2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Therefore, since the plaintiff appealed only to the consolation money portion, the scope of this court's judgment is limited to the plaintiff's claim for consolation money against the defendants.

2. The Plaintiff asserts that, in the course of dispute with the Defendants in relation to the removal of the Docium, the Defendants suffered considerable mental suffering and caused them to undergo surgery due to illness, and thus, the Defendants should compensate for such mental suffering.

In general, in a case where property damage occurs due to the nonperformance of contractual duties or illegal acts, mental suffering suffered by the parties concerned shall be deemed to have been recovered by compensating for property damage. As such, there are special circumstances that the compensation for property damage causes irrecoverable mental suffering, and where the other party knew or could have known such circumstance, consolation money for mental suffering may be recognized only where the other party knew or could have known of such circumstance.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da213, Mar. 24, 2005). However, each of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including a serial number) suffers from an irrecoverable mental suffering that the plaintiff could not recover by compensating for property damage.

It is insufficient to view that the Defendants knew or could have known such circumstances, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3. Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for consolation money against the defendants is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.