Open Decision Ledger · Civil obligations & remedies
Towing an irreparable barge's remains within charter damages
Supreme Court, Mar. 12, 2026, 2020Da288436 (judgment)
Case name: 손해배상(기)[경제적 수리불능으로 평가되는 선박의 잔존물을 당초 그 선박에 관한 용선계약상 반환예정지로 예인하는 비용이 용선자가 부담할 손해배상 범위에 포함되는지가 문제 된 사건]
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Where a crane barge let under a ship charter agreed to be returned at Gunsan was damaged to the point of economic impossibility of repair, may the owner claim the cost of towing its remains from Incheon to Gunsan as damages, and does a collection order against the owner's damages claim strip the owner of standing to sue the charterer?
Holding
On the towing cost, the return place being fixed at Gunsan does not by itself establish that the loss of paying for the tow actually arose. Because the remains of a barge economically beyond repair have no use but to yield the proceeds of sale, the return clause does not simply apply unless special circumstances show that disposal must take place at the agreed place or that towing it to Gunsan accords with social common sense, and the owner must prove that the loss actually and definitively arose. On standing, a collection order against the debtor's claim does not strip the debtor of standing to sue the third debtor for performance of that claim.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
임대차계약의 내용이 그대로 적용된다고 보기 어렵고, 위 부선의 반환 장소를 군산항으로 정하였다는 사정만으로 갑 회사에 예인비의 지출이라는 손해의 결과가 현실적으로 발생하였다고 단정하기 어려우며
Unofficial English translation
it is difficult to regard the content of the lease agreement as applying as it is, and it is difficult to conclude that the result of damage in the form of the expenditure of towing costs actually occurred to Company A merely on the ground that the place of return of the barge was set as the Port of Gunsan, and
Disposition
Partly reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결 중 피고 패소 부분과 원고에 관한 부분을 파기하고, 이 부분 사건을 부산고등법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed as to the part ruling against the defendant and as to the part concerning the plaintiff, and this part of the case is remanded to the Busan High Court.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
불법행위나 채무불이행으로 인한 손해배상청구권은 현실적으로 손해가 발생한 때에 성립하는 것이고, 이때 현실적으로 손해가 발생하였는지 여부는 사회통념에 비추어 객관적이고 합리적으로 판단하여야 한다.
Unofficial English translation
A right to claim damages arising from a tort (unlawful act) or non-performance of an obligation is established at the time when the damage actually occurs, and whether the damage actually occurred at that time must be judged objectively and reasonably in light of common sense in society.
Factors
- 불법행위나 채무불이행으로 인한 손해배상청구권은 현실적으로 손해가 발생한 때에 성립하는 것이고
- 위 부선이 경제적 수리불능으로 평가된다면 특별한 사정이 없는 한 그 잔존물은 처분대금을 얻기 위한 효용만을 가지므로
- 위 부선의 반환 장소를 군산항으로 정하였다는 사정만으로 갑 회사에 예인비의 지출이라는 손해의 결과가 현실적으로 발생하였다고 단정하기 어려우며
- 실제로 위 부선이 군산항으로 예인되었다거나 갑 회사가 위 부선을 군산항으로 예인하고자 하는 계획을 구체적으로 수립하였다고 볼 만한 자료도 없으므로
Unofficial English translation
• A right to claim damages arising from a tort (unlawful act) or non-performance of an obligation is established at the time when the damage actually occurs, and
• if the barge is evaluated as economically irreparable, unless there are special circumstances, its remains possess only the utility of obtaining a disposal price, and therefore
• it is difficult to conclude that the result of damage in the form of the expenditure of towing costs actually occurred to Company A merely on the ground that the place of return of the barge was set as the Port of Gunsan, and
• there are no materials to regard it as established that the barge was actually towed to the Port of Gunsan or that Company A concretely formulated a plan to tow the barge to the Port of Gunsan, and therefore
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2025. 10. 23. 선고 2021다252977 전원합의체 판결(공2025하, 2229)
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court en banc judgment 2021Da252977 decided October 23, 2025 (Gong 2025 Ha, 2229)
Decisions referred to
[1] 대법원 2025. 10. 23. 선고 2021다252977 전원합의체 판결(공2025하, 2229) / [2] 대법원 1998. 4. 24. 선고 97다28568 판결(공1998상, 1443), 대법원 2017. 6. 19. 선고 2017다215070 판결, 대법원 2020. 7. 9. 선고 2017다56455 판결(공2020하, 1575)
Burden of proof
The party asserting Stated in the decision
그리고 불법행위나 채무불이행으로 인한 손해배상청구에서 위와 같은 손해 발생 사실은 피해자나 채권자가 이를 증명하여야 한다.
Unofficial English translation
And in a claim for damages arising from a tort (unlawful act) or non-performance of an obligation, the victim or the creditor must prove the fact of the occurrence of such damage as stated above.
Open question and revisit condition
How far does the collection order's effect reach delay damages that had already arisen before service was made, given that the debtor's standing to sue was held intact even on that portion?
The remand judgment of the Busan High Court on special circumstances and on whether the towing loss actually arose will show how this rule is applied. Any change to Article 390 or Article 393 of the Civil Act, or a later decision departing from Supreme Court Decision 2021Da252977, would require this entry to be read again.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
6 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-24
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on 6 of the 8 axes; the readings differed on axis 4 (form of the test), axis 8 (open question and revisit condition).
Axis 4 (Form of the test): Primary “Elements stated” vs Independent “Existing test applied”
The primary reads the holding as prescribing the requirements for towing costs, while the independent reads it as applying those requirements to the barge facts.
그러한 심리 없이 예인비를 손해배상의 범위에 포함된다고 본 원심판단에 법리오해 등의 잘못이 있다고 한 사례.Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “How far does the collection order's effect reach delay damages that had already arisen before service was made, given that the debtor's standing to sue was held intact even on that portion?” vs Independent “What additional evidence on remand would establish special circumstances requiring towing and an actual, definitive loss?”
The primary asks how far the collection order reaches delay damages that arose before service on the third debtor, while the independent asks what additional evidence on remand could prove special circumstances and actual loss.
임대차계약의 내용이 그대로 적용된다고 보기 어렵고, 위 부선의 반환 장소를 군산항으로 정하였다는 사정만으로 갑 회사에 예인비의 지출이라는 손해의 결과가 현실적으로 발생하였다고 단정하기 어려우며Raw responses and comparison record: Protocol · Blind readings (JSONL) · Axis comparison (JSONL) · SHA-256 (JSON)
Lower-court contrast & scope of application
Lower-court reading vs. Supreme Court holding
Lower-court context: The Busan High Court, in its judgment of 15 October 2020 (2020Na10223), held that Article 2 of the ship charter fixing Gunsan as the return place did not lose effect merely because the barge became economically beyond repair, and included the towing cost of KRW 53,318,000 from Incheon to Gunsan in the damages the charterer had to bear. It dismissed part of the plaintiff's claims for want of standing because of collection orders obtained by the plaintiff's subrogation participants, held the charter to be a crewed bareboat charter rather than a time charter, and awarded business loss of KRW 45,373,500.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that the court below had to examine whether special circumstances required the remains even of an irreparable barge to be towed to Gunsan and whether the loss had actually and definitively arisen, and that it failed to do so by including the towing cost without that examination. It found no error in the findings on the cost of salvaging the barge from the accident site to Incheon, on the business loss, or on the classification of the contract, but on its own motion it held that the dismissal of part of the suit for want of standing was wrong, because a collection order does not strip the debtor of standing. Because the total damages might change on remand and the plaintiff and the subrogation participants are in necessary joinder, the whole judgment in favour of the plaintiff was reversed as well, and the case was remanded to the Busan High Court.
Distinguishing conditions
- A case in which special circumstances show that the disposal of the remains must take place at the agreed return place, or that acceding to the owner's wish to tow them there is accepted in social common sense.
- A case in which the remains were actually towed to Gunsan, or the owner had concretely planned to tow them there, so that the loss actually and definitively arose.
Record verification notes
Set the agreed return clause against the state of the barge: first ask whether the barge was economically beyond repair, then whether any special circumstance required delivery of the remains at Gunsan, and look for what the owner actually planned or spent. Keep the points the Court found sound apart from this one, namely the salvage cost to Incheon, the business loss of KRW 45,373,500 and the crewed bareboat classification, and note that the standing dismissal was reversed on the Court's own motion. If a subrogation participant joined under Article 81 of the Civil Procedure Act, note that all overlapping claims were reversed together and must be reassessed in order of priority.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 채무자의 제3채무자에 대한 채권에 관하여 추심명령이 있는 경우, 채무자가 피압류채권에 관한 이행소송을 제기할 당사자적격을 상실하는지 여부(소극) [2] 불법행위나 채무불이행으로 인한 손해배상청구권의 성립 시기(=현실적으로 손해가 발생한 때) 및 이때 현실적으로 손해가 발생하였는지 판단하는 방법 / 그 증명책임의 소재(=피해자나 채권자) [3] 갑 주식회사가 을 주식회사에 크레인부선을 임대하면서 그 반환 장소를 군산항으로 정한 선박임대차계약을 체결하였는데, 을 회사의 공사 수행 과정에서 위 부선이 훼손되어 경제적 수리불능 상태에 이르자, 갑 회사가 을 회사를 상대로 손해배상을 구하면서 위 부선이 있던 인천항에서 군산항까지의 예인비를 손해배상의 범위에 포함한 사안에서, 위와 같은 예인비가 손해의 범위에 포함되는지를 판단하기 위해서는 위 부선이 경제적 수리불능이 된 경우에도 그 잔존물이 군산항까지 예인되어야 하는 등의 특별한 사정이 있는지 및 갑 회사에 그 손해가 현실적·확정적으로 발생하였는지를 심리하였어야 하는데도, 그러한 심리 없이 예인비를 손해배상의 범위에 포함된다고 본 원심판단에 법리오해 등의 잘못이 있다고 한 사례
Unofficial English translation
[1] Where a collection order is issued with respect to a claim of a debtor against a third-party debtor, whether the debtor loses party standing to bring an action for performance concerning the attached claim (negative) [2] The time when a right to claim damages arising from a tort (unlawful act) or non-performance of an obligation is established (= the time when the damage actually occurs) and the method of determining whether the damage actually occurred at that time / the allocation of the burden of proof with respect thereto (= the victim or the creditor) [3] A case in which Company A concluded a vessel lease agreement with Company B, leasing a crane barge to Company B with the place of return set as the Port of Gunsan; the barge was damaged in the course of Company B's construction work to the point of reaching an economically irreparable condition; and Company A sought damages from Company B, including in the scope of damages the towing cost from the Port of Incheon, where the barge had been, to the Port of Gunsan; in such a case, in order to determine whether such towing cost is included in the scope of damage, the court should have examined whether there were special circumstances such that the remains of the barge had to be towed to the Port of Gunsan even though the barge had become economically irreparable, and whether that damage had actually and definitively occurred to Company A; yet the judgment of the court below included the towing cost in the scope of damages without conducting such examination; the Supreme Court held that the judgment below was erroneous in misapprehension of legal principles and the like.
Summary of the holding
[1] 채무자의 제3채무자에 대한 채권에 관하여 추심명령이 있더라도 채무자가 제3채무자를 상대로 피압류채권에 관한 이행소송을 제기할 당사자적격을 상실하지 않는다. [2] 불법행위나 채무불이행으로 인한 손해배상청구권은 현실적으로 손해가 발생한 때에 성립하는 것이고, 이때 현실적으로 손해가 발생하였는지 여부는 사회통념에 비추어 객관적이고 합리적으로 판단하여야 한다. 그리고 불법행위나 채무불이행으로 인한 손해배상청구에서 위와 같은 손해 발생 사실은 피해자나 채권자가 이를 증명하여야 한다. [3] 갑 주식회사가 을 주식회사에 크레인부선을 임대하면서 그 반환 장소를 군산항으로 정한 선박임대차계약을 체결하였는데, 을 회사의 공사 수행 과정에서 위 부선이 훼손되어 경제적 수리불능 상태에 이르자, 갑 회사가 을 회사를 상대로 손해배상을 구하면서 위 부선이 있던 인천항에서 군산항까지의 예인비를 손해배상의 범위에 포함한 사안에서, 위 부선이 경제적 수리불능으로 평가된다면 특별한 사정이 없는 한 그 잔존물은 처분대금을 얻기 위한 효용만을 가지므로, 잔존물 처분이 반드시 반환 장소에서 이루어져야 한다거나 이를 군산항까지 예인하고자 하는 갑 회사의 의사를 들어주는 것이 사회통념상 용인된다는 등의 특별한 사정이 없는 한 반환 장소를 군산항으로 정한 임대차계약의 내용이 그대로 적용된다고 보기 어렵고, 위 부선의 반환 장소를 군산항으로 정하였다는 사정만으로 갑 회사에 예인비의 지출이라는 손해의 결과가 현실적으로 발생하였다고 단정하기 어려우며, 실제로 위 부선이 군산항으로 예인되었다거나 갑 회사가 위 부선을 군산항으로 예인하고자 하는 계획을 구체적으로 수립하였다고 볼 만한 자료도 없으므로, 위와 같은 예인비가 손해의 범위에 포함되는지를 판단하기 위해서는 위 부선이 경제적 수리불능이 된 경우에도 그 잔존물이 군산항까지 예인되어야 하는 등의 특별한 사정이 있는지 및 갑 회사에 그 손해가 현실적·확정적으로 발생하였는지를 심리하였어야 하는데도, 그러한 심리 없이 예인비를 손해배상의 범위에 포함된다고 본 원심판단에 법리오해 등의 잘못이 있다고 한 사례.
Order
원심판결 중 피고 패소 부분과 원고에 관한 부분을 파기하고, 이 부분 사건을 부산고등법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed as to the part ruling against the defendant and as to the part concerning the plaintiff, and this part of the case is remanded to the Busan High Court.
Provisions referred to
[1] 민사집행법 제227조 제1항, 제229조 제2항, 제249조 제1항 / [2] 민법 제390조, 제750조, 민사소송법 제288조[증명책임] / [3] 민법 제390조, 제393조, 제750조, 제763조
Read 2026-10-24 · Cross-read 2026-10-24. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.
Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.
Back to the ledger