The case denying liability for damages due to unfair provisional seizure on the ground that the reason was attributable to the difference in legal interpretation and evaluation as to the existence or absence of "serious negligence" as stipulated in the Act on the Liability for Fire Caused by Fire, although the owner of the goods executed provisional seizure against the carrier as the right to claim damages against the carrier and the lawsuit was reversed and remanded by the Supreme Court.

The case denying liability for damages due to unfair provisional seizure on the ground that the reason was attributable to the difference in legal interpretation and evaluation as to the existence or absence of "serious negligence" as stipulated in the Act on the Liability for Fire Caused by Fire, although the owner of the goods executed provisional seizure against the carrier as the right to claim damages against the carrier and the lawsuit was reversed and remanded by the Supreme Court.

Article 750 of the Civil Act, the Liability for Fire Caused by Negligence Act, Article 696 of the Civil Procedure Act

National Air Corporation, Attorneys Kang Gyeong-han et al.

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 et al., Counsel for defendant-appellee

Seoul High Court Decision 92Na25917 delivered on September 22, 1992

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below recognized the defendant's claim for damages against the non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's damages damages.

In light of the records, the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below are acceptable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles or incomplete deliberation as to abuse of rights as alleged by the theory of lawsuit.

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

Justices Chocheon-sung (Presiding Justice)