Abstract
In respect of the existing relation between Sea-going Vessels and Vessels at anchor, Korean Maritime Safety Tribunal has applied 'Ordinary Practice of Seamen' that is regulated by the article No. 2 of COLREG. That is, general navigation rule is not applied between the two vessels, and the action to avoid collision of vessels by utilizing experience knowledge of the seamen. However, the content of the Ordinary Practice of Seamen included in the revised plan in the process of 2011 "Maritime affairs Safety Act" revision was deleted in the screening of the Office of Legislation due to the reason that it could not specified when the content of deed is not concertized. Furthermore, prior application regulation of international treaty included in the existing "Sea Traffic Safety Act"(Article 5) was deleted in the screening of the National Assembly. So, doubt about whether the Ordinary Practice of Seamen could be continuously applied according to the regulation of the international treaty, nevertheless not specified in domestic law, has been continuously raised. In this situation, recently Central Maritime Safety Tribunal changed precedent by applying of Article 96(3) of Maritime Safety Act without applying Ordinary Practice of Seamen in the Case No. 2015-001. Accordingly, this study intended to review propriety of precedent change and legal issue with the decision of Central Maritime Safety Tribunal excluding Ordinary Practice of Seamen for a collision between Sea-going Vessels and Vessels at anchor.
