Limit of damages for the destruction of or damage from an illegal act;

If an article was lost due to a tort, the victim can claim the exchange price at the time of the loss to the extent that there is a reasonable causal relationship between the illegal interest and the damage, and the profits that could have been gained by the ordinary method of the article in the future are included in the exchange price.

Article 763 of the Civil Act, Article 393 of the Civil Act, Article 394 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff 1 (Attorney Kim Chang-hee, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Plaintiff 2 (Attorney Kim Chang-hee, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Korea

Seoul High Court Decision 65Na2532 delivered on July 8, 1966

The appeal by the plaintiff 1 and the defendant is dismissed.

Of the costs of appeal, the costs of appeal by Plaintiff 1 shall be borne by the same Plaintiff, and those incurred by the appeal by Defendant Republic of Korea shall be borne by the same Defendant.

Plaintiff 1’s ground of appeal by Kim Chang-hee,

In a case where an article was destroyed due to a tort, the victim may claim the exchange price at the time of the destruction and the interest for delay thereafter to the extent that there is a reasonable causal relationship between the tort and the damage, and the profits which could have been gained by the ordinary method of the article in question are included in the above exchange price. Thus, as long as the exchange price of the article in question was compensated for for the lost article, the court below held that the plaintiff 1's claim for damages of the lost article can be dismissed on the ground that the damages for the lost article could not be claimed without the tort, is legitimate, and cannot be adopted to criticize the original judgment by avoiding the above opposing opinion.

Judgment on the grounds of appeal by Defendant Republic of Korea

Even if the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the original judgment is examined in comparison with the records, it cannot be said that the Nonparty who died in the occurrence of the instant accident was erroneous in the disposition rejecting the Defendant’s assertion of comparative negligence with the purport that there was no negligence. Therefore, the argument is groundless.

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

[Judgment of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Na-man (Presiding Justice)