beta
Text
All appeals are dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, under the English law, which is the governing law of the time charter contract of this case, the charter contract of this case is deemed to be valid unless the plaintiff, the owner of the ship of this case, was paid charterage from the Tian Sea Co., Ltd., Ltd. (hereinafter “Tian Sea”) in order to establish the contract, in addition to the offer and consent of the contract, and the weak party of the charter contract means the payment of charterage. Thus, the argument in the ground of appeal No. 1 that the charter contract of this case cannot be deemed to be valid, since it was first raised in the final appeal, and it cannot be a legitimate ground of appeal.
2. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal principles and records as to the ground of appeal No. 2, the lower court is justifiable to have rejected the Defendants’ assertion that the Plaintiff and Sky Glory Slory Slory Limited are merely a document company, and Content is the substantial owner of the instant vessel, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the formation of a contract, the denial of legal personality, the violation of the rules of evidence, or the incomplete hearing, etc., contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.
3. As to the third ground for appeal
A. In a case where the content and meaning of foreign laws and regulations to be applied to legal relations containing foreign elements are interpreted, in principle, they shall be interpreted and applied in accordance with the meaning that they are actually interpreted and applied in their home country. Only when it is impossible to confirm the contents because data on the foreign precedents or interpretation standards are not submitted during the litigation process, the meaning and meaning of the law can be determined in accordance with the general legal interpretation standards.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2008Da54587 Decided January 28, 2010, etc.)
B. The reasoning of the lower judgment reveals the following.