201 Gohap46932 Compensation (as referred to in this paragraph)

○○

Attorney Park Dong-dong, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Attorney Park Jong-ok, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Seoul Metropolitan Government

Representative O market**

Law Firm continental Aju, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Attorney Kim Jong-il, Justice Kim Jong-soo

November 6, 2013

December 20, 2013

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 90,00,000 won with 5% interest per annum from May 16, 2008 to December 20, 2013, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, 2/11 shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The defendant 10,00,000 won for the plaintiff and a copy of the complaint of this case from May 16, 2008 to the plaintiff

5% per annum and 20% per annum from the following day to the date of full payment.

L. D. Payment of money.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. Facts of recognition

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or are found to be the following facts in full view of Gap evidence 1 (the case of damage by ○○○ author), Eul evidence 2 through 7 (each e-mail), Gap evidence 8 (the identification by franch), Gap evidence 9-1 (the exhibition agreement), Gap evidence 9-2 [the opinion that Gap (the Han River Egines and Seoul), Gap evidence 10 (the opinion that the administrator of the dispute resolution committee has sent a new marine damage insurance situation), Gap evidence 11-1 [each text message transmitted], Eul evidence 1 (the message) and images of Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 (the Seoul Metropolitan Government - ○○○○) and the appraisal result of appraiser Lee-won's difficulty, and the whole purport of the arguments.

1) On March 1, 2008 to May 13, 2008, the Plaintiff concluded an exhibition agreement with the Defendant around January 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant exhibition agreement”) with respect to the art gallery affiliated with the Defendant to exhibit works on board the boat, “the Han Riverine, Seoul Development,” which is held from March 1, 2008 to May 13, 2008. The main contents are as follows.

I. An outline of display;

○ Agreement Period: February 25, 2008 to May 16, 2008 (gold)

○ Period of display: from March 1, 2008 to May 13, 2008 (the land)

The acquisition and return of works: (a) on February 25, 2008 to February 27, 2008; (b) on May 14, 2008 to May 16, 2008; (c) on May 16, 200 to May 16, 2008; and (d) on May 16, 200 to the management and carriage of works; and (b) on May 2, 200, the transportation of works shall be managed safely until the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Art Gallery selects a carrier; and (c) upon delivery to the author, until the author transfers the works to the author.

3. An art gallery shall subscribe to the "General Insurance for Museum and Cultural Foundation" with respect to exhibition works during the agreed period, and shall immediately deal with insurance in the event of an accident during the exhibition period.

2) In accordance with the instant exhibition agreement, the Plaintiff sent “the instant work” 20801 (hereinafter “the instant work”) to the exhibition by using the radar equipment, etc. produced by the Plaintiff, and during the exhibition period, the said work was operated without any problem.

3) After the expiration of the above exhibition period, Seoul Arts Museum dismantled the above works to return the instant works to the Plaintiff and requested transportation of equipment sets, etc. to △△△△△△△△△ Group. The documentary service provider in charge of Seoul Arts Museum did not provide the carrier with a separate explanation on the guidelines for handling the equipment sets, and the carrier transported only the equipment sets on the floor without packaging.

4) On May 16, 2008, the instant work was delivered to the Plaintiff in a damaged state as a result of the foregoing carriage, and the characteristics, degree of damage, etc. of the instant work revealed as a result of an appraiser’s appraisal are as follows.

【Classification and Definition of the Object of Appraisal】

○ The instant work refers to the equipment sets developed by the Plaintiff for rashion, “on-site sculptures,” and the work completed after adding the process of installing them at the site.

○ If the art works of this case are traded in the market, only the “equipment set” can not be sold. This is because even if the buyer purchases only the “equipment set” and subsequently installs, manages, maintains, or repairs them, the value of the works cannot be displayed properly unless the author’s supervision and guidance are given. Thus, the transaction of this work is bound to be traded on the premise of the on-site installation by the Plaintiff.

【Confirmation of Damage to Land by Land】

○ The parts of the storage sets of the instant works consisting of blue luculer A (hereinafter referred to as “equipment A”) and green raculer B (hereinafter referred to as “equipment B”). They were externally large and small damage was discovered in each of the above equipment sets.

In principle, each of the above equipment sets is linked to all of them to confirm the operating condition, but it is likely that any unexpected additional damage is likely to be caused when all of them are supplied to the rasher who is in serious level of credit, and as long as it is obvious that the special luminous department has been lost even if all of them are supplied, it is impossible to grasp the operating condition, so it is impossible to implement the operation test.

【Damage to Storage A】

○ Raber and reduced stringer: there is a difference in support to fix the cap itself, it is predicted that they have obtained large and small shocks while conflicting with the inner string boilers after the damage, and there is a problem in the operational situation as much as the internal shocks are not considered in the structure and materials.

OX-Y Y Yps: The support division was destroyed, and it appears that the degree of the same damage could have been seen than the above rasher and the reduced stampner, and that the shock transmitted from the outside seems to have been reasonable (this is not considered as well). If it is assumed that the external shock was limited, it can be said that the continuous vibration was released from the internal connection (this is not considered as internal vibration).

○ ○’s obscure name X-Yspubner’s subordinate structure: it is confirmed that one corner of the board is far away. Considering that the width of the board is similar to that of the board, X-Yps are not adhered to one of the joints comprising X-Yps, this part is considered as a subordinate structure of X-Yps. Under these circumstances, X-Yps can be determined as either functional or physically destroyed.

○ Rab Rab: A physical shock was found on the left-hand top of the earth.

【Damage to Storage B】

○○ Radr and shortened strings: Madrrr is cut back from the original location.In light of the characteristics of the Madrrr, it can be confirmed that the radr flows in a vertical direction toward the Madrat axiss, which clearly led to the direction of the radr in the present state, and the support part connected with the body can also be observed in an unstable fixed situation.

【Comprehensive Opinions on Damage】

○ Degree of damage to hardware

- It is confirmed that the external diameter of the rasher control device, the loss room, and the string of the special luminous part structure, and the string of the rash are unfolded and that the parts constituting the rasher's string part and the string part of the device sets, such as the rasher's string part and the string part, should maintain a very detailed interval due to the characteristics of the technology. However, a series of parts that must be completely fixed and fully damaged to this level has a strong external power, and such continuous external shock is almost certain to cause a racker to all parts other than the rash, connected part, etc.

- In order to investigate this point, it is necessary to determine whether to replace one condition of a component by making a detailed examination, but the above work is more difficult than re-prefabricated the whole, taking into account only the functions of the device.

The reasonable and reasonable reproduction of the entire face is almost impossible to restore the device and set to its original state.

- Comprehensively considering the situation above, the hardware A was almost all damaged, and the equipment set B’s hardware was damaged by 50% function.

○ Degree of damage to the software

- The software of the apparatus leasing A stored in the luddrid computer is deemed not to be damaged, but it is possible to confirm whether it would be damaged after opening the radddrid by separating from all the damage of the radrr and hardware and by restoring all the damage to the radr and hardware, and by separately linking them to the PC.

[In the event of damage to hardware only, the declineed value]

○ In the event that a device set, such as the instant work, is independently developed, it is difficult to expect that the previous software, which is newly manufactured after the damage, is operated as it is, almost all.

○ Considering the above problems of the transplantation of software, it can be said that only if the software of the device is operated in a successful way in a newly assembled sub-wait, damage only to the hardware. In other words, if it is not possible to success in the transplantation of software, the result is that both the hardware and the software are damaged.

○ In the case of the instant work, if the hardware of an apparatus Sypt A, which plays the most important role, should be re-prefabricatedd entirely, and if it is impossible to restore it to its original state, the software remaining in the hyd computer, because it is neither a paper nor a paper, and thus, the hardware was entirely damaged. It is nothing more than the case where the hardware and the software are entirely damaged.

○ In the case of a device set of the instant work, the hardware of the device set of this case was entirely damaged, the hardware of the device set of 50% was damaged, and the equipment set of 20% had simple functions compared to the device set of A, so there is no possibility of reuse due to repair. However, if it is impossible to restore the device set of this case from the perspective of restoration of original works, the instant work should be deemed to have entirely lost its value as an art work.

(b) judgment;

According to the above facts, the defendant-affiliated art gallery is obligated to manage the work in a safe manner with the care of a good manager until transferring the work in this case to the plaintiff, and even though it is obligated to prevent damage to the work that may occur during transport by clearly notifying the transport company of the transport and of the transport cautions, it is reasonable to view that the value of the work in this case as the art work in violation of the above duty has been entirely lost. Accordingly, the defendant is obligated to compensate for the damages suffered by the plaintiff.

2. Amount of damages;

(a) Property damage;

According to the above evidence, the work of this case entails the installation process when the work of this case is traded to a third party. The author is responsible for the installation process directly and responsible for repair for a certain period of time. The estimated price as of May 2008 of the work of this case includes 130 million won or more, or 25 million won or more to be paid for the maintenance and repair cost, value-added tax, insurance premium, etc. during the above transaction price as of 20 million won or more. In light of this, it is reasonable to view the above installation cost and the maintenance and repair cost of the warranty period as of 30 million won or more after the Plaintiff received the work of this case from a third party including the sale price of the work of this case, and thus, the damages incurred by the Plaintiff, including the estimated price of the work of this case as of 130 million won or more, 50 million won or more, 50 million won or more, 50 million won or more, 50 million won or more.

(b) consolation money;

In full view of the circumstances shown in the argument of this case, including the fact that the plaintiff and the husband jointly worked for about one year, and it appears that the damage of the above work would have led to the plaintiff's mental shock, which was caused by the damage of the above work, and that there was no adequate compensation, such as the payment of insurance money, etc. during the period from the damage date to about five years and six months, and that the plaintiff would have suffered additional suffering from delay in compensation for damages, it is reasonable to deem that the plaintiff suffers from uncured mental damage solely with compensation for property damage. Therefore, in light of the aforementioned various circumstances, it is reasonable to determine consolation money at KRW 5 million.

C. Sub-committee

Ultimately, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff a total amount of KRW 90 million ( = property damage of KRW 85 million + consolation money of KRW 5 million) and to pay damages for delay calculated at each rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act from May 16, 2008, which is the date of the above accident, until December 20, 2013, which is the date of the judgment of this case, where it is deemed reasonable to dispute as to the existence and scope of the defendant's duty of performance, and 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day until the date of full payment.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judgment of the presiding judge

Judges Lee Jae-ho

Judges Kim Jin-young