[2] Requirements for recognizing consolation money in a case where property damage occurs due to a contractual default

1. Judgment on the first ground for appeal

The plaintiff's primary claim is dismissed, and only the defendant appealed against the judgment of the appellate court which partially accepted the conjunctive claim, and the plaintiff's appeal is not subject to investigation by the court of final appeal, but only the part against the defendant among the conjunctive claim before remanding the case is subject to adjudication by the court of final appeal. If the defendant's final appeal is justified, the court of final appeal shall reverse only the part against the defendant with respect to the conjunctive claim among the judgment of the appellate court before remanding the case. The judgment of the appellate court shall be reversed and remanded simultaneously with the declaration of reversal and remanded, and as a result, the scope of trial by the court of final appeal shall be limited to the part against the defendant among the conjunctive claims (see Supreme Court Decision 201Da6213, Dec. 24, 2001).

After remanding to the same purport, the court below is just in holding that the part against the defendant among the conjunctive claims that were reversed and remanded by the Supreme Court, and that the part of the main claims that the plaintiffs did not appeal or appeal are excluded from the object of the judgment of the court below after remand, which became final and conclusive at the same time as the adjudication of the reversal and return of the conjunctive claims, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the object of the judgment of the court remanded, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

2. Judgment on the second ground for appeal

In general, in case where property damage occurs due to non-performance of contractual obligation, the mental suffering which the contracting party received shall be deemed to have been recovered by compensating for the property damage. Thus, there are special circumstances that the compensation for property damage alone causes irrecoverable mental suffering, and where the other party knew or could have known such circumstances, consolation money for mental suffering may be recognized only when the other party knew or could have known (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Da53865, Nov. 12, 2004, etc.).

After remanding to the same purport, in order to accept the claim for consolation money for mental suffering suffered by the plaintiffs due to the violation of the obligation under the contract for sale and purchase of the defendant's housing construction, the court below should acknowledge that the compensation for property damage cannot be recovered by itself, and that the other party knew or could have known such circumstances. However, even if it is based on the plaintiffs' total proof, rejection of consolation money claim is just in light of the records, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence and misapprehension of legal principles as to the claim for consolation money, as

3. Judgment on the third ground for appeal

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, it is just for the court below to dismiss the claim for damages due to the tort on the ground that it is difficult for the defendant to conclude the apartment sale contract by deceiving the plaintiffs as an intention to acquire the difference amount between KON KON KON KON KON and YBC, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

4. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yang Sung-tae (Presiding Justice)