[2] The case affirming the judgment below holding that Gap may seek damages for abandoned long-term fish, in a case where Gap cultivated long-term fish in a farming place which did not obtain permission under the Fisheries Act and the long-term fish death due to the construction of Eul corporation

[3] Whether the fact-finding and the determination of ratio are the exclusive authority of the fact-finding court (affirmative in principle)

[2] The case affirming the judgment below which held that in case where Gap cultivated fish in a fish farm without obtaining permission under the Fisheries Act, and the fish farm operator died due to the construction of Eul corporation, even if Gap cultivated fish in the fish farm without obtaining permission under the Fisheries Act, Gap can seek compensation for damages for the fish farm operator's death due to the construction of Eul corporation

[3] Where the victim was negligent in causing or expanding damages in a tort compensation case, the scope of liability for damages must be taken into consideration as a matter of course in determining the scope of liability for damages. However, fact-finding or determining the ratio of comparative negligence is within the exclusive authority of a fact-finding court, unless it is deemed that it is considerably unreasonable in light of the principle

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

Where statutes prohibit possession and sale of goods related to a violation in cases where a business or an act is conducted in violation of a license, permission, reporting, etc. in conducting a specific business or conducting a specific act, such circumstances alone cannot be deemed as not seeking compensation for damages incurred due to the loss or damage of the goods. In such cases, whether to seek compensation for damages arising from the loss or damage of the goods should be determined individually by taking into account the legislative intent of the statutes and the degree of the possibility of criticism for the act, especially the intensity of illegality in the violation.

The reasoning of the judgment below does not indicate a specific and direct determination as to the defendant's assertion that the length of fish cultivated in the instant aquaculture without obtaining permission under the Fisheries Act is prohibited from possession and sale, and even if the fish plantation was closed due to the defendant's construction works, there is no room for damage to the plaintiff. However, the court below held that the damage that the defendant is liable to compensate for to the plaintiff is equivalent to the market value of the plaintiff's fish farm closed due to the construction works of this case, and held that the defendant's above violation of the Fisheries Act is a ground for offsetting negligence and limits the defendant's liability partially. Thus, it is clear that the overall purport of the judgment below is that even if the defendant cultivated fish in the instant aquaculture plantation without obtaining permission under the Fisheries Act, it is possible to claim compensation for damage

Meanwhile, according to the records, while the plaintiff sought to operate a fish farm from around 2004 and started a fish farm in full scale from May 2005, the land for the fish farm in this case was additionally incorporated into construction works (one construction section) with Incheon Bridge connection, and it appears that the public announcement of the public announcement was made around December 2006. In fact, the defendant's commencement of construction works in the vicinity of the land for the fish farm in this case can be known to the fact that around May 2007 was about the fact that he had been around May 200, and even if there was a prohibition of possession and sale of marine animals and plants cultivated in violation of the former Fisheries Act (wholly amended by Act No. 8377 of Apr. 11, 2007), it cannot be deemed that the plaintiff lost ownership of the fish farm cultivated by the above provision. Examining these circumstances in light of the legal principles as seen above, the court below's decision is justified, and it cannot be justified in the misapprehension of the judgment, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

The appraiser’s appraisal result shall be respected unless there exist significant errors such as the appraisal method against the empirical rule or the lack of rationality (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 96Da1733, Feb. 11, 1997; 2004Da70420, Feb. 22, 2007).

The court below accepted the appraisal result of the appraiser of the court of first instance on the waste disposal rate in the plantation of this case and calculated the amount of damages based on this. The judgment of the court below is just, and there is no violation of law of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

3. As to the third ground for appeal

In a damage compensation case due to a tort, if the victim was negligent in causing or expanding damages, it must be taken into account as a matter of course in determining the scope of liability for damages. However, fact-finding or determining the ratio of comparative negligence is within the discretionary authority of a fact-finding court unless it is deemed that it is considerably unreasonable in light of the principle of equity (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 201Da6251, 6268, Jan. 18, 2002; 2002Da43165, Nov. 26, 2002).

Examining the evidence duly adopted by the court below and the first instance court in light of the records, the fact-finding or its determination on the grounds for offsetting negligence cannot be deemed significantly unreasonable in light of the principle of equity. Therefore, there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal is 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.

Justices Lee In-bok (Presiding Justice)