[2] The case holding that there is room to view that the cost of emergency measures and its nature are different from the cost of repair incurred in restoring the house to the original state in order to prevent the collapse caused by a rupture of the house

[3] In the case of assessing the market price of a building in order to compensate for damages to the owner caused by damage to the building, whether the conflict of urban planning with urban planning should be considered in the case of evaluating the market price of the building (negative)

[2] The case holding that the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the repair cost of buildings and incomplete hearing on the ground that there is room to see the nature of the repair cost incurred in restoring the house to the original state, where the cost of emergency measures was paid to prevent the collapse caused by a rupture of the house, etc.

[3] The exchange value of a building is, in principle, calculated based on the appraisal price calculated by taking into account the structure, location, area, purpose, elapsed period, etc. of the building. In cases where the market price of the building is assessed in order to compensate for damages to the owner of the building caused by the destruction of the building, the market price of the building shall not be considered in cases where the method of calculating the current price of the object by adding the price to the cost of repurchasing the object is based on the method of calculating the market price of the object.

1. As to Defendant 1

Although the Plaintiff filed an appeal against Defendant 1, the Plaintiff did not include the grounds of appeal in the petition of appeal and the appellate brief.

2. As to Defendant Samyang Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd”).

A. The judgment of the court below

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found that the defendant company did not take safety measures to prevent damage to the housing of this case at the construction site of defendant 1's new building adjacent to the housing of this case owned by the plaintiff around March 192, and caused damage to the housing of this case due to the error that the defendant company did not take measures to prevent damage to the housing of this case in the process of conducting underground excavation works at the construction site of the new building of this case, and dismissed the part of the plaintiff's compensation for damages exceeding the market price of the housing of this case for more than 23,805,80 won as of December 20, 1996 according to the result of the appraisal by the non-party appraiser of the court below as of December 20, 196.

B. Judgment on the grounds of appeal

(1) In a case where an article is damaged or destroyed due to a tort, in principle, the amount of damages incurred therefrom shall be deemed to be ordinary damages. In a case where a building is destroyed and damaged, if it is impossible to repair it, the exchange value of the building shall be reduced if its use is possible, and if it is impossible to use it, the exchange value of the building shall be ordinary damages. However, in a case where repair is possible, the repair cost required for restoring the damaged building to its original state shall be ordinary damages. However, in a case where the repair cost required for restoring the damaged building to its original state exceeds the exchange value of the building, the amount of damages shall be limited within the exchange value of the building under the principle of equity (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Da3964, Oct. 14, 1994; 92Da52726, Mar. 22, 1994; 87Da1926, Nov. 24, 1987).

However, in light of the records, the appraisal of the exchange price of the house of this case, adopted by the court below, shall be based on the standard point of time on March 20, 1996, not on the time of tort, but on December 20, 1996, not on the time of tort. The appraisal method evaluated the current price of the object by reducing the price of the object at the time of repurchasing the original purchase price of the object at the time of the price standard point of time of appraisal as a double-type appraisal method. The court below found that the price of the house of this case in 1996, which is the standard point of appraisal, was higher than that of the tort in 1992, on the premise that the market price at the time of the damage of the house of this case, is equal to that at the time of the damage of the defendant company, the appraisal price at the time of the house of this case, and it shall not be deemed that there was any disadvantage to the plaintiff. However, in light of the fact that the cumulative appraisal price increases due to the expiration of the period, it shall not exceed the market price of this case.

(2) In addition, since the cost of emergency measures claimed by the Plaintiff was disbursed to prevent collapses caused by the rupture, etc. of the instant house, it is reasonable to view that this is different from the cost of repair required to restore the instant house to its original state. Therefore, the lower court rejected the same as the cost of repair for the restoration of the original state, despite having to have deliberated on the necessity and content of emergency measures construction claimed by the Plaintiff. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the cost of repair of the building, which led to the misapprehension of the legal doctrine on the cost of repair of the building, which led

(3) In addition, according to the appraisal results adopted by the court below, some of the site of the instant housing in calculating the market price of the instant housing conflict with the urban planning facilities (road), and considering the degree of the restriction, it can be found that the assessment was conducted at a lower rate than 80% of the market price.

However, in principle, the exchange value of a building shall be calculated at the appraised price calculated by taking into account its structure, location, area, purpose, lapse period, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 94Da3964, supra). In order to compensate for damages to the owner of a building caused by damage as seen in this case, if the market price of the building is calculated by the ductive Evaluation Act, which estimates the current price of the object by reconcing the cost of the object at the cost of the reconcing the object to the cost of the reconcing the object, the land of the building should not be considered in conflict with the urban planning. However, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the assessment of the market price of the building in this case, and the part pointing this out in the grounds of appeal is with merit.

3. Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below against the plaintiff as to the property damage against the defendant company is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendant 1 is dismissed. The costs of appeal against this part are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices

Justices Cho Chang-hun (Presiding Justice)