This was an appeal from the decision of the Seoul Civil District Court on 28 August 1993.

Held: Appeal dismissed.

Article 44.4 of the Act on Private International Law stipulates that the types of claims secured by a maritime lien, and the order of priority of preferred maritime claims, are governed by the law of the country of registration of the ship. Therefore, if a cargo owner acquires a claim for damages against the shipowner due to damage or loss of cargo while a foreign-registered ship is transporting cargo, whether that claim is secured by a maritime lien should be determined by the law of the country of ship registration, but if such a maritime lien is exercised in our country, the method of enforcement should be regulated by the procedural laws of our country (the lex fori).

This case involved squid owned by Kyungshin Wonyang Co Ltd, the creditor in this case. The squid was loaded from the Falklands Fishing Ground onto the Tanya 4, a vessel owned by the debtor, and arrived at Busan Port, Korea. However, the squid suffered damage. In accordance with art 2 of the MLM Convention 1926, maritime liens are guaranteed by a preferred priority, and maritime liens also extend to 'the freight for the voyage during which the claim giving rise to the lien arises, and on the accessories of the vessel and freight accrued since the commencement of the voyage'. According to the records, the creditor attempted to seize a freight claim of KRW 417,217,340 in gold that the debtor had against the third debtor due to the above voyage. The creditor applied to the Seoul Civil District Court, which had jurisdiction over the third debtor, Boyangsa, pursuant to art 558 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Whether the creditor can seize a freight claim without the name of the debtor on the basis of a maritime priority afforded by Argentinian law should be decided by the lex fori. Article 733.1 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that in respect of execution of a security right for the purpose of claims and other property rights, even if there is no named debtor, execution is permitted only if documents proving the existence of the security right are submitted. Since it is reasonable to interpret that this case falls under a security right, it should be considered that the maritime lien holder can seize a freight claim without the name of the debtor based on the above provision, and furthermore, the procedure for dealing with any dissatisfaction with the above decision to seize the freight claim will have to be determined according to the Civil Procedure Act (the lex fori).