Plaintiff (Law Firm Thai, Attorneys Han Han-ju, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

(1) The term "business operator" means the business operator's business operator's business operator's business operator, etc.

August 13, 2010

1. The plaintiff's claim of this case is all dismissed.

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

In electively, the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1,361,176 won per month from June 3, 2009 to the time the plaintiff dies. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 17,859,448 won per annum 5% per annum from June 16, 2008 to the date of service of the application for modification of the purport of the claim and the cause of the claim from June 16, 2008 to August 9, 2010, and 20% per annum 93,682,870 won per annum from the next day to the date of complete payment, and the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 93,682,870 won with 5% per annum from June 16, 2008 to the date of delivery of the application for modification of the purport of the claim and the cause of the claim from the next day to the date of complete payment, and 20% per annum per annum.

1. Basic facts

The following facts are either in dispute between the parties or in relation to Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 2-1, Eul evidence 2-4, 12, Eul evidence 3, and witness non-party 1 (excluding the non-party 1 in the judgment of the Supreme Court)'s testimony (excluding the part not trusted in the front and rear), and there is no counter-proof.

A. On June 16, 2008, the Plaintiff, as an employee of the Defendant, was serving as the head of the maritime king, the vessel owned by the Defendant. At around 19:00 on June 16, 2008, the Plaintiff asked the Nonparty 1 to see the door by leaving the keys in the second floor of the building owned by the Defendant, and then going out the door in order to take up the keys.

B. Upon receiving the above request from the above non-party 1, the plaintiff was expected to be folded on the right side of the accommodation window of the above non-party 1, and then the plaintiff 1 was flicked on the bridge. The above non-party 1 was flicked on the wind which was flicking the window of his own accommodation after going on the bridge. The plaintiff was flicked on the wind which was flicked to the center. The plaintiff was flicked by the accident that was falling on the ground from the above container (hereinafter referred to as the "accident of this case"). The plaintiff was flicked on the blick, so that he was flicked on the back of the above container.

C. The defendant judged that the injury suffered by the plaintiff caused by the accident in this case constitutes injury sustained by the seafarers due to reasons other than duties while serving aboard ship under Article 85(2) of the Seafarers Act, and deposited the amount equivalent to injury-disease compensation amount under Article 87 of the Seafarers Act, which is the injury-disease compensation amount for injury suffered by the seafarers due to reasons other than duties while serving aboard ship, with the plaintiff as the victim

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The parties' assertion

The plaintiff's accident at sea constitutes occupational injury under Article 85 (1) of the Seafarers Act, which occurred on the part of the plaintiff's building owned by the defendant while waiting for navigation. Thus, the defendant, the owner of the above sea king, paid injury compensation amount under Article 87 (1) of the Seafarers Act and compensation amount under Article 88 of the Seafarers Act, or claimed payment of lump-sum compensation amount under Article 89 of the Seafarers Act, which shall be entitled to claim payment to the plaintiff in lieu of injury compensation and disability compensation amount under Article 88 of the Seafarers Act. The defendant claimed that the accident at sea was occurred during the time of withdrawal of rest at the accommodation in the above building in which the plaintiff was living in Pyeongtaek, and the injury suffered by the plaintiff during the voyage does not fall under the occupational injury under Article 85 (1) of the Seafarers Act, but falls under the causes other than occupational injury under Article 85 (2) of the Seafarers Act, and thus, the plaintiff's compensation amount for injury and disease compensation amount under Article 87 of the Seafarers Act cannot be claimed as compensation amount for injury and disease compensation amount suffered by the plaintiff.

B. Determination

The injury sustained in the course of a seafarer's duty under Article 85 (1) of the Seafarers Act is an injury in the course of a seafarer's duty, and the injury suffered in the course of a seafarer's waiting for navigation falls under an injury in the course of a seafarer's duty, but the injury suffered in the course of a seafarer's duty is not an injury in his/her control, such as his/her residence, which is a basis for the seafarer's living.

Therefore, it is difficult for the plaintiff to believe that the non-party 1's testimony of the witness, who seems to be consistent with the fact that the plaintiff had been waiting for navigation at the time of the accident, was in office at the accommodation located within the above building on the day of the accident, was insufficient to recognize the fact that the plaintiff was waiting for navigation at the time of the accident, and there is no other evidence to recognize it (if there is no evidence to prove that the plaintiff was waiting for navigation at the time of the accident, at 7:50 a.m. on the day of the accident, after the voyage of the day of the accident at 7:50 p.m. on the day of the accident, the plaintiff was living at the accommodation of the above building as well as at the time of the accident at the above request from the above non-party 1, and the defendant's employee did not have a duty to live within the above building, and some of them were living at the accommodation of the above building as well as the plaintiff's 2's family members, and the plaintiff's testimony at the time of the accident and the above 2nd.

C. Sub-decision

Therefore, the injury sustained by the plaintiff in the accident of this case is separate from the injury sustained by the crew due to reasons other than their duties while serving aboard ship under Article 85(2) of the Seafarers Act. It cannot be deemed that the crew under Article 85(1) of the Seafarers Act was injured on duty, and the defendant deposited the amount equivalent to the injury compensation amount under Article 87 of the Seafarers Act as the injury and disease compensation amount for the injury suffered by the crew on board due to reasons other than their duties while serving aboard ship under Article 85(2) of the Seafarers Act, as mentioned above. Thus, the defendant should be held liable to pay the plaintiff the injury compensation amount under Article 87 of the Seafarers Act due to the injury suffered by the plaintiff due to the accident of this case.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Jong-sik