All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

A. Each time charter party in this case is a contract with a corporation of the Republic of Korea that has foreign elements, and thus the governing law should be set in accordance with the Private International Act.

The main sentence of Article 25(1) of the Private International Act provides that “a contract shall be governed by the law that the parties have chosen explicitly or implicitly.”

Since each time charter party of this case set the English law as the governing law, the English law is the governing law in this case where the plaintiffs seek hire payment, etc. under each time charter party of this case.

In a time charter contract where a shipowner has both the possession of a ship, the right to appoint a shipmaster and a seafarer, and the right to overall control and management of a ship, the term “redelivery” refers, in principle, to the return of the ship to a shipowner in accordance with the conditions stipulated in the time charter contract. If a time charter contract provides that the shipowner shall take over the fuel oil remaining on the ship at the time of the counter-ship and the time charterer shall settle accounts and pay the price to the time charterer, the time charterer shall impose in advance a duty to notify the shipowner of the time of the counter-ship and the point of the counter-ship several times, and if the requirements and procedures are prescribed, such as the quality of the fuel oil remaining at the time of the counter-ship and the minimum quantity anticipated at the time of the non-ship, the counter-delivery is premised on the condition that the time charter is performed in accordance with the conditions set in the time charter contract, this shall not include cases where the ship is returned due to

B. In full view of the circumstances stated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that each remaining fuel oil price claim against the Plaintiffs exists as follows, and thus, it constitutes an automatic bond.