[1] The method of calculating damages in a case where a building is damaged due to a tort

[2] Whether the appeal on the merits is permitted when the appeal on the merits is without merit (negative)

[1] In a case where a building is damaged by a tort, the repair cost is ordinary damages if it is possible to repair, and in a case where the repair cost required to restore the building to its original state because the building was worn out with its useful life at the time of its damage exceeds the exchange value of the building, the amount of damages shall be limited within the exchange value range of the building in accordance with the principle of equity, and in a case where the value of the building increases than before its damage due to its repair, the amount calculated by deducting the exchange value increase from its repair cost.

[2] An objection against a judgment on the costs of lawsuit shall be permitted only when the whole or part of the appeal against the judgment on the merits is justified, and it shall not be permitted unless the appeal on the merits is justified.

[1] Articles 393 and 763 of the Civil Act / [2] Articles 361 and 395 of the Civil Procedure Act

[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 95Da38233 delivered on January 23, 1996 (Gong1996Sang, 663) / [1] Supreme Court Decision 87Meu1926 delivered on November 24, 1987 (Gong198, 167) Supreme Court Decision 94Da3964 delivered on October 14, 1994 (Gong1994Ha, 2970), Supreme Court Decision 94Da19129 delivered on July 28, 1995 (Gong195Ha, 2962), Supreme Court Decision 94Da1308 delivered on September 29, 195 (Gong195Ha, 3585) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 94Da196319 delivered on July 16, 195 (Gong195Ha, 19685) / [37Da198195 delivered on July 1965, 1997

Plaintiff

Defendant (Law Firm Sejong, Attorneys Park Gi-hwan et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Daegu High Court Decision 97Na2413 delivered on April 16, 1998

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

In a case where a building is damaged due to an illegal act, the repair cost would normally be the cost of repair if possible, and in a case where the repair cost required to restore the building to its original state because the building had been worn out with its useful life at the time of its damage exceeds the exchange value of the building, the amount of damages shall be limited to the exchange value of the building within the scope of the exchange value of the building (see Supreme Court Decision 87Meu1926, Nov. 24, 1987). In addition, in a case where the exchange value of the building increases than before the damage due to the repair, the amount calculated by deducting the exchange value increase from the repair cost would be the damage.

In light of the records, the repair cost recognized by the court below can be recognized as being calculated for the part of the front wall or column and roof damage directly caused by the failure to take safety measures at the time of removal of the building owned by the defendant. On the other hand, in this case, since the above repair cost exceeds the exchange value of the building owned by the plaintiff or there are no circumstances to deem that the replacement value of the building increased due to the repair, the above repair cost is just, and there is no violation of the principle of equity in the recognition of repair cost due to the damage to the building, nor there is no error of law of misunderstanding of facts against the rules of evidence. The argument is without merit.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

Any objection to a judgment on the costs of lawsuit shall be permitted only when the whole or part of the final appeal against the judgment on the merits is with merit, and it shall not be permitted unless the final appeal on the merits is with merit (see Supreme Court Decisions 94Hu1091, Mar. 10, 1995; 95Da38233, Jan. 23, 1996; 95Da38233, Jan. 23, 1996). As long as the debate on the merits is without merit, the argument that the judgment of the court below erred in the judgment

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all 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 Lee Jae-soo (Presiding Justice)