1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Occurrence of marine accidents and details of adjudication;

A. On August 20, 2015, B, a fishing vessel engaged in large trawls (hereinafter “instant vessel”) entered the sea of approximately 34°25°37°42°37:0 of the parallel of lat. 34°25°37 east-do, 127°37 east-gu, 127°37 east-gu, 201, where a political net fishing ground owned by C (hereinafter “instant fishing ground”) was established, at around 00:07, a vessel engaged in large trawls (hereinafter “instant fishing ground”).

At the time, the Plaintiff, a fifth mate, was on board the instant vessel.

B. On April 28, 2017, the Korean Maritime Safety Tribunal: (a) deemed that the instant fishing ground was seriously damaged (hereinafter “instant accident”) while entering the instant fishing ground as above; and (b) rendered a ruling on April 28, 2017 that “the instant fishing ground damage case was caused by entering the said fishing ground area without discovering the instant fishing ground due to the neglect of boundaries during navigation by the instant vessel; (c) however, the instant fishing ground owner’s failure to properly install night marking facilities capable of distinguishing the boundaries of the fishing ground area constitutes a cause for the instant fishing ground owner. The Plaintiff’s fifth-class navigation officer’s services related to marine accidents are suspended for two months. However, the enforcement of the instant disciplinary action is suspended for six months from the date the said ruling became final and conclusive, and the order to receive education on navigation safety by 21 hours is issued.”

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant adjudication,” the disciplinary part against the Plaintiff in the said adjudication. [The grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, entry of the evidence No. 1, and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. Whether the ruling of this case is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1 did not clearly prove whether the instant fishing ground was damaged due to the operation of the instant vessel, and ② even if the instant accident occurred due to the operation of the instant vessel, this would have occurred.