(a) Where the damage was incurred as a result of competition between the natural history and the tortfeasor’s negligence, the scope of compensation by the tortfeasor (=the remainder after deducting the contributory portion of the natural power);

(b) The case affirming the judgment of the court below on the ground that 50% of the amount of the tortfeasor’s compensation is deducted from the amount of natural ability’s contributory portion in relation to the damage of various machinery and equipment in the factory as the sn beam and sn beam of the perpetrator’s side were introduced into the factory due to typhoons; and

A. In a case where the damage suffered by the victim is caused by the concurrent act of flood caused by typhoons which are natural power and the fault caused by the perpetrator's side, the scope of the tortfeasor's compensation should be limited to the remaining part which deducts the part which is deemed to have contributed to the natural power on the damage from the perspective of fair burden of damage

B. The case affirming the judgment of the court below on the ground that 50% of the amount of the tortfeasor’s compensation is deducted from the amount of natural force’s contributory portion in relation to the damage of diverse machinery and equipment in the factory due to the sn beam and sn beam on the part of the perpetrator’s side when sea water flows into the factory of the victim due to typhoons.

Article 763 (Civil Act Article 393 (Article 393)

A. Supreme Court Decision 89Meu1275 delivered on July 23, 1991 (Gong1991, 2211) B. Supreme Court Decision 90Meu5198 delivered on December 27, 1991 (Gong192, 758)

Attorney Shin-jin-jin, Counsel for the administrator of Tae-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City Corporation

Attorney Lee Jae-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Monomen Construction Company

Busan High Court Decision 90Na7777 delivered on October 16, 1992

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The court below, despite the above fact that the defendant's office head of the subway headquarters obtained permission to occupy and use the coast areas as stated in the judgment of the head of the Gu with habitual typhoon damage district, and caused the defendant to load the sloping beam, etc., which is a supplied material for subway construction, to the defendant, and the above sloping beam, etc. to the defendant's office. Since the defendant's office was negligent in moving the sloping beam, etc. to the above coast areas by the defendant's office and the defendant's office, despite the fact that there was no negligence on the part of the defendant's office's sloping beam, etc., such as typhoon's heavy rain and tidal wave caused the storm flow to the above coast areas, and the defendant's office did not use the above sloping beam, etc., as it was found that there was no negligence on the part of the defendant's office's office's sloping beam and other materials belonging to the defendant's office, such as typhoon's office, which caused damage to the above sloping beam areas.

In this case, if the plaintiff's damage, which is the victim, was caused by the flooding caused by a typhoon which is a natural power and the above negligence committed by the defendant who is the perpetrator, the extent of compensation for the perpetrator shall be limited to the remaining part obtained by deducting the part which is deemed to have contributed to natural ability from the point of view of fair burden of damage. In light of the records, the court below is justified in deciding 50 per cent of the damages caused by the disaster of this case, taking into account all the circumstances such as the circumstance and the result of the typhoon of this case, the defendant's negligence, and the details of the plaintiff's damage, etc., and the rate of damages caused by the tidal wave and flood of this case and the damage caused by the sn beam beam or the snick beam, etc. of this case. There is no error of law

In light of the records, the court below's determination that the plaintiff's damage amount caused by the disaster of this case is recognized as the amount of each item, such as various structures, construction cost, electricity, electronic equipment and tools, blocks, building units, fee-bearing units, miscellaneous miscellaneous miscellaneous miscellaneous miscellaneous miscellaneous miscellaneous materials, etc., based on the re-survey document (Evidence A No. 1-2) which is the only evidence for the damage amount of this case, as the document stating the result of the appraisal of the preparation of specialized damage adjusting corporation with professional knowledge, is correct and acceptable in light of the records, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence against the process of fact-finding, such as theory of litigation

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