(a) An amount of compensation in cases where goods have been destroyed due to a tort;

(b) Liability of the State for tort in the course of fulfilling his duties and compensation for damages;

A. In a case where an article was lost due to a tort, the injured party can claim the exchange price of the article at the time of the lawsuit to the extent that there is a reasonable causal relationship between the tort and the damage, and the subsequent interest for delay, and the future profit to use the article by ordinary means shall be deemed to be included in the exchange price.

B. In the event that a series of calendars is engaged in the service of the enforcement documents of the judgment or other affairs under the laws and regulations, it shall be deemed that it belongs to a state public official in a practical sense, and in the event that a series of calendars causes damage by violating the duty of care in performing the above duties, the State shall be liable to compensate the victim for the damage pursuant to Article 2 of the State Compensation Act, and the State shall not be deemed that the State's liability under the State Compensation Act is excluded or that the responsibility of both parties is not compatible.

Article 763 of the Civil Act, Article 393 of the Constitution, Article 26 of the Constitution, Article 2 of the State Compensation Act, Article 493 of the Civil Procedure Act

66Da1732 decided Dec. 20, 1966; 66Da854 decided Jul. 26, 1966

Plaintiff

Korea

Seoul High Court Decision 66Na569 delivered on January 23, 1968

The appeals are dismissed, respectively.

The costs of appeal by the plaintiff are assessed against the plaintiff. The costs of appeal by the defendant are assessed against the defendant.

(1) We examine the Plaintiff’s ground of appeal by the Plaintiff’s attorney

In a case where an article was destroyed due to a tort, the victim can claim the exchange price of the article at the time of the loss and the interest for delay thereafter within the extent of a reasonable causal relationship between the tort and the damage, and the benefit which can be ordinarily used and profit from the article in the future should be considered to be included in the above exchange price. Since the court below's above purport is just in the above purport, and the court below rejected the loss equivalent to the rent for the lawsuit, and it cannot be recognized that the court below included the same part as the theory of lawsuit in the recovery expenses recognized by the court below, considering the appraisal contents ordered by the appraiser, its appraisal contents, and the evidence adopted by the court below, as a whole, the court below did not recognize that the amount of the recovery expenses recognized by the court below includes the same as the theory of lawsuit, even though the court below decided to compensate the defendant for the same amount as the theory of lawsuit at the time of the above judgment against the No. 66Da1732, Dec. 20, 1966.

(2) As to the grounds of appeal by the defendant litigation performer, it is a state public official in a practical sense that the defendant's grounds of appeal can not be interpreted as excluding the State's liability under the State Compensation Act or excluding the State's liability under the State Compensation Act or the State's liability under the State Compensation Act, even if the court below erred in the misapprehension of Article 493 of the Civil Procedure Act, the defendant's obligation to compensate the injured party for damages under Article 26 of the Constitution and Article 2 of the State Compensation Act, and Article 493 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that if the injured party causes damages to the creditor or other interested parties due to the violation of the act done by the creditor and the duty delegated by the creditor under Article 493 of the Civil Procedure Act, it cannot be interpreted as excluding the State's liability under the State Compensation Act or the State's liability for damages (Supreme Court Decision 6Da854 Decided July 26, 196).

Therefore, the grounds of appeal by the plaintiff and the defendant cannot be any or all of them, and it is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating judges.

[Judgment of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Mag-Jak Park Mag-gu