[1] In the case of a ruling on recommendation for correction or improvement under the Act on the Investigation of and Inquiry into Marine Accidents, whether it should be related to the matters to be corrected or improved and the cause of the marine accident (affirmative), and the standard

[2] Whether a person related to a minor vessel may also make a decision of correction on the person involved in the minor vessel by negligence (affirmative)

[3] The case holding that corrective measures are related to the cause of marine accident

[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 Act on the Investigation of and Inquiry into Marine Accidents), and the matters to be corrected or improved at this time should be related to the cause of a marine accident. However, although the Act on the Investigation into and Inquiry into Marine Accidents adopts the principle of free evaluation of evidence and selects the psychological structure similar to criminal procedure but does not have any provision on admissibility, and the cause and relation of a marine accident is its original uncertain concept, which has no choice but to be determined by the Korean Maritime Safety Tribunal, which is an administrative agency. In particular, in the case of a ruling on the recommendation for correction or improvement, it is not necessarily bound by a strict framework of causation between the matters to be corrected or improved and the matters to be corrected or improved should be understood as objectively attributable to the person concerned in terms of preventing and ensuring safety of a marine accident.

[2] In the case of a collision of a ship, it is not possible to make a decision of correction only to the person related to the ship with heavy negligence, but also to make a decision of correction insofar as there is a matter of correction or improvement and there is a reasonable ground to deem that there is a relationship between such matter and marine accident.

[3] The case holding that corrective measures are related to the cause of marine accident

[1] Articles 5(2) and (3), and 51 of the Act on the Investigation and Inquiry of Marine Accidents / [2] Articles 5(2) and (3), and 51 of the Act on the Investigation and Inquiry of Marine Accidents / [3] Articles 5(2) and (3), and 51 of the Act on the Investigation and Inquiry of Marine Accidents

Plaintiff (Law Firm International, Attorneys Lee Won-chul et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

President of the Central Maritime Safety Tribunal

The Korean Maritime Safety Tribunal Ruling No. 2003-6, Jun. 27, 2003

February 26, 2004

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff.

1. Facts that there is no dispute between the parties;

The remaining 1st day of the plaintiff's entry into the port of 2,20 miles and the port of 2,479.04 of Busan Metropolitan City with one engine of the 2,00-mael, which mainly operated between the port of the same sea and the port of 202, the remaining 205' 39", and the remaining 1st day of the 2nd day of the 2nd day of the 1st day of the 2nd day of the 2nd day of the 2nd day of the 1st day of the 2nd day of the 2nd day of the 2nd day of the 2nd day of the 1st day of the 2nd day of the 2nd day of the 2nd day of the 2nd day of the 1st day of the 2nd day of the 2nd day of the 1st day of the 2nd day of the 1st day of the 2nd day of the 2nd day of the 2nd day of the 1st day of the 2nd day of the 2nd day of the 7th day.

2. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff argues that the marine accident of this case was basically caused by the navigational negligence of the 1st crew of this case, but the judgment of this case was based on the premise that the marine accident of this case was mainly caused by the navigational negligence of the South and North crew, so the judgment of this case should be revoked illegally.

3. Determination

A. The Maritime Safety Tribunal at each level may render 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 Marine Accident Inquiry Act). The matters to be corrected or improved at this time must be related to the cause of a marine accident. However, while the Marine Accident Inquiry Act adopts the principle of free evaluation of evidence (Article 51 of the aforementioned Act) and adopts the psychological structure similar to criminal procedure but does not stipulate the provisions on admissibility of evidence; the cause and connection of a marine accident is an indefinite concept, which is an administrative agency, and there is no choice but to be recognized by the Korean Maritime Safety Tribunal as 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 marine accident should not be bound by the strict framework of causation, but it is reasonable to objectively grasp whether it can be objectively identified as a normative and legal issue from the point of view that the marine accident in question will prevent similar incidents and ensure safety in the future.

In addition, in the case of a vessel collision accident, it is not possible to make a decision of correction only to the person related to the vessel with heavy negligence, but it is possible to make a decision of correction insofar as there is a matter to correct or improve it even if the person related to the vessel with a minor negligence is involved, and there is a reasonable ground to believe that it is related to such matter

B. The following facts can be acknowledged in light of the whole purport of the pleadings in the statements Nos. 1, 2, 3-1 to 8, and 1 and 2 of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 1 and 2, and there is no counter-proof otherwise.

(1) Although the Plaintiff acquired ownership in South Korea on June 2001, the competent maritime affairs and fisheries authority did not obtain recognition of the complement or obtain a certificate of complement in accordance with Article 64 of the Seafarers Act from the competent maritime affairs and fisheries authority.

(2) On April 24, 2002, at an implied port, at around 16:45, the captain Nonparty 1 was on board and departing from the port, and the captain Nonparty 1 started sailing to leave the port to the port of port after loading 3,915t of tin and leaving the port. At the time, the navigational watch system of the ship between 23:0 and 03:00:00, the captain Nonparty 3 and Nonparty 4, 03:0 to 07:00 deck, and Nonparty 5, 07:0 to 11:00, the captain Nonparty 1 operated the navigational watch system respectively. However, the above navigational watch system was irrelevant to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff did not prepare or implement detailed standards for navigational watch as required by Article 130-3(1)2 of the Seafarers Act, and the Plaintiff did not perform any act for safe navigation.

(3) On April 25, 2002, at around 101:07, the first class mate, non-party 3, and non-party 4, who was on duty at navigation, reported the scheduled arrival of the circumstances necessary for the call sign, the type of cargo loaded, and the procedure for entry into port port port port port transportation information center (hereinafter referred to as the “Center”), and after obtaining permission from the Center to anchor in M-7 burial ground located in port port 2 area, around 01:17, around 01:17, at around 01:45, around 17:4:5, the sea of Jinjin-ri, the first class mate and non-party 4, who was on duty at sea, re-determined the sea of approximately 4.4 miles, the fourth side of the port port Maritime Affairs and Fisheries Maritime Affairs and Fisheries Maritime Affairs and Fisheries Maritime Affairs and Fisheries Maritime Affairs and Fisheries Maritime Affairs and Fisheries Maritime Affairs and Fisheries Maritime Affairs and Fisheries Maritime Affairs Maritime Affairs and Fisheries Maritime Affairs Maritime Affairs Maritime Affairs and Fisheries Maritime Affairs Maritime Affairs Maritime Affairs.

(4) In the meantime, around 01:55 on the same day, approximately approximately 68∑ 182∑ 182∑ 182＇s course at sea of approximately 2.9 Emb. At approximately 01:56 Emb. At around 01:56, approximately 20∑ 3.0 Emb. at around 3.0 Emb. 1 on the first day.

(5) At around 01:58 on the same day, South Japan reported that it passed through the port boundaries of port port at around 01:58, and affected the course by about 190∑. At around 02:01, it was proposed that it passed the course from about 22∑ 1 to about 1:5 mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar n to 20 m mar mar mar m.

(6) At around 02:03 on the same day, the south day, when the other vessel was approaching around 02:03, while maintaining the course and speed of the vessel at approximately 7∑ 1.05 miles, and she was approaching the course at about 227∑ 44,00, the other vessel was her course at about 0.3 miles, and the other vessel was her course at about 0.06§¯ 4,00,000, and at about 180∑ 4:0,000, the other vessel was her course at about 065∑ 4:0,000,000, and at about 2.96, the other vessel was her course at approximately 36°39' east 39' east, 129' east, 129' east, 129' east, 129' east and 20'east of the vessel at each port of the front port of the vessel.

다. 위에서 인정한 사실들과 앞서 본 법리들에 의하면, 사고 당시 남일호의 항해당직자들에게는 최소한 통과방법에 관한 상대선 측과의 의견 불일치를 해소하지 아니한 상태에서 상대선의 의사를 추가 확인하려는 노력 없이, 양 선박 간의 간격이 1마일 정도에 불과한 상황에서 양 선박의 충돌을 막기 위한 조치를 제대로 강구하지 아니한 채 운항을 계속한 과실이 전혀 없다고는 도저히 볼 수 없고, 이러한 운항상 과실은, 양 선박 간의 과실의 경중이나 구체적 비율은 별론으로 하고, 대한 1호측의 운항상 과실과 함께 이 사건 해양사고의 발생 원인이 된 것으로 보이며, 나아가 선박에는 그 규모에 맞추어 법정 자격요건을 갖춘 선원을 갑판부와 기관부의 항해당직 부원으로 승무시켜야 하고( 선원법 제63조 ), 그 준수를 위하여 필요한 선원의 정원(승무정원)을 정하여 해양수산관청의 인정을 받은 후 승무정원증서를 교부받도록 되어 있는 점( 같은 법 제64조 ), 선원의 훈련·자격증명 및 당직근무의 기준에 관한 국제협약의 적용을 받는 선박소유자는 선박운항의 안전을 위하여 같은법시행규칙 제59조의2 제2항 및 동 [별표 5] "항해당직 기준의 작성요령"에 따라 항해당직에 관한 상세한 기준의 작성·시행을 이행하여야 하는 점( 같은 법 제130조의3 제1항 제2호 ) 등에 비추어 보면, 원고가 관할 해양수산관청으로부터 남일호의 승무정원을 인정받지 아니하고 항해당직에 관한 상세한 기준의 작성·시행을 이행하지 아니하는 등 선원의 안전운항관리를 소홀히 한 것이 위와 같은 남일호 승무원들의 운항상 과실과 무관하다고 보기 어렵다.

D. Ultimately, there is no error in the decision of this case that recommended the Plaintiff, the owner of South Thoy, to correct the above deficiencies, and there is no violation of law that could be the cause of revocation of the disposition.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed without merit, and the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff who is the losing party and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Lee Yong-woo (Presiding Justice)