209Do213 Revocation of Disposition of Revocation of Judgment

A

President of the Central Maritime Safety Tribunal

February 25, 2010

April 8, 2010

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Korean Maritime Safety Tribunal's ruling No. 2009-24 rendered on October 27, 2009 that "in order to recommend correction to the plaintiff" is revoked.

1. The occurrence of the marine accident in this case and details of adjudication;

The following facts are not in dispute between the parties:

A. At around 1:30 on April 19, 209, B (the gross tonnage of 431 tons) went to a tent passenger terminal located at the time of Jinhae on April 19, 2009. Around 05:00 on the same day, C (the gross tonnage of 1.96 tons) who is a coastal-purpose fishing vessel, loaded 54 Dobbs on and depart from the port of flow at the port of Jinhae, at around 05:00 on the same day. At around 12:12 on the same day, B and C, at approximately 35°06 06 m26 m26 m26 m26 meast, 128Do40 meast, 338 meast (the marine accident of this case).

B. At the time of the instant marine accident, 6 crew members and 71 passengers, including the captain, are on board B, and 16 vehicles were on board, and C was on board only the Plaintiff, who is the captain.

C. On October 27, 2009, with respect to the instant marine accident, the Korean Maritime Safety Tribunal rendered a ruling to ascertain the cause of the collision, disciplinary action, and corrective recommendation (hereinafter referred to as the “instant ruling”) to the effect that “The instant marine accident occurred due to the neglect of the boundary by B, not avoiding the course of C crossing the right side of the sea route. However, C’s failure to take cooperative action to avoid collision by neglecting the boundary by neglecting C. A’s failure to take action to stop the business of the 1st mate of the person involved in the marine accident for one month. To advise the Plaintiff involved in the marine accident of correction.”

2. Judgment on the corrective recommendation of this case

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The judgment of this case held that the failure of C to take appropriate cooperative action as a maintenance line by neglecting the surrounding boundaries at the speed of 8.5 knotss at the time of this case constitutes part of the marine accident of this case. However, the marine accident of this case was caused exclusively D by negligence, such as operating a ship directly at a mixed steering house without a rabr, which is a navigational equipment, without operating a rabr in the front section. At the time of this case, the plaintiff was placed at a low speed of less than 8.5 knots and was placed in the transit steering at a speed of less than 8.5 knots, and the transit of the above ship, which had already completed the double boarding operation, failed to predict that B was obstructed in the view of the passage of this case, and that it was impossible to take corrective action at the time of this case due to the plaintiff's failure to take corrective action at the speed of 30% prior to the occurrence of the marine accident of this case, and the plaintiff's failure to take corrective action at the latest due to the plaintiff's failure to take corrective action of this case.

B. Determination

1) The Maritime Safety Tribunal at each level may make a ruling to recommend or order correction or improvement to a person involved in the cause of a marine accident other than a marine officer or a pilot (Article 5(2) and (3) of the Maritime Accident Inquiry Act). In this case, matters to be corrected or improved must be related to the cause of a marine accident. However, while the Maritime Accident Inquiry Act adopts the principle of free evaluation of evidence (Article 51 of the Maritime Accident Inquiry Act) but does not provide for admissibility. The cause of a marine accident is an uncertain concept, which is its original concept and has no choice but to be determined at the Korean Maritime Safety Tribunal, which is an administrative agency. In particular, in the case of a ruling to recommend correction or improvement, the relationship between the matters to recommend correction or improvement and the matters to be corrected is not always bound by a strict framework of causation, and it is reasonable to 200 cases where it is objectively and objectively related to the matters to be corrected or related to a ship from the point of view of ensuring safety and safety of a marine accident in the future.

2) Recognized facts

을 1, 2, 3, 4호증과 변론의 전 취지에 의하면, ① B는 해상여객운송사업자인 E 주식회사가 위 선박의 소유자인 F 주식회사로부터 2009. 1. 19.부터 2010. 1. 31.까지 임차하여 거제시 소재 실전여객터미널과 진해시 소재 속천여객터미널간 항로에 투입하여 운항하고 있던 선박으로 2009. 4. 19. 11:30경 선장 D을 포함한 선원 6명과 여객 71명이 승선하고 차량 16대를 적재한 가운데 거제시 소재 실전여객터미널에서 출항하여 진해시 소재 속천여객터미널을 향하였는데, 선장 D은 익숙한 항로라서 레이더는 작동하지 않고 육안 경계에만 의존하여 약 13노트의 속력으로 항해하다가 같은 날 11:57경 잠도 서방 약 200m 거리에서 화도와 도투마리암 중앙을 향하여 진침로를 약 16도로 조정하였고 같은 날 12:07 경 화도와 도투마리암 중앙을 지나면서 진해만의 대죽도를 조타목표로 하여 진침로를 약 10도로 변침한 후 조타실에 함께 있던 기관장과 조타 수를 입항준비를 위해 내보내고 혼자 조타 및 경계를 병행하면서 항해를 계속하였는바, 위와 같이 같은 날 12:07 경 진침로를 약 10도로 변침할 무렵 B의 우현 약 40도 방향, 약 1.1마일 거리에서 C가 B의 선수 전방을 향하여 횡단하는 자세로 접근하고 있었음에도 D은 이를 발견하지 못한 채 항해를 계속하다가 같은 날 12:12경 B의 선수 우 현부가 C의 선수 좌현부에 충돌하게 된 사실, ② C는 연안통발어선으로서 같은 날 05:00경 선박소유자 겸 선장인 원고 혼자 승선한 채 도다리잡이 통발 54개를 적재하고 조업차 진해시 행암동 물량장에서 출항하여 대율도 부근과 대일산 남서 연안에 각 통발 27개씩을 던진 다음 대일산 남서 연안에 던진 통발들을 먼저 건지고 같은 날 12:07경 대율도 부근으로 이동하기 시작하였는데, 원고는 항해를 시작하면서 진침로를 약 300도, 속력을 약 8.5노트로 조정하고 상갑판에서 이미 건진 통발을 정리하다가 C의 선수 약 20도 방향, 약 1.1마일 거리에서 B가 C의 선수 전방을 향하여 횡단하는 자세로 접근하고 있는 것을 미처 발견하지 못한 채 같은 날 12:12경 B와 충돌하게 된 사실, ③ 이 사건 해양사고로 B는 손상을 입지 않았으나 C는 좌현 선수부 선체외판과 조타실 등이 파손, 전복되었고, 원고가 바다로 추락하면서 전치 4주의 부상을 입은 사실, ④ 당시 사고해역은 맑고 남동풍이 초속 8-10m로 불었으며 1m 내외의 파도가 일고 있었고 시정은 양호했던 사실, ⑤ 이 사건 사고장소는 B의 항로를 벗어난 지점인 사실 등이 인정된다.

3) Appropriateness of the corrective recommendation

According to the above facts, at the time of this case, the captain D, while being in her slick, failed to discover C in advance due to neglecting the surrounding boundary and failure to take action to avoid a collision with C crossing the front side of the sea route. It is reasonable to view that the plaintiff, while boarding a mixed ship and sailing with C, failed to discover B by the time of collision, due to the slicking of fishing gear and neglecting the surrounding boundary, thereby making the plaintiff inappropriate for operation, such as failure to take action to avoid collision with B. Thus, even if the captain D's inappropriate operation was the main cause of the marine accident of this case, the plaintiff's improper operation was eventually the cause of the marine accident of this case, and thus, it is deemed that corrective action against the plaintiff is necessary.

Therefore, in light of the process of the instant marine accident, the necessity of the recommendation of the corrective measures, and the details of the recommended corrective measures, the instant corrective recommendation ruling made by the Korean Maritime Safety Tribunal pursuant to Article 5(3) of the Marine Accident Inquiry Act, which is deemed necessary from the point of view that the Korean Maritime Safety Tribunal seeks to prevent similar marine accidents and ensure safety in the future, cannot be deemed unlawful.

3. Conclusion

It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench that the claim of this case is without merit, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the losing party.

Justices Cha Han-sung

Justices Park Si-hwan

Justices Ahn Dai-hee

Justices Shin Young-chul