The case revoking the original adjudication that there is an error of law in the determination of seriousness of fault of both vessels in a collision of vessels;

The case revoking the original adjudication that there is an error of law in the determination of seriousness of fault of both vessels in a collision of vessels;

Article 27 of the Administrative Litigation Act

Plaintiff 1 et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee

The Director of the Central Maritime Accident Inquiry Agency

The Central Maritime Accident Inquiry Agency No. 240, Oct. 24, 1984 and the Central Maritime Accident Inquiry Agency No. 84-14

The original adjudication shall be cancelled, and it shall be remanded to the Central Maritime Accident Inquiry Agency.

We examine the grounds of appeal No. 1 by Plaintiffs’ attorneys.

1.The circumstances leading up to the collisions referred to in the main sentence of the pande pande and the spande thereof, which have been approved by the original ruling, are as follows:

(1) At 1983.9.3 U.S. Mampan No. 2, the 2nd 2nd 1st 2nd 2nd 2nd 1st 2nd 1st 2nd 2nd 4th 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 5th 2nd 2nd 2nd 5th 2nd 2nd 5th 2nd 5th 2nd 2nd 2nd 5th 2nd 6th 2nd 2nd 5th 2nd 5th 2nd 5th 2nd 5th 2nd 5th 6th 2nd 5th 2nd 5th 2nd 22nd 22nd 5th 2nd 5th 2nd 5th 2nd 5th 3rd 2nd 3rd 2nd 3rd 2nd 3rd st 2nd 2nd st 3rd 2nd 2nd st 3rd 2nd 2nd 3rd 2nd 2nd 4.

(2) On the other hand, ice 1 came to port 1983.9.1, after having come to port 1983.0, ice 2 came to port 5, and had come to port 1,000, pursuant to the ALEU Opendo, and entered port 1,000. At the same time, Plaintiff 1, the captain of the above ice 1 came to port 22:30 degrees to 104 degrees to 104 degrees to 3rd class mates, 50 degrees to 3rd class mates to 1,00, and 2nd to 2nd to 2nd to 5th to 1st to 2nd to 3rd to 1st to 5th to 1st to 2nd to 2nd to 5th to 1st to 3rd to 1st to 2nd to 5th to 1st to 2nd to 1st to 6th to 2nd to 2nd to 2nd to 1st to 1st to 1st.

2. We examine each fault of both vessel's vessel's first vessel from the beginning to the arrival of the other vessel's vessel, and then examine the process from the back to the point of stuffing to the point of collision.

(1) First of all, both vessels will compare each other’s negligence recognized in the course from the beginning to the end of their night of stay.

A. According to the facts of recognition of the original adjudication, both vessels were 11 degrees the beginning scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic sche

Thus, panty No. 1 corresponds to the give-way vessel, and the same-way mate 1 is obliged to navigate while avoiding the course of the Switzerland, not crossing the players, and to coordinate the course by friendly arcing (Article 15 of the International Rules for Prevention of Collision at Sea, 1972; hereinafter referred to as the "Rules 15 of the International Rules for Prevention of Collision at Sea"). In other words, the panty No. 1 is found to have been negligent by neglecting the operation and light observation of the other vessel and making it a more deep state than 35 degrees in the course of the arc by arcing at 8 degrees.

Second, the above non-party 1 is found to have failed to observe the actions of the heading of the heading of the S, even after the collision, until the distance between S and 2.5 mama, and due to the failure to closely observe the actions of the heading of the S, and due to the failure to grasp the situation of crossing the vessel and to take appropriate measures to avoid the collision.

B. Meanwhile, at around 22:33, Plaintiff 2, the mate of Switzerland, was at the time when she directly checked the lights of pande No. 11, and the distance reached about 9:00 days. As such, Plaintiff 2 appears to have been at a situation where the situation of access was nearly common. As such, when the risk of collision exists in cases where she takes place on the port side of each vessel, she shall change her course to the right side so that each vessel can pass on the port side of the vessel, and when there is doubt as to whether she is at the port side of the vessel, she shall take appropriate action (Article 14(1) and (3) of the Rules). Thus, Plaintiff 2 cannot be said to have been at the discretion of 1, 22:36 of the Rules, and even if she did not take action to avoid a collision, she shall not be deemed to have been at the discretion of 1,700 o. 1,000 o. 2 of the vessel.

However, it is recognized that the plaintiff 2, the mate of the Switzerland, continues to take action and take necessary measures to avoid the risk of collision, even though he/she did not take any measures to approach the pandeno and the 1mam-distance, since the pande No. 10 degrees friendly as above, the pande No. 10 degrees friendly, and the pande No. 10 level pande No. 2 was formed more deep than 8 degrees pande No. 1000, contrary to the principle of the pande No.

C. As above, Nonparty 1’s failure to accurately grasp the crossing situation with the other party, and was found to have failed to take appropriate measures by accurately observing the action of the other party until the situation of the scam and the situation of the scam. On the other hand, Plaintiff 2, the mate of the scam scam, cannot be said to have been negligent on the two occasions. However, in comparison with both negligence, the negligence by Nonparty 1, the mate of the pande Noscam pande, was more than the negligence by Plaintiff 2 of the scam scam scam scam scam scam.

(2) Next, the vessel’s fault is compared in the course of the collision between the vessel and the vessel’s stuffed.

A. First, according to the original ruling, Nonparty 1 was aware that both vessels have met only by reporting the lights specified in this subparagraph when both vessels approach 2.5 math day of each other. If the two vessels are aware that they are crossing, they shall change course to the right side from the right side of the give-way vessel so that they do not cross the players specified in this subparagraph, and shall carefully check the course to the right side until the other vessel is able to be identified in order to avoid a collision, and if necessary, the other vessel has a duty to stop the vessel completely by accelerating, stopping or turning ahead of the vessel (Articles 15 and 8(2), (4), and (5) of the Rules), but the above non-party 1 was at the right side of about 2 math day, but not at the right side until the collision or 2nd day of the collision but at the right side of the vessel.

B. On the other hand, Plaintiff 2, the mate of the Spande No. 2, had a duty of care to prevent the collision by taking measures such as inducing the other party to change course or accelerating or suspending the course, as long as it was clearly possible to observe the other party's action on the land when the pande No. 2 math and 2 math, so the other party's vessel could not avoid the collision if the other party's vessel, as seen earlier, did not take action to avoid collision, such as change of course, etc. in accordance with the Rules, as seen earlier, even if the spande vessel is maintained, even if the spande vessel had a duty of care to prevent the collision by inducing the other party to change course, accelerating, or stop the spande, but the above plaintiff 2 neglected to observe the action under the pande No. 1st pande No. 2, and it was found that the collision caused the collision, but it did not reach the immediately preceding pande.

C. Examining the process of the collision between the two vessels as above until the point of the collision, it is similar for both parties to take appropriate measures to keep the action of the other vessel while continuing to prevent the collision. However, it would be more likely that the panty panty ode, the panty ode, who is the give-way vessel, would rather be an opportunity to make the collision of this case, rather than a panty ode, depending on the principle of avoidance at crossing at the time of crossing, rather than a panty ode ode in the vicinity of the distance of 2 math day. Therefore, the negligence on the side of the panty ode ode, which is larger than the negligence on the side of the ice odial.

3. As seen above, if the process from the beginning to the end of gambling status, and the process from the beginning to the end of the collision, to the point of view that the negligence of Plaintiff 2 on the ground of the Switzerland’s negligence is much more minor than the negligence of Nonparty 1 on the pandeno-de.

Meanwhile, according to the original ruling, the negligence between the plaintiff 1 and the non-party 2, who is the captain of the Spanno-ho Lake, and the non-party 2, who is the captain of the Spanno-ho Lake, is in the negligence of supervision and direction over the plaintiff 2 and the non-party 1, who is the chief mate of the pan-ship. Thus, the severity of the negligence depends on the respective negligence of the plaintiff 2

However, the original ruling is deemed to have no big difference in the negligence of both vessels, and therefore, the plaintiff 2, the mate of Switzerland, the plaintiff 1, the mate of Switzerland, and the non-party 1, the captain of Switzerland, and the non-party 2, the captain of Switzerland, who are the captain of Switzerland, are equally in two months of the same suspension of business. By making a judgment on the seriousness of both vessels' negligence, it cannot be said that the original ruling is an unlawful act that deviates from the scope of discretionary authority by selecting an excessive disciplinary measure that goes against balance and fairness compared to the degree of negligence.

It is reasonable to discuss in this point.

4. Therefore, without examining other grounds of appeal, the original ruling is revoked, and it is remanded to the Central Maritime Affairs and Appeal Board. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Park Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)