Open Decision Ledger · Criminal law
Seaworthiness defects and the reporting duty under the former Ship Safety Act
Supreme Court, July 11, 2024, 2021Do7251 (judgment)
Case name: 선박안전법위반·배임수재[감항성 결함 미신고행위에 해당하는지 여부가 문제된 사건]
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Where a vessel lacks the performance to withstand ordinary maritime risks and navigate safely on a particular voyage, does that itself constitute a 'defect in seaworthiness' requiring a report under Article 74(1) of the former Ship Safety Act, and must the defect be serious?
Holding
It does. Seaworthiness means the performance a vessel must have to navigate safely in given weather or navigation conditions, and there is no fixed or absolute criterion for it; it is judged relatively by the concrete and individual circumstances of each voyage. A 'defect in seaworthiness' is a state in which that performance is lacking or incomplete, so a vessel that cannot withstand the ordinary maritime risks of the voyage need not have a serious defect for the reporting duty under Article 74(1) of the former Ship Safety Act to arise.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
따라서 선박이 특정 항해에서 통상의 해상위험을 감내하고 안전하게 항해할 수 있는 성능이 부족하거나 완전하지 못하다면 그 자체로 구 선박안전법 제74조 제1항이 정한 신고의무대상인 ‘감항성의 결함’에 해당하고 그 결함이 반드시 중대할 것을 요하지 않는다.
Unofficial English translation
Accordingly, where a ship lacks performance sufficient or complete enough to endure ordinary perils of the sea and to navigate safely on a particular voyage, that in itself constitutes a 'defect in seaworthiness' subject to the reporting obligation as provided in Article 74 (1) of the former Ship Safety Act, and the defect need not necessarily be serious.
Disposition
Dismissed Stated in the decision
상고를 모두 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
All appeals are dismissed.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
여기서 결함이란 사전적 의미인 ‘부족하거나 완전하지 못하여 흠이 되는 부분’을 말하므로 ‘선박의 감항성의 결함’이란 ‘선박이 일정한 기상이나 항해조건에서 안전하게 항해할 수 있는 성능이 부족하거나 완전하지 못한 상태’를 뜻한다.
Unofficial English translation
Here, a defect means, in its dictionary sense, 'a part that is insufficient or incomplete so as to constitute a flaw,' and thus 'a defect in the seaworthiness of a ship' means 'a state in which the ship lacks performance sufficient or complete enough to navigate safely in certain weather or navigational conditions.'
Factors
- 특정 항해에서의 구체적·개별적인 사정에 따라 상대적으로 판단하여야 한다
- ‘선박이 일정한 기상이나 항해조건에서 안전하게 항해할 수 있는 성능이 부족하거나 완전하지 못한 상태’를 뜻한다
- 특정 항해에서 통상의 해상위험을 감내하고 안전하게 항해할 수 있는 성능이 부족하거나 완전하지 못하다면
- 그 결함이 반드시 중대할 것을 요하지 않는다
Unofficial English translation
• It must be determined on a relative basis according to the concrete and individual circumstances of the particular voyage
• It means 'a state in which the ship lacks performance sufficient or complete enough to navigate safely in certain weather or navigational conditions'
• Where it lacks performance sufficient or complete enough to endure ordinary perils of the sea and to navigate safely on a particular voyage,
• The defect need not necessarily be serious
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 1996. 10. 11. 선고 94다60332 판결(공1996하, 3279)
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 94Da60332 decided October 11, 1996 (Gong 1996 Ha, 3279)
Decisions referred to
대법원 1996. 10. 11. 선고 94다60332 판결(공1996하, 3279), 대법원 2014. 5. 29. 선고 2013다1754 판결
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
When a crew member discovers a defect in seaworthiness but carries out repairs or applies for a temporary inspection before the voyage, does the duty to report under Article 74(1) still arise?
Any amendment to the reporting provisions of the Ship Safety Act, including the version amended by Act No. 17028 of 18 February 2020, would require this entry to be read again. A later decision settling when the duty to report arises or what 'discovering a defect' means would also change how the rule is used.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
7 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-26
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on 7 of the 8 axes; the readings differed on axis 8 (open question and revisit condition).
Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “When a crew member discovers a defect in seaworthiness but carries out repairs or applies for a temporary inspection before the voyage, does the duty to report under Article 74(1) still arise?” vs Independent “What degree of awareness of a seaworthiness defect is required for criminal liability for failing to report it?”
The primary reading asks about repair or temporary inspection before the voyage while the independent reading asks about the awareness required for criminal liability so they point to different leftover points.
따라서 선박이 특정 항해에서 통상의 해상위험을 감내하고 안전하게 항해할 수 있는 성능이 부족하거나 완전하지 못하다면 그 자체로 구 선박안전법 제74조 제1항이 정한 신고의무대상인 ‘감항성의 결함’에 해당하고 그 결함이 반드시 중대할 것을 요하지 않는다.Raw 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 26 May 2021 (2020No151), kept the first-instance judgment in full. It convicted Defendants 1 and 2, and Defendants 5, 6 and Company 7, while leaving the acquittals of Defendant 1 on the duty to maintain restored strength, of Defendants 3 and 4, and of Defendant 5 on the false inspection charge, standing.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court found no error. It held that the court below had not misread the meaning of a defect in seaworthiness under Article 74(1) of the former Ship Safety Act, nor exceeded the limits of free evaluation or failed to examine what was needed; some of its reasoning was imprecise, but the conclusion was sound. The defendants' arguments on when the reporting duty arises and on the meaning of 'discovering a defect' were raised for the first time on appeal and so were not lawful grounds, and their complaint on sentencing was barred by Article 383(iv) of the Criminal Procedure Act, since no sentence of death, life or ten years or more had been imposed.
Distinguishing conditions
- A defect in the vessel's safety equipment rather than in its seaworthiness, since the Court defined the meaning of a defect in seaworthiness.
- A ship and voyage governed by the Ship Safety Act as amended by Act No. 17028 of 18 February 2020, since the decision applied the earlier version.
- A dispute over when the duty to report arises, what 'discovering a defect' means, or whether carrying out repairs and applying for a temporary inspection removes the duty, since the Court did not reach those questions.
Record verification notes
Identify the version of the Ship Safety Act in force at the time of the voyage, since the decision applies Article 74(1) as it stood before the amendment of 18 February 2020. Then match each charged omission to the weather and navigation conditions of the particular voyage, because the Court judged seaworthiness relatively by those concrete circumstances. Finally check whether the argument was raised as a ground of appeal below, since several of the defendants' arguments were rejected on that procedural ground alone.
From the official text
Points at issue
선박이 감항성을 갖추고 있는지 판단하는 기준 / 구 선박안전법 제74조 제1항에서 정한 ‘선박의 감항성의 결함’의 의미 / 선박이 특정 항해에서 통상의 해상위험을 감내하고 안전하게 항해할 수 있는 성능이 부족하거나 완전하지 못한 경우, 그 자체로 위 조항에서 정한 신고의무대상인 ‘감항성의 결함’에 해당하는지 여부(적극) 및 이때 그 결함이 반드시 중대할 것을 요하는지 여부(소극)
Unofficial English translation
Criteria for determining whether a ship is seaworthy / Meaning of 'a defect in the seaworthiness of a ship' as provided in Article 74 (1) of the former Ship Safety Act / Whether, where a ship lacks performance sufficient or complete enough to endure ordinary perils of the sea and to navigate safely on a particular voyage, that in itself constitutes a 'defect in seaworthiness' subject to the reporting obligation under the foregoing provision (affirmative) and whether, in such case, the defect must necessarily be serious (negative)
Summary of the holding
감항성이란 선박이 자체의 안정성을 확보하기 위하여 갖추어야 하는 능력으로서 일정한 기상이나 항해조건에서 안전하게 항해할 수 있는 성능을 말하는데(선박안전법 제2조 제6호), 어떤 선박이 감항성을 갖추고 있는지를 판단하는 확정적이고 절대적인 기준은 없고 특정 항해에서의 구체적·개별적인 사정에 따라 상대적으로 판단하여야 한다. 구 선박안전법(2020. 2. 18. 법률 제17028호로 개정되기 전의 것, 이하 같다) 제74조 제1항은 "누구든지 선박의 감항성 및 안전설비의 결함을 발견한 때에는 해양수산부령으로 정하는 바에 따라 그 내용을 해양수산부장관에게 신고하여야 한다."라고 정한다. 여기서 결함이란 사전적 의미인 ‘부족하거나 완전하지 못하여 흠이 되는 부분’을 말하므로 ‘선박의 감항성의 결함’이란 ‘선박이 일정한 기상이나 항해조건에서 안전하게 항해할 수 있는 성능이 부족하거나 완전하지 못한 상태’를 뜻한다. 따라서 선박이 특정 항해에서 통상의 해상위험을 감내하고 안전하게 항해할 수 있는 성능이 부족하거나 완전하지 못하다면 그 자체로 구 선박안전법 제74조 제1항이 정한 신고의무대상인 ‘감항성의 결함’에 해당하고 그 결함이 반드시 중대할 것을 요하지 않는다.
Order
상고를 모두 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
All appeals are dismissed.
Provisions referred to
구 선박안전법(2020. 2. 18. 법률 제17028호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제74조 제1항, 제84조 제1항 제11호, 선박안전법 제2조 제6호
Read 2026-10-26 · Cross-read 2026-10-26. 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