Plaintiff (Attorney Yu-sung et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Republic of Korea and one other (Attorney Lee Jae-ju, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

August 19, 2011

Jeonju District Court Decision 2009Da39693 Decided March 8, 2011

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the Defendants in excess of the amount ordered to be paid under the above order shall be revoked, and the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendants falling under the revoked part

The Defendants shall pay to each Plaintiff 16,287,00 won with 5% interest per annum from July 15, 2009 to September 9, 201, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. All remaining appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

3. The plaintiff shall bear four minutes of the total costs of the lawsuit, and the remainder shall be borne by the defendants.

1. Purport of claim

The defendants pay to each plaintiff 64,292,00 won with 5% interest per annum from July 15, 2009 to the service date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

2. Purport of appeal

The part against the Defendants in the judgment of the first instance is revoked, and the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendants falling under the above revocation part is dismissed in entirety.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

The reason why a member should explain is that "2:00 of the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance" is "03:00 of the 3rd of the same month", "28m" of the 8th of the same 15th of the same month, "28m" of the 8th of the same 4th of the same 4th of the same 5th of the same 1st of the same 1st of the same 1st of the same 1st of the same 1st of the two 1st of the two 1st of the two 10th of the same 10th of the two 10th of the former 10th of the two 1st of the two 1st of the two 1st of the two 1st of the two 1st of the two 1st of the two 1st of the two 1st of the two 1st of the two 1st of the two 1st of the two 1st of the other 10th of

[Supplementary Use]

(d) Whether it is a force majeure natural disaster;

The defendants asserts that the damage of this case is a natural disaster which is force majeure because it was concentrated within a short time, and therefore, the defendants are not liable to compensate for the damage.

In light of the following circumstances: Gap evidence 10-1 to 10; Eul evidence 5-1, 2; Eul evidence 10-2 to 7; Eul evidence 1, 7; Eul evidence 5-1 to 5; i.e., the whole purport of the pleadings, which can be seen as being implemented for the prevention of flood-related damage due to the lack of existing rivers such as planned flood level and planned flood level under the basic plan for river maintenance; and (ii) the defendants could have predicted or predicted flood-related damage of the flood-related flood-related area in advance; and (iii) it is difficult to consider that the river-related flood-related damage occurred near the flood-related area of the flood-related area as being considerably 100 meters high between the river-related area and the river-related area of this case; and (iv) it is difficult to consider that the river-related area of this case was flood-related and flood-related area of this case as the river-related area of this case was located within 2000 meters near the flood-related area of this case.

2. Scope of liability for damages

(a) Property damage;

(1) Damages

In light of the overall purport of the pleadings as to the evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 5-1, 2, 4-1, 6-1, 6-1, and 5-5 of the evidence Nos. 1, 1, 2, and 5 of the evidence Nos. 2, and 6-1 through 5 of the evidence Nos. 5 of the case, the damage to the property of the plaintiff caused by the flood of this case can be recognized as constituting a total of 54,292,150, as shown in the damage list in the attached Table. However, since the property damage of the plaintiff is less than the above recognized amount, the plaintiff's damage amount caused by the flood of this case shall be deemed

(2) Limitation of liability

In a case of compensation for damages caused by a tort, if the damage suffered by the victim is caused by competition between natural power and the fault of the perpetrator, it is reasonable to limit the scope of compensation for the tortfeasor to the remaining part which remains after deducting the part which is deemed to have contributed to the natural ability from the perspective of fair burden of damages (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Da734 delivered on June 27, 2003).

In light of the aforementioned various circumstances, it is reasonable to limit the Defendants’ liability ratio to 30% in consideration of the aforementioned circumstances, since the natural history of flood caused by heavy rain and the Defendants’ management defects in the river of this case were deemed that the flood of this case operated in combination.

Therefore, property damages to be paid by the Defendants are 16,287,00 won (=54,290,000 won x 30%).

B. Whether to recognize consolation money

The plaintiff alleged that the plaintiff suffered from irrecoverable mental suffering due to the damage of the container, etc. living in the flood of this case by the damage of the container, etc., and the compensation for the property damage alone, and sought payment of 10 million won as consolation money to the defendants.

In a case where a property damage occurs due to the following reasons: (a) mental suffering suffered by the parties due to the failure to perform contractual duties, or illegal acts, etc., shall be deemed to have been recovered from the compensation for property damage; (b) as such, there are special circumstances that the compensation for property damage alone causes irrecoverable mental suffering; and (c) where the other party knew or could have known of such circumstances, the consolation money for mental suffering may be recognized (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Da50663, Jul. 24, 2008). In addition, in this case, inasmuch as the Plaintiff’s mental suffering cannot be recovered from the compensation for property damage, and there is no evidence to prove that the Defendants knew or could have known of such circumstances, the above part of the Plaintiff’s claim is without merit.

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, the Defendants are obligated to pay to each Plaintiff damages for delay at the rate of 16,287,00 won as well as 20% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act from July 15, 2009, which is the date of occurrence of the instant damages to the Plaintiff, to September 9, 201, which is the date of the final judgment that deemed reasonable to dispute about the existence or scope of the Defendants’ obligations to perform, and to pay damages for delay at the rate of 5% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the date of full payment.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants shall be accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims shall be dismissed without merit. Since the part against the defendants who ordered payment in excess of the above recognition amount in the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair, it shall be revoked and all of the plaintiff's claim against the defendants falling under the revoked part shall be dismissed. The remaining appeal by the defendants shall be dismissed without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment List of Damage]

Judges Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)