(a) The base date for the computation of the amount of damages caused by a tort not having any specific article infringed on;

(b) A case where the determination of evidence was erroneous in recognizing the existence of intention or gross negligence under Article 765 of the Civil Act

In a claim for damages caused by infringement of ownership of a specific object, in principle, the amount of damages shall be calculated at the price of exchange at that time based on the time of tort, and damages caused by special circumstances, such as the price return of the object after the tort, are liable only when the possibility of expectation exists.

Articles 404 and 765 of the Civil Act

Korea

Defendant 1 and eight others

Gwangju District Court Decision 62Na271 delivered on April 3, 1963

The part of the original judgment regarding defendant Kimwon and Dong Kim Containers is reversed by the plaintiff's appeal, and that part of the case is remanded to the Gwangju High Court.

The appeal against the remaining Defendants is dismissed, and the costs of appeal against the remaining Defendants are assessed against the Plaintiff.

Each of the appeals by Defendant Kim Won-won and Dong Kim Containers shall be dismissed, and the costs of the appeal shall be borne by the said Defendants.

The first ground of appeal by the plaintiff's agent is examined.

However, according to the original judgment, it is obvious that Defendant 2, etc., et al., committed damage to the country by deceiving the head of Gun and the official in charge of accounting of goods in the special account for grain management by deceiving fry-gun and the head of Gun and the official in charge of accounting of goods in this case, which are owned by the country. As such, in case of claims for damages for which ownership of specific goods is infringed and the object is not existing, in principle, the amount of damages shall be calculated at the time of the illegal act on the basis of the exchange price, and damages due to special circumstances such as the price of the object after the illegal act shall be liable only if there is a possibility of expectation. Therefore, in this case where there is no proof of such special circumstance and possibility of predictability, the court below is justified to determine and order the exchange price of goods in the event of the illegal act in accordance with the principle, and

The second ground of appeal is examined.

According to the original judgment, the court below held that "Ap. 1 approved the certificate of seal impression on f. f. c. d. f. f. f. f. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d.

However, in this case, if Defendant 1 and 3 did not gain profits by preparing and delivering a letter of lent grain in the name of Defendant 2, such as false, etc. with the order of Defendant 2, what kind of the defendant 1 and 3 had been prepared, or what kind of the document was prepared with the knowledge of the fact that Defendant 2 would obtain the wheat in this case under the name of lending grain, not directly related to the fact that there was the intention or gross negligence of the defendant 1 and 3, and what kind of the document was prepared with the knowledge of the fact that Defendant 2 would be to obtain the wheat in this case, or which kind of gross negligence would be a matter of concern that it would have been discovered that the document was prepared, and that it would be possible for Defendant 1 and 3 to obtain the above wheat in this case, even after examining the contents of the testimony of Defendant 4 and the purport of the party's oral argument cited in the original judgment by the record, the lower court's position rejected the defendant 5's assertion that there was no gross negligence with Defendant 1 and 3, and there was no gross negligence.

The third ground of appeal is examined.

However, the reason for the original judgment on this point is just, and the arguments are without merit, since the fact that the financial resources for the compensation for damages in this case are not set in the tax entrance budget of the Sungsung-gun cannot be said to be insolvent.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant Kim Won-won and the agent of the same Kim Containers are examined.

However, the determination of the evidence and the fact-finding belong to the exclusive jurisdiction of the court below, and the original judgment is not deemed to have judged that the testimony of No. 2 and the defendant is not accepted, and the evidence No. 6 alone is not sufficient to prove that the defendant Kim Byung-sik was legally lent, so the argument is groundless. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges on the grounds above.

Judge Lee Young-su (Presiding Judge) of the Supreme Court Justice Lee Young-chul (Presiding Judge)