해양안전심판법상 징계재결과 인과관계의 추정법리 - 2015. 4. 6. 고지 중앙해심 제2015-05호 재결의 평석을 중심으로 -

The Marine safety tribunal system, which is a kind of the special administrative tribunal, ,is designed for the promotion of marine safety through the investigation of and inquiry into the marine accident. Therefore, the procedure of the Marine Safety Tribunal must be guaranteed a highly independence and objectiveness. Additionally, as the Marie Safety Tribunal system is very similar to the trial, the outcome of tribunal is determined by questions of fact and proposition of law. The facts must be proved by evidences and marine judge's free evaluation of evidence. Despite a party's efforts for the proof of the factual issues, when there was no or insufficient proof on facts, it should be decided by the rules of allocation of the burden. Since a Disciplinary Decision on the Act on the Investigation of and Inquiry into Marine Accident shall be regarded as a disadvantageous administrative disposition to a marine officer, it shall have a legal ground and facts tendering the decision also must be proved by evidences which were undergone through the rules of evidence. Upon taking into account the accusatory and adversarial characteristics of the Marine Safety Tribunal system, the investigator bears the burden of persuasion on a factual issue in principle. In addition, the causal link between marine officers' acts and the occurrence of marine accident is the subject of proof, it must be proved by evidences. To this regards, there should be the proximate causal relation between officers' violation of rules regarding marine safety and the occurrence of marine casualty. In some cases where a party seeking its benefit fist establishes the basic fact that is a condition to the presumed fact, the trier of fact may relies on the rule of presumptions in the absence of a sufficient contrary showing. However, rule of presumption be based on considerations of probability, practical convenience, or public policy. Moreover, when a presumption is created, it ordinarily must appear that there is some rational connection between the basic fact proved and the ultimate fact presumed. Thus the investigator must prove some rational connection between a ship officer's violation of the marine safety rules and the occurrence of the marine accident.