[1] Whether the part of the Korean Maritime Safety Tribunal's ruling on the cause of a marine accident can be subject to a lawsuit seeking revocation of a judgment under Article 74 (1) of the Act on the Investigation of and Inquiry into Marine Accidents (negative)

[2] Matters to recommend correction and improvement required in making a ruling of recommendation for correction or improvement under Article 5(2) and (3) of the Act on the Investigation of and Inquiry into Marine Accidents, the degree of relevance between marine accidents, and whether a ruling of correction may be made on a person involved in a minor vessel at fault in the collision with the vessel (affirmative)

[1] Article 74(1) of the Act on the Investigation and Inquiry of Marine Accidents / [2] Article 5(2) and (3) of the Act on the Investigation and Inquiry of Marine Accidents

[1] Supreme Court Decision 99Do16 delivered on June 9, 2000 (Gong2000Ha, 1675) Supreme Court Decision 2006Do21 Delivered on October 9, 2008

Plaintiff

President of the Central Maritime Safety Tribunal

March 13, 2014

Of the instant lawsuits, the part of the Korean Maritime Safety Tribunal (Korean Maritime Safety Tribunal) sought revocation of the judgment to find the causes of marine accidents of the judgment No. 2013-003 on May 24, 2013 is dismissed. The remaining claims of the Plaintiff are dismissed. Costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiff

1. Occurrence of marine accidents of this case and details of adjudication;

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or may be acknowledged by adding up the whole purport of the pleadings to each entry in Gap evidence 1 and Eul evidence 1.

A. At around 06:00 on June 28, 2012, Ilsung-ho, a coastal self-net fishing vessel, started a political network fishing ground located in the north of 2.3 miles away from the arrival of the Pungyang-si, Busan-si, Yandong-si on the north of 2.3 miles-do and started a fishing ground for a winding vessel at around 06:20 on the same day, the marine accident of this case, which occurred at around 06:20 on the same day, which is a coastal multi-modal fishing vessel, sailing in the north of the Yan-si, Yan-si, Yan-si, U.S. at the sea at the time of the bankruptcy in the front of the Pungdong-si, Yan-si (the Plaintiff, the captain, etc.) at around 06:20.

B. On May 24, 2013, with respect to the instant marine accident, the Korean Maritime Safety Tribunal rendered a ruling on the identification of the cause of the accident and a recommendation to the effect that “this collision occurred due to the failure of the Ilsung-ho, the give-way vessel, in the course of crossing each other, while the two vessels are crossing the course, but it is also the failure to take cooperative action to avoid collision by neglecting the boundaries. However, the maintenance vessel’s failure to take corrective action. The Non-party involved in the marine accident shall recommend the non-party to take corrective action.” On the other hand, the Korean Maritime Safety Tribunal made a ruling on the identification of the cause of the accident and the reason for the ruling that “The rate of providing the cause of the accident on both sides shall be 60% per day and 40% per annum.”

2. Judgment on the claim for revocation of the adjudication to find the cause of the instant case

A lawsuit against a judgment rendered by the Korean Maritime Safety Tribunal under Article 74(1) of the Act on the Investigation of and Inquiry into Marine Accidents shall have the nature of a lawsuit against cancellation of an administrative disposition, and thus, the contents of the judgment subject to a lawsuit shall also have the effect of forming and limiting the rights and obligations of the people, such as the exercise of public authority by an administrative agency. However, unlike a disciplinary ruling or a recommendation ruling against a person involved in a marine accident, the part of a judgment to find the cause of a marine accident which finds the cause of a marine accident cannot be deemed to constitute an administrative disposition because it does not have the effect of forming or confirming the rights and obligations of the people (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 9Da16, Jun. 9, 200; 2006Do21, Oct. 9, 2008).

Therefore, among the instant rulings, the part seeking the cancellation of the judgment to find the cause of marine accidents of this case is unlawful as it is filed with respect to matters not subject to revocation litigation.

3. Of the instant ruling, determination as to the claim for revocation of the part concerning the recommendation and ruling with respect to the Plaintiff

A. The plaintiff's assertion

In light of the fact that the marine accident of this case was caused by the failure to take all cooperative action to avoid collision, the part on the recommendation ruling on the plaintiff of this case (hereinafter "the recommendation ruling of this case") among the ruling of this case, which was made on the premise that the negligence of the plaintiff of this case was 60% of the day-to-day, even though it was made on the premise that the accident of this case was 60% of the day-to-day, the part on the recommendation ruling of this case against the plaintiff of this case (hereinafter "the recommendation ruling of this case") should be revoked.

(b) recognised facts;

The following facts may be acknowledged in light of the overall purport of the pleadings in the statements No. 1, No. 2-1 through No. 5, and No. 2-1, and No. 1, and each statement of No. 3 through No. 5 is insufficient to reverse the above recognition, and no other counter-proof exists.

1) 수영호는 이 사건 사고발생일 05:30경 통영시 산양읍 만지도 해안의 정치망어장을 출발하여 같은 시 도산면 수월리 앞 양지포 해상으로 향하였는데, 레이더 탐지거리를 0.75마일로 조정하여 놓고 같은 시 미륵도 서쪽 해안을 따라 약 12노트의 속력으로 항해하다가 같은 시 산양읍 곤리도 주포말 서단을 약 300m 떨어져 통과한 후 선수 방향에 있는 미륵도와 태도 사이의 두원서를 바라보면서 침로를 약 340도로 정하여 항해를 계속하였다.

2) At around 06:00 on the date of the instant accident, Ilsung, a political net fishing ground located north of the same city located on the north of the same city of Taedo, departing from the same city of Taeyang-do toward the direction of the Pungyang-si and passing through between her attitude and her attitude, and two applications in front of the players were examined, and her course was set at approximately 130 degrees, and her course was set at approximately 4.5 knotss, and her course was her course changed to her course at approximately 5 degrees from the front side of the players' right side to the port side, and her course was changed to her course to the port side.

3) Nevertheless, with the rapid speed of swimming, the Plaintiff and Ilsung-ho crew members were her brypted on her port side to avoid this, but they failed to avoid this, and thus, the Defendant and Ilsung-ho crew members got out of her port on 06:20 meters of the date of the accident. At around 200 meters of the date of the accident, approximately 34:49 degrees 79 degrees east-do, 128 degrees 19 degrees 57 seconds of the parallel (N 34° 49 degrees 79 degrees 7 degrees east-do, 128 degrees 19 degrees 57 seconds of the parallel of the two vessels.

4) 사고 발생 당시 수영호 선장 소외인은 미륵도 오른쪽에서 나타날지 모르는 선박을 조기에 발견하기 위하여 선수 우현 방향을 보면서 항해하느라 선수 좌현 방향에서 접근하는 일성호를 충돌 시까지도 발견하지 못하였다.

C. Determination

1) The Maritime Safety Tribunal at each level may make a ruling to recommend or order correction or improvement to a person involved in the cause of a marine accident (Article 5(2) and (3) of the Act on the Investigation of and Inquiry into Marine Accidents (hereinafter “Maritime Accident Inquiry Act”). The matters to be corrected or improved should be related to the cause of a marine accident. Meanwhile, the Act on the Investigation into and Inquiry into Marine Accidents adopts the principle of free evaluation of evidence (Article 51 of the Act on the Investigation into Marine Accidents) but does not provide for admissibility of evidence. The cause and relevance of a marine accident is an indefinite concept, which has no choice but to be determined at the Central Maritime Safety Tribunal, which is an administrative agency. In particular, in the case of a ruling on the recommendation of correction or improvement, there is no means to enforce it even without complying with it, and it is inevitable to view it as an opinion of administrative guidance without binding force, and the relation between the matters to be corrected or improved should not be bound by a strict framework of causation, but it is reasonable to consider that there are more reasonable grounds for correction or improvement of a marine accident between the two different parties.

2) Examining the above facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the daily nature of the instant vessel, which had been on the west side at the time of the instant accident, ought to be considerably far away from the hives, by taking a prior action, even though the Plaintiff had discovered the hives, but was at the time of the occurrence of the instant marine accident, and the Plaintiff’s negligence, which had been on the hives prior to the collision, was caused by the occurrence of the instant marine accident, seems to require corrective measures against the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the decision in this case, which decided the ratio of provision of grounds for both sides in consideration of these circumstances and ordered correction to the plaintiff accordingly, cannot be deemed to be erroneous. The plaintiff's assertion in this part is without merit.

3) Meanwhile, the Plaintiff’s assertion may be deemed to include the purport that the part concerning the distribution of the rate of providing cause for the occurrence of an accident among the grounds for the instant recommendation ruling is unreasonable. However, the determination made on the grounds of the ruling is not subject to a revocation lawsuit, and the determination made on the grounds of the instant recommendation ruling does not become final and conclusive as the Plaintiff’s liability ratio in civil litigation, etc. relating to the instant marine accident in the future. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without

4. Conclusion

Therefore, among the lawsuits in this case, the part seeking the revocation of the adjudication to find the cause of a ground among the lawsuits in this case is unlawful, and the remaining claims are dismissed as it is without merit. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices

Justices Jo Hee-de (Presiding Justice)