[1] In a case where the exchange value of worn-out owned goods whose repair is impossible due to a tort is calculated based on the cost of replacing new goods, whether the depreciation cost is deducted (affirmative) and its standard

[2] The case reversing the judgment of the court below which did not deduct depreciation costs in calculating the cost of replacing and constructing the exchange value of worn-out stones, etc. damaged by water leakage with new products

[1] Articles 393 and 763 of the Civil Act / [2] Articles 393 and 763 of the Civil Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 93Da49499 delivered on January 28, 1994 (Gong1994Sang, 826)

Plaintiff

Defendant

Daejeon High Court Decision 2008Na8056 Decided February 13, 2009

The part of the lower judgment against the Defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Daejeon High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

Examining the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court below in light of the evidence adopted by the court of first instance, the court below acknowledged the facts as stated in its decision after compiling the evidence adopted by the court of first instance, and determined that the defendant constitutes an actual owner or possessor as the seller of the defendant loan of this case. There is no violation of the rules of evidence or incomplete hearing as alleged by the

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

According to the records, the plaintiff filed the lawsuit in this case on April 19, 2007, and the first instance court accepted the defendant's application for resumption of pleading and granted the defendant an opportunity to prove at the time of resumption of pleading, but did not appear only once on the date for pleading, and the defendant filed an application for appraisal only on November 14, 2008, which was about 19 months after the lawsuit in this case was filed, when the first instance court's date for pleading was about November 14, 2008. Accordingly, if the facts are identical, the defendant's above application for appraisal can be deemed as a method for attack at the time of the application for appraisal, and it cannot be said that there was an error of failing to investigate the only evidence or failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations.

3. Regarding ground of appeal No. 3

If it is impossible to repair an article owned by a tort due to the damage, the exchange value at the time of the damage shall be deemed ordinary damages, and in calculating the exchange value based on the recovery expenses required to restore the article with a new article because it is impossible to purchase used materials with a considerable useful useful life even though the damaged article has already become old, the cost of depreciation, which is the cost to reserve in order to reconstruct the new article according to the useful life of the article, shall be deducted, and the depreciation shall be based on the standard construction expenses, including the material cost and personnel expenses (see Supreme Court Decision 93Da499 delivered on January 28, 1994).

According to the evidence employed by the court of first instance, the building that was registered for preservation on February 17, 1995 of the Plaintiff’s Borrowing of this case, and the time of its installation is unclear, but the Plaintiff used it from before water leakage. Thus, if the facts are the same, it should have calculated the exchange value on the basis of the cost of replacement with new products because it is impossible to purchase used materials with past useful life, such as the hot stones floor of this case, and thus, it should have calculated the depreciation cost in detail.

Nevertheless, the court below accepted the judgment of the court of first instance which calculated the defendant's damages damages based on the appraisal result of the appraiser of the first instance court as the cost of restoring the expenses incurred in performing the work of replacing the Ondol-ridge, etc. as a new product, and dismissed the defendant's appeal. Such judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to damages, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

In addition, there is a ground for reversal only on the Doldo floor of the instant case, but the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court below, without distinguishing between the amount of damages as to the Doldo floor of the instant case and other amount of damages, calculated the total amount of damages caused by water leakage as stated in its reasoning, the part against the

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the lower judgment against the Defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the lower court for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Cha Han-sung (Presiding Justice)