of the Central Maritime Accident Inquiry Agency

The Central Maritime Accident Inquiry Agency No. 81-24 decided November 19, 1981

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of an appeal shall be borne by the inquiree.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. On the first ground for appeal:

Article 22 (2) of the Marine Accidents Inquiry Act provides that the Korean Tribunal shall make an inquiry at a collegiate body comprised of not less than five judges, and Article 11 (1) 4 of the same Act provides that if a vacancy occurs in a judge of each Tribunal or any inevitable reason exists, the chief judge of the Korean Tribunal may have the chief judge of another District Tribunal perform the duties of the judge of the District Tribunal. According to the records, the defendant issued a personnel order to appoint the non-party 1, the chief judge of the Incheon District Tribunal of the District Tribunal of July 19, 1980, to perform the duties of the judge of the Korean Tribunal in accordance with the above provisions, and accordingly, it can be recognized that the above non-party 1 was involved in the judgment of the original court without any justifiable issuance, and there is no reason to argue that the replacement of the chief judge of the District Tribunal is illegal, and therefore, is without merit.

2. On the second ground for appeal:

The issue is that there is an error of violation of the rules of evidence in finding and judging the original decision, but the original decision is caused by negligence in the course of performing duties concerning the operation of the collision accident, such as the failure of the inquiree's failure to observe the safety speed and the failure to observe the safety speed, etc., but the negligence in the course of performing duties concerning the operation of the non-party 2, such as the non-party 2, the captain of the newborn infant, the inquiree at the original decision, is also one of the causes. In light of the records, the above fact-finding and decision are acceptable and they cannot be admitted since there is no error like the theory of lawsuit.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of the appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Chang-chul (Presiding Justice)