In accordance with the English Marine Insurance Act and the English courts' precedents, the burden and extent of proof that the loss incurred to the subject matter was caused by the insured risk.

영국 해상보험법 및 영국 법원의 판례에 의하면, 피보험자가 보험금의 지급을 청구하기 위하여는 피보험자는 보험사고가 발생한 사실, 그 보험사고가 부보위험으로 인한 것이라는 사실, 즉 특정한 부보위험이 손해발생의 근인(근인, proximate cause)이라는 사실에 관한 입증책임이 있고, 여기서 근인이라 함은 '지배적인(dominant)', '유효한(effective)', 또는 '직접적인(direct)' 원인을 말하고, 시간적으로 반드시 최후의 것(the last in point of time)임을 요하지 아니하며, 결국 무엇이 근인이 되는가는 전반적인 관점에서 광범위한 상식에 따른 법원의 사실인정(It is for the court to decide the proximate cause as a question of fact)의 문제인데, 위와 같은 요증사실은 사고원인에 관한 가설의 개연성을 형량하였을 때(balance of probability), 보험사고가 부보위험에 의하여 일어났을 개연성(probability)이 그렇지 않을 개연성보다 우월(more likely than not the loss arose because of an insured peril)할 정도로 입증되어야 하고, 만일 부보위험과 미부보위험 또는 부보위험에서 제외되는 위험(a non-insured or an excepted peril)이 동등한 정도로 보험사고에 영향을 주었다고 인정되는 경우에는 피보험자의 입증은 실패하게 된다.

[1] Article 3 of the English Marine Insurance Act, Article 6 (1) 2, (2) 3, and 5 of the English Institute Time Clauses - Hulles 1983)

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Domin, Attorneys Park Jae-young and 1 other, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Dong Fire & Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. (Attorneys Han Han-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Bosung Refriger Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Sejong, Attorneys Kim Chang-joon et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Busan District Court Decision 99Da5586, 10151 Decided January 10, 2001

1. The part of the lower judgment regarding the principal lawsuit shall be revoked.

2. In relation to an accident that was sunken on the sea of approximately 150 minutes in the 14:32 South, 1998, the 510-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-

3. Of the lower judgment, the part against the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) regarding the counterclaim is revoked, and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff)’s counterclaim corresponding to the revoked part is dismissed.

4. The Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff’s appeal is dismissed.

5. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff) by aggregating the principal lawsuit and the counterclaims in the first and second instances.

1. Purport of claim

Main claim: Paragraph (2).

Counterclaim: The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant; hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiff") shall pay to the defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff; hereinafter referred to as "the defendant") 2,500,000 US dollars and 9.46% per annum from March 29, 1999 to the date of this decision, and 25% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

2. Purport of appeal

Plaintiff: The same shall apply to orders.

Defendant: Revocation of the part against the Defendant regarding the counterclaim in the original judgment, and the Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant 2,500,000 US dollars an annual amount of 25% from January 11, 2001 to the date of full payment.

1. Basic facts

The following facts are not disputed between the parties:

A. On October 19, 197, the Plaintiff entered into an insurance contract with the Defendant with respect to the deep-sea fishing vessel Nos. 510, 510 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant vessel”) as stated in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as the “instant insurance contract”).

B. The Association Time Clauses - the Terms and Conditions applicable to the above insurance contract (hereinafter referred to as the "Insurance Terms and Conditions") provide that this insurance is subject to the laws and customs of the United Kingdom, and that such insurance is subject to the law and customs of the United Kingdom, and that risks secured under Article 6 are: (i) sea, river, lake, or other waters available for navigation; (ii) naviable rate for crew members, 6.1.1), fire, explosion, 6.1.2); (iii) general vessel crew members or pilots' fault on board or ferries; (iv) general crew members or pilots' fault on the part of high-class general crew members or pilots' fault; (v) master of a vessel, crew members or pilots' fault on the part of the master; and (v) master of a vessel, senior crew members or pilots' fault on the part of the master; (v) master of a vessel, senior crew members or pilots' fault on the part of the master; and (v) master of a vessel, senior crew members or pilots' fault on the part of the master;

C. However, the instant vessel was sunken at around 14:32 on July 29, 1998 at around 49°05 on the south, west 60°48 on the northwest of the Solland (hereinafter “the instant accident point”) around 150 on the northwest 48 on the west 1998.

2. Determination on the duty to pay insurance proceeds

A. The party's assertion on the principal lawsuit and counterclaim

(1) As the cause of the claim in this case, the plaintiff failed to prove that the sinking of the ship in this case was caused by a specific insured risk under the above insurance contract, and even if the cause of the sinking of the ship in this case was caused by an insured risk (the fault or negligence of the captain, crew, etc., or the captain, etc., of this case), the sinking of the ship in this case caused the sinking of flooding by the defendant's implied approval or public offering due to fire caused by the fire by the non-party 1, etc., and this constitutes the cause of the insurer's exemption, which constitutes a part of the insurer's exemption, and the plaintiff asserts that there was no obligation to pay insurance money based on the insurance contract in this case concerning the sinking

(2) Accordingly, the defendant is the cause of the counterclaim of this case. The ship of this case is a cause of the counterclaim of this case. The ship of this case caused the sinking of the ship by entering the ship into the ship's engine room through a strike of the ship caused by fire, which is an insured risk under Article 6 of the above insurance clauses. The ship of this case caused the sinking of the ship by intentionally entering the ship's engine room through flooding the engine room, or through the panty treatment room into the engine room (Bilge, sewage and oil sludge) and through the slurg (Slurt W day, the part that was set up in the ship's engine room in a way that the water flows out and easily flows out) and the sea water coming into the ship's engine room through the panty treatment room, which is an insured risk under Article 6 of the above insurance clauses, and even if the ship of this case caused the sinking of the ship of this case by intentionally entering the ship of this case into the ship of this case and causing damage to the ship of this case, the captain of this case, etc.

(b) Applicable law and burden of proof;

앞에서 본 바와 같이 이 사건 보험계약의 내용을 이루는 보험약관에 영국법 준거조항과 그 부보위험이 열거되어 있으므로 보험자의 책임문제는 영국의 법률과 관습에 의하여 결정되고, 영국해상보험법 및 영국법원의 판례에 의하면, 피보험자가 보험금의 지급을 청구하기 위하여는 피보험자는 보험사고가 발생한 사실, 그 보험사고가 부보위험으로 인한 것이라는 사실, 즉 특정한 부보위험이 손해발생의 근인(근인, proximate cause)이라는 사실에 관한 입증책임이 있고, 여기서 근인이라 함은 '지배적인(dominant)', '유효한(effective)', 또는 '직접적인(direct)' 원인을 말하고, 시간적으로 반드시 최후의 것(the last in point of time)임을 요하지 아니하며, 결국 무엇이 근인이 되는가는 전반적인 관점에서 광범위한 상식에 따른 법원의 사실인정(It is for the court to decide the proximate cause as a question of fact)의 문제이다.

그리고 위와 같은 요증사실은 사고원인에 관한 가설의 개연성을 형량하였을 때(balance of probability), 보험사고가 부보위험에 의하여 일어났을 개연성(probability)이 그렇지 않을 개연성보다 우월(more likely than not the loss arose because of an insured peril)할 정도로 입증되어야 하고, 만일 부보위험과 미부보위험 또는 부보위험에서 제외되는 위험(a non-insured or an excepted peril)이 동등한 정도로 보험사고에 영향을 주었다고 인정되는 경우에는 피보험자의 입증은 실패하게 된다.

In addition, even in the sinking accident where the cause is unknown, in principle, the insured must prove that the sinking accident is caused by the insured risk, and if it is not proved, the insurer shall not be obliged to pay the insurance money.

C. Facts of recognition

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or may be recognized in full view of the whole purport of arguments or arguments by evidence Nos. 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, evidence No. 10-1, 2, evidence No. 11 through 20, evidence No. 21 (Evidence No. 23, evidence No. 22, evidence No. 1-5, No. 21, and No. 26, evidence No. 1-38, 39, 42, 46, 48 through 59, 63 through 71, 75, 79, No. 71, and evidence No. 7, and evidence No. 1-5, 20, 21, 25, 28, 29, 2636, 37, 376, 376, 37, 67, 77-27, 67, 7636, 37

(1) Structure and operation status of the instant vessel

(A) The instant vessel was purchased from Non-Party 3,50,000 Fel engines built in Japan in 1974 from Non-Party 2,00 Fluxian Ship (the gross tonnage of 351.68t, length of 50.63m, width of 9m) and continued fishing in the South, North, west Islands located in Austria or its neighboring areas without entry into Korea on August 30, 1995, and 333 seafarers, including Non-Party 1, on January 14, 1998, on board and after purchasing from Non-Party 2, 1995 KRW 750,000 from Non-Party 2,000, 193 seafarers, on board, were on board, and 333 seafarers, including the captain and non-party 1, and 1,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000).

(b)the structure of the hull;

이 사건 선박의 선체는 선수 선교형으로서 모두 5층의 갑판선이며, 제1층은 대부분 이중저(더블보텀, Double Bottom) 탱크로 연료유, 윤활유 등의 기름탱크이며, 제2층은 선수로부터 제1, 2, 3번 어창, 기관실, 청수창 및 유조창용인 제5번창의 순서로 배치되어 있고, 제3층은 선수로부터 갑판장창고, 공장(Factory Space), 급냉동실, 처리실(일명 준비실), 어망창고, 타기실 및 유조창이 있으며, 제4층은 폭로갑판으로 선수부에 선원거주구역이 있고 그 뒷부분에 양망기로 쓰는 트롤윈치가 설치되어 있는데, 선미끝단으로부터 선수쪽으로 약 3.5m의 길이로 경사면을 이루는 슬립웨이(Slipway)가 어망을 끌어들이기 위하여 설치되어 있고 슬립웨이의 선내측 끝으로부터 선수쪽으로 약 6.5m 떨어진 곳에 양망시 그물로부터 어획물을 쏟아 넣는 투입구인 피쉬폰드 뚜껑(FishPond Hatch, 가로 1.2m, 세로 1.9m)이 설치되어 있으며, 이 투입구는 선수측이 하방으로 유압에 의하여 비스듬히 열리게 되어 있고 선미 슬립웨이의 외측 끝단으로부터 피쉬폰드까지의 거리는 약 10m이며 거주구역의 선미측 끝부터 양망기까지 거리는 약 4m이고, 제5층에는 선원 거주구역 상부에 선교가 위치하고 있다.

(C) the process of disposing of fish;

위 선박에서 그물로 건져 올린 어획물은 피쉬폰드 뚜껑을 열어 처리실 후방에 있는 피쉬폰드로 쏟아 붇고, 이후 컨베이어에 의하여 처리실로 이동시켜 여기에서 물로 씻은 후 냉동 팬(Pan)에 담아 급냉고에 보관해 냉동시킨 다음, 이것을 꺼내어 약간의 해수를 뿌려 순간적으로 고기의 표면에 얼음막을 입히는 이른바 탈팬(탈Pan)과정을 거쳐 냉장설비가 되어 있는 어창에 보관하도록 되어 있는데, 이 탈팬과정에는 기관실에서 잡용수펌프(General Service Pump)를 가동시켜 공급하는 해수를 사용하며, 위 해수는 선원들의 생활용수인 청수의 부족으로 화장실, 세면, 세탁 및 갑판청소 등에도 사용하므로 순수한 탈팬작업에 쓰이는 해수는 분당 약 100ℓ정도만 공급하고 있다.

The panty water supply officer shall sprink the sea water through the hole of approximately 45cm in length, approximately 2.5cm in diameter, in diameter, through the diameter of approximately 2mm, and the sea water used in panpanty work shall be cut back by the floor of the disposal room immediately, and all panpanty work shall be cut back into the water hole installed in the four sphere and after the inside of the disposal room, and shall be discharged out from the lock pumps line installed in the four sphere. The diving pumps are operated in a way that water level in the water tank and is connected to all sphere, while the water level of water level in the water tank is cut off, and on the other hand, burge is cut in an engine room of approximately 4 to 5t per day.

(d)A catch of approximately 15,00 pans, of approximately 225t, was loaded in the fish hold Nos. 950t, approximately 100t, and approximately 38t, in their respective freezings, in the fish hold No. 950t, approximately 100t, and approximately 4;

(2) Occurrence of a fire

From 07:00 on July 29, 1998 (on the date of the accident, hereinafter the same shall apply) to 000 degrees, speeded approximately 3.8 knotss, the vessel was towed. At around 09:20 on the same day, at around 09:20 on the day when the accident occurred, there was an uncertain fire in the Vietnam crew bedroom located on the foreline of the players, and at that time, Nonparty 2 (English name omitted) out of 2 seafarers of Vietnam, who were living in the place at that time, was considered to fall from the bee of the bee of the bee of the bee of the bee of the bee of the bee of the bee of the bee of the bee of the bee of the bee of the bee of the bee of the bee of the bee of the bee of the bee of the bee of the bee of the bee of the bee of the bee of the bee of the bee of the bee of the bee of the front.

(3) Fire fighting and crew trends;

Upon the occurrence of a fire, the captain, Nonparty 1 immediately set an emergency warning on the ship, and ordered Nonparty 4 to draw the steering net on the steering house, but without putting on the fire site, requested rescue from the wireless telephone (VHF) at approximately 7.5 miles distance in the vicinity of the 500t fishing vessel, which was engaged in fishing at a distance of 7.5 miles in the vicinity, without seeing the fire hydrant in the vicinity of the breadth deck, such as using the fire hydrants in the vicinity of the breadth, or closing the passage smuggling for entering the residential area, thereby realizing the spread of the fire.

1. The non-party 5: (a) attempted to extinguish portable carbon dioxide (CO2) with 3 and 4 crew members, including the non-party 3, etc., when he shouldered to the sound of “non-party 5” or “non-party 5,” and (b) attempted to extinguish fire by fire-fighting devices; (c) the non-party 6, etc. operated the fire-fighting water supply system and failed to remove fire-fighting water; (d) the non-party 7 was ordered the non-party 7 to stop the main engine at 10 p.m. without any specific fire-fighting work; (e) the non-party 7, who was on duty at the engine of the ship, did not stop using the main engine at 0 p.m.; and (e) the non-party 7, who was on duty at the engine of the ship, did not take a 9 p.m. with the main engine of the ship at 10 p.m., the latter part of the 4rd m., which was on the engine of the engine of the non-party 6.

(4) Status of the omission of the ship or the omission of the ship

On the other hand, at around 10:20 on the same day, the captain, who was requested to rescue from Nonparty 1, 201, failed the first landing line, and succeeded to the contact line by approaching the port side of the instant vessel to the port side of the instant vessel. At around 10:30, all 33 crew members of the instant vessel escaped to the port side of the instant vessel, and observed the instant vessel from the point out of 0.5 to the point out of 0.5 days from the instant vessel. By the time of the escape, gas supply, etc. was not explosiond from the back of the residential area of the instant vessel up to the time of the escape.

In order to report to the company after consultation with the head of the agency, etc., Nonparty 1 told Nonparty 10 to the effect that “the captain was unable to take all necessary measures against the fire, and the ship was loaded off at a low level, etc.,” Nonparty 1 told Nonparty 10 to the effect that “the captain, etc. was to take measures against the fire”, and the captain, etc. reported the fire and repair cost, etc. to Nonparty 11 via the radio telephone (SB) at the communication room (SB) at around 10:43, in order to report to the company, at around 10:43, Nonparty 1 attempted to report the fire to Nonparty 11 via the radio telephone station at the radio phone (SB). However, Nonparty 1 knew Nonparty 5’s phone number from Nonparty 5, at around 11:37 (13:37 minutes after early 13 hours from Korea) to 41 minutes from 41:41 minutes from the date on which the captain was instructed to the maximum extent possible from Nonparty 11.”

(5) the Contact and boarding vessel;

After all, the captain of the instant vessel, who was infected by the fire of the instant vessel, requested Nonparty 12 to the captain of the Manyang-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho to resume the instant vessel. The captain of the instant vessel was on board the vessel of this case with Nonparty 6 and Nonparty 1-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho

The captain of Mayang 201, the non-party 12 promoted several times to return to the loudspeaker to the third party who did not return 20 minutes from the vessel of this case. The plaintiff 1, the non-party 5, at the recommendation of the non-party 4 on deck, was instructed by the captain non-party 1, who tried to return to the vessel of this case to the vessel of this case, to the floor of the engine room through the passage door on the port side of the engine room. The non-party 1, the captain of this case, who was intending to return to the vessel of this case, she moved to the engine room through the front side of the engine room. The non-party 1, who reported the person who was working on the part of the engine room of the vessel of this case, was 2 to 3 times as soon as possible, and the non-party 1, who was inside the engine room of this case, went away from the engine room of this case and the non-party 6 and the vessel of this case were 1,012.

당시 약 30분간의 접선 동안 선수쪽의 화재는 거의 전소되어 선수 앞쪽에 연기와불씨만 조금 남아 있었으며, 트롤윈치 이후부터 선미쪽 기관실까지는 화재가 미치지 아니한 상태였으나 조타기가 소실되어 스스로 운항할 수 없어 예인하여야 할 상황이었고, 위 선박의 처리실 내부 바닥에 물은 고여있지 아니하였으며, 기관실에도 침수 또는 빌지(Bilge)가 고여 있는 현상은 보이지 아니하였고 슬립웨이에서 해수가 갑판으로 올라오거나 혹은 피쉬폰드로 들어가지 아니하였으며, 흘수는 선수 약 3.0m 선미 약 4.2m로 약 1.2m 선미트림(Trim, 선수흘수와 선미흘수의 차이)을 유지하고 있었다.

(6) The sinking of a vessel and the subsequent conditions thereof;

After the captain returned to friendly, Nonparty 1 reported the situation of the vessel at the time of the above Contact vessel between 13:17 and 13:33, to the 16 minutes by telephone. After that, the vessel of this case was flooded due to an unforeseen cause, the vessel was transferred to the aft, and the hull was restored to the aft, and the vessel was sunken under the speed of 14:32, the aft, and the player was able to grow to the upper part of the vessel repair. Accordingly, Nonparty 1 reported this fact to the 11 minutes between 14:49 and 15:00, and Nonparty 201, the captain reported this fact to the 11 minutes to the 11st son of the vessel at the speed of approximately 270°3:0,000, and Nonparty 1 was released from the 15th 15th malle of the vessel to the 15th malle of the vessel, and Nonparty 1 did not come to the 215th mal.

(d) Markets:

(1) The sinking by fire or explosion (the insurance clause 6.1.2)

(가)위 선박의 침몰이 화재, 혹은 화재로 인한 폭발로 발생한 선체의 파공으로 선체에 유입된 해수가 기관실을 침수하여 침몰되었는지의 점에 관하여 살피건대, 위 선박에 원인을 알 수 없는 화재가 발생하였고 선장 및 선원들이 이를 효과적으로 진화하지 아니하고 구조선으로 퇴선한 점은 인정된다. 그러나 위 화재만에 의하여 선박이 침몰될 수 있다거나, 또 위 화재로 인한 특이할 만한 폭발이 있었고 그로 인하여 선체에 파공이 생겨 해수가 유입됨으로써 선박이 침몰되는 손해가 발생하였다는 점을 인정할 만한 증거가 없으므로 피고의 위 주장은 이유 없다. 오히려, 앞에서 인정한 사실에 의하면, 재접선 후 퇴선할 당시 선수 쪽의 화재는 거의 전소되어 선수 앞쪽에 연기와 불씨만 조금 남아 있는 정도였고 트롤윈치 이후부터 선미쪽 기관실까지는 화재가 미치지 아니한 상태였으며, 화재발생 후 소외 4가 양망기 부근에서 감다가 남겨둔 어구는 대부분 해저에 가라앉아 있어 선체경사에 별다른 영향을 미치지 못하고 다량의 어획물도 화재가 미치지 않은 어창에 냉동된 상태로 보관되어 있어 선수부 중량이 화재로 인하여 특별히 감소되지 아니하였으므로, 화재로 인한 선수부 거주구역의 소실과 기관실의 침수 및 그로 인한 선박침몰은 직접적인 연관이 없는 것으로 인정된다.

(b)In addition, as to the defendant's assertion that the above vessel's 3rd pande 2nd 1st 2nd 2nd 1st 2nd 2nd 1st 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 3rd 2nd 2nd 2nd 3rd 2nd 2nd 3rd 2nd 2nd 2nd 3rd 2nd 2nd 3rd 2nd 2nd 3rd 2nd 2nd 3rd 2nd 2nd 3rd 2nd 2nd 3rd 2nd 2nd 2nd 3rd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd st st 2nd 2nd 2nd st st 2nd 2nd 2nd st st st st 2nd 2nd st st 2nd 2nd st st 2nd st st 2nd st 2nd 2nd 2nd m.

(2) Negligence of a master, senior seafarer, or pilot(s). (6.2.3)

In addition, the Defendant did not abandon the ship if there was no fire, and if there was no organ abandonment of the ship, the fire of this case was the root of the sinking of the ship. If the fire of this case was not the presence of the fire of this case, the Defendant asserts that the abandonment of the ship of this case was caused by the negligence of the crew, who neglected fighting operations and went forward from the early stage, and thus, it also constitutes an insured risk.

In light of the above, even if the captain and all crew members were to have been negligent in leaving the ship without extinguishing the fire at the time of the fire on the fore part of the captain, it cannot be deemed that the act of the captain, etc., without extinguishing fire, was the 's fire-fighting to the engine room' or the act of sinking the ship due to other causes, and there is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise. Thus, the above assertion by the Defendant is without merit.

Rather, according to the facts found earlier, Nonparty 1, who did not try fire-fighting at all, did not get out of the Defendant Company 11’s engine room, etc. (Therefore, it seems that the above vessel was not easily sunken if it was left out of the deck, and that the above vessel was out of the engine room, etc., and the sinking of the above vessel was started after getting out of the engine room. In addition, Nonparty 1, who did not request rescue from the fishery authority of the Ireland to rescue the vessel until the sinking of the vessel. However, Nonparty 1, who was under the direction of Nonparty 11 to rescue the vessel at the time of the sinking of the vessel, did not ask the captain of the vessel at the time of the sinking of the vessel, and the captain of the vessel at the time of the sinking of the vessel at the time of the sinking of the vessel at the time of the sinking of the vessel at the time of the sinking of the vessel at the time of the sinking of the vessel at the time of the sinking of the vessel at the time of the sinking of the vessel.

(iii)the master’s bad behavior of a senior seafarer; or (iii)the master’s general crew; or 6.2.5);

만일 선장 소외 1 등이 재접선시 고의로 킹스톤 밸브를 개방하여 연결파이프라인의 볼트를 느슨하게 풀어 해수를 유입하게 하는 등의 방법으로 기관실을 침수시켜 침몰에 이르렀다고 하더라도 이는 선장 등의 악행에 의한 것으로서 여전히 부보위험에 해당한다는 피고의 주장에 관하여 살피건대, 보험증권의 해석에 관한 규칙(Rules for construction of policy) 제11조에 의하면, "악행이라는 용어는 선주 또는 용선자에게 손해를 끼치는 선원 선장 및 선원의 고의에 의한 일체의 위법행위를 포함한다(The term "barratry" includes every wrongful act willfully committed by the master or crew to the prejudice of the owner, or, as case may, be the charter)"라고 규정되어 있고, 따라서 '악행'은 선주를 해치기 위하여 한 위법행위를 의미하는 것이므로, 만약 선박소유자가 선장 또는 선원의 행위를 지시 또는 묵인하거나 공모한 경우라면 이는 악행에 해당하지 아니하고, 이러한 경우 공모의 정도는 소극적인 것으로 충분하며, 고의에 의할 것을 요건으로 하므로 과실에 의한 것은 이에 해당하지 아니한다고 할 것이다.

In the instant case, the above fire was not likely to sinking the vessel solely on the ground of its spread, the quantity and location of the catch to be stored. In light of the structure and condition of the vessel at the time of sinking, weather conditions at the time of sinking, time to the sinking of the vessel, etc., it cannot be the cause of sinking of the vessel. As seen earlier, the sinking of the vessel at issue is highly likely to have been sunken due to mass sinking of the vessel by the engine, etc. on the ground that it was not likely that the sinking of the vessel at issue was done by the captain of the instant case on board the vessel at the time of sinking, and there was no other specific evidence to prove that the sinking of the vessel was done by the captain of the instant vessel at the time of sinking the vessel at the time of sinking the vessel at the time of sinking the vessel at the time of sinking the vessel at the time of the vessel, but there was no possibility that the sinking of the vessel at the time of sinking the vessel by the captain of the instant accident at the time of sinking the vessel at the time of sinking the vessel at the time of 3rd.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, with respect to an accident that was sunken on the sea of approximately 49Do05 minutes in 150 minutes in west-do and about 60Do48 minutes in west-do around July 29, 1998, the plaintiff's main claim is justified, and the plaintiff's claim against the defendant under the insurance contract stated in the separate sheet is justified, and the plaintiff's claim against the defendant to pay insurance money related to the sinking of the ship of this case is dismissed as there is no ground. Since the judgment of the court below is unfair on the contrary, the part of the main claim of the judgment of the court below is revoked and there is no obligation to pay the above insurance money, and the part of the judgment of the court below against the plaintiff as to the counterclaim is dismissed, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.

Judges Kim Tae-tae (Presiding Judge)