1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Based on the facts, the Plaintiff is a person on December 4, 2014, on board the Defendant B (hereinafter “instant vessel”) and worked as a captain.

On January 9, 2015, the Defendant directed the Plaintiff to prepare and report the TTRCP (Task Risk Risk Plin and business risk control plan) with respect to the work before work every day.

On February 4, 2015, the Plaintiff sent e-mail to the Defendant, stating that “The burden of work due to the preparation and report of the TRCP is rather impeding the safe navigation of vessels.” The Plaintiff, based on the captain’s top priority authority, would not report TRCP in the future.” In fact, from February 5, 2015, the Plaintiff sent e-mail to the Defendant.

2. The report was not filed until 22.

On March 5, 2015, the Defendant issued a landing order (hereinafter “instant landing order”) to the Plaintiff by electronic mail with the following contents as follows:

The “B(15) shift plan” attached to the foregoing e-mail stated the Plaintiff’s reason for leaving the ship as “abstinence”.

On the same day, the defendant ordered the plaintiff to leave the telephone.

( Strategic) Sub: Transmission of a plan for shift of sea personnel B (compile)

2. Tophere, as appendix a table, gold ports (Voy. 015) B maritime staff shift plan, see the draliane, as appendix.

1) According to the gold-class personnel management plan, the captain of A is requested to have his mission left from the port of gold ports in accordance with the gold-class personnel management plan. - see the post-employment interview, which is scheduled to be held in a future-related active consultation later. 2) The pre-consultation on the request for delay in the selection of a future and for leaving a mission during the process of the gold-class shift work is difficult to proceed smoothly.

- It is scheduled to do its best to provide smooth maritime human resources support through subsequent active communication, and it is difficult to request many co-operations of the ship.

On March 13, 2015, the defendant landed from the ship of this case from the ship of this case and returned to the Republic of Korea on the same day.