Whether the method of practice, including the period of practice, should be based on Korean procedural law when maritime lien is enforced in Korea (affirmative)

Article 60 subparagraph 1 of the Private International Act provides that "the ownership and mortgage of a ship, maritime lien and other real rights to a ship" on the sea shall be governed by the law of the country of registry of the ship. Thus, the establishment of maritime lien shall be governed by the law of the country of registry of the ship. However, when maritime lien is exercised in Korea, the method of enforcement, including the period of execution, shall be governed by

Article 60 subparag. 1 of the Private International Act

Flish L&C (Law Firm Cyangyang, Attorneys Noh flood et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

1. The term “mittling” means “mittling” means “mitting” means “mitting” means “mitting” means “mitt” means “mitt” means “mit

Busan High Court Decision 2009Na10577 Decided November 4, 2009

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Article 60 subparagraph 1 of the Private International Act provides that "the ownership and mortgage of a ship, maritime lien, and other real rights to a ship" on the sea shall be governed by the law of the country of registry of the ship. Thus, the establishment of maritime lien shall be governed by the law of the country of registry of the ship. However, when maritime lien is exercised in Korea, the method of enforcement, including the period of enforcement, shall be governed by the Korean

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the above legal principles and records, it is just that the court below accepted the plaintiff's claim confirming the absence of the maritime lien on the ground that the defendant had already extinguished before applying for auction to the Ulsan District Court on November 18, 2008, by applying Article 786 of the Korean Commercial Act stipulating the exclusion period of the maritime lien to the same purport. There is no error of misapprehending the legal principles of the governing law as to the exercise period of the maritime lien as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Jeon Soo-ahn (Presiding Justice)