Whether there is a benefit to seek the physical appraisal cost separately

In a lawsuit seeking compensation for damages caused by a tort of another person on the ground that he/she suffered physical appraisal in accordance with the court's order for appraisal, even if the party directly paid for the appraisal in addition to the advance payment under the court's order, this is included in the costs of the lawsuit, and since the amount paid as the costs of the lawsuit can be repaid through the procedure for determination of the amount of the costs of lawsuit under the provisions of the Costs of Civil Procedure Act after the judgment becomes final and conclusive, there is no benefit to seek compensation

Articles 100 and 226 of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 86Meu803 Decided March 10, 1987

[Judgment of the court below]

Defendant Kim Jong-sik et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 85Na981 delivered on September 5, 1986

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The Plaintiff’s attorney’s ground of appeal is examined.

1. On the first ground for appeal:

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the plaintiff's claim seeking compensation for the above amount on the ground that the plaintiff paid 2,816,600 won in total with herb, herb, and nutritional consideration from June 5, 1984 to May 20, 1985, although it is acknowledged that the plaintiff paid 2,816,60 won in total with herb, herb, and nutritional consideration, except for the non-party testimony of the non-party witness of the court below who is not believed by the court below, there is no evidence to find that the supply of herb, medicinal, and nutritional consideration was necessary and appropriate for the treatment of the plaintiff's mental illness. The above judgment of the court below and the selection of evidence that led to the above judgment of the court below are justified, and there is no misunderstanding of the legal principles as to the causation of compensation for damages

2. On the second ground for appeal:

In a lawsuit seeking compensation for damages caused by a tort of another person, even if the party directly paid for the appraisal in addition to the advance payment according to the court order for appraisal by the court, it is included in the costs of appraisal corresponding to the costs of lawsuit. Since the amount paid as the costs of lawsuit can be repaid through the procedure for determination of the amount of costs of lawsuit under the provisions of the Costs of Civil Procedure Act after the judgment becomes final and conclusive, there is no benefit to seek compensation as a separate active damages (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 86Meu803, Mar. 10, 1987).

Therefore, the court below's rejection of the plaintiff's claim seeking compensation by including the amount of active damages, on the ground that the plaintiff's additional amount of KRW 4,378,90 paid for the appraisal in addition to the appraisal cost paid by the court after receiving the physical appraisal by the court's order, is included in the litigation cost spent for the purpose of examining the existence and scope of the damages of this case. There is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the procedure for determining the amount of the lawsuit cost within the scope of the lawsuit cost. Thus, the argument pointing this out is groundless.

3. Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed, and all costs of appeal shall be assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Park Jong-dong (Presiding Justice)