beta
Text
1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.
The defendant shall pay to the plaintiffs KRW 293,459,00 as well as to the above.
Reasons
1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation in this part is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance (Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, “1. Basic Facts” hereinafter). Thus, the court’s explanation in this part is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article
2. The grounds for this Court’s explanation are the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance (section 3, “2. Claims and Decisions,” and the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance). Thus, they are cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure
However, some of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be made as follows:
[Supplementary part] The second sentence from the third side of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be applied to the restoration to original state or the compensation for damages.
Part 6-7 of the judgment of the court of first instance provides that "I have a duty to restore (the main reason for the claim shall not be determined)" shall be "I have a duty to compensate for damage."
In the first instance court's decision No. 5, Paragraph 8, Paragraph 2, "the method and scope of restoration" shall be as follows. 2) In the case of claiming a contract termination and damages due to nonperformance of obligation, in principle, the obligee may seek compensation for the benefit he/she would gain from the contract execution, namely, the benefit he/she would gain from the contract execution. However, in lieu of the obligee's belief that the contract has been performed, the obligee may seek compensation for the benefit of trust, i.e., the cost normally incurred for the conclusion and performance of the contract. Of the trust interest, the cost normally incurred for the conclusion and performance of the contract can be claimed, regardless of whether the other party has been aware or could have been aware of the loss due to special circumstances. The trust interest shall not exceed the scope of the benefit of implementation in light of the principle of prohibition of excessive compensation.
Supreme Court Decision 201Na1448 delivered on June 11, 2002