Where an article owned by a tort has been destroyed or lost, the value of exchange at the time of such loss, and where the article owned is damaged, the repair fee at the time shall be the ordinary damages.

If the property was lost due to a tort, the exchange price at the time of the loss.

If the property is damaged, the repair cost or reduced exchange value is a normal loss, and unless there are special circumstances, it is not the amount of the loss of future profit.

Article 393(1) of the Civil Act

Kim Kim

Defendant

Seoul High Court Decision 68Na1184 delivered on March 27, 1970, Seoul High Court Decision 68Na184 delivered on March 27, 1970

We reverse the original judgment.

The case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2 by the defendant's attorney are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, since the defendant and the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 caused severe damage to each of the building owned by the plaintiff in this case due to negligence in the construction work, such as the judgment of the court below, it should be repaired for restoration to the original state, and as affected by the lifespan of the building, the plaintiff lost the profit that can be gained by using and earning profit from each of the above buildings during the period of reduction of the lifespan. Thus, if the construction cost necessary for the above repair and the rent amount equivalent to the above lifespan of the building in this case were to be caused by the damage of the building in this case, if the plaintiff testified his testimony as a result of appraisal of his gambling, the total construction cost required for the above 3rd building in this case shall be 2,490,846 won and the above 3rd building in this case shall be 1,670,305 won and the above 3rd building in this case shall be reduced to the extent of 1 to 30 years old or 60, respectively, and the above 17th of the above appraisal building in this case shall be reduced to 17.

However, in principle, damages when owned property is destroyed or lost due to tort shall be the value of the property at the time of its destruction or loss. It shall be deemed that damages related to the loss of profit which can be gained from ordinary use or profit-making shall be included in the exchange value of the property. If the property is damaged, in principle, it shall be reasonable that the amount of damages shall be the ordinary damages. However, if it is impossible to repair it, it shall be reasonable that the reduced exchange value or repair cost of the property is the ordinary damages. Thus, the amount of damages for the claim for damages for the reason of the loss or damage of the property should be calculated as ordinary damages, and it shall not be calculated as the amount of damages unless there are special circumstances. Nevertheless, in this case where the special circumstances of the court below are not observed, the court below calculated the future damages of the building without any deliberation about the reduction of exchange value, and it shall be deemed that there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the appraisal report of the building at the time of its conclusion that the appraisal report of the building at the time of its dissolution or reduction of appraisal value cannot be deemed as unlawful.

Therefore, by the assent of all participating judges, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Judge Han-dong (Presiding Judge) of the Supreme Court