KON Sclve Co., Ltd. (Attorney Lee Chang-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Incheon Container Terminal Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Gyeongpyeong, Attorneys Lee Dong-woo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

November 30, 2006

Incheon District Court Decision 2004Kadan9222 Delivered on January 19, 2006

1. The part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid under the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 12,459,538 won with the interest of 5% per annum from October 8, 2004 to December 21, 2006, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. The plaintiff's remaining appeal is dismissed.

3. The total cost of a lawsuit shall be borne individually by each party.

4. The part concerning the payment of money under paragraph (1) may be provisionally executed.

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 24,739,704 won and the amount calculated by the ratio of 5% per annum from October 8, 2004 to the delivery date of the complaint of this case, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment (the plaintiff reduced the purport of the claim in the trial).

1. Facts of recognition;

The following facts do not conflict between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the whole pleadings in each of the evidence Nos. 1, 2, 2-1, 4, 5, 7-1, 2, 3, 8, 9, 11-1, 1, 2, and 14.

A. On August 19, 2004, the Plaintiff imported 5,212 DoV PP Polate (name ESP 810 Player) from NAK located in Hong Kong (name ESP 810 Player) and completed customs procedures on October 5 of the same year.

B. On October 8, 2004, the re-delivery of the article Nos. 6, the Defendant affiliated with the Defendant, while moving strings while carrying out container removal operations at around 20:10 on October 8, 2004, and the container stored at the price of the above DV display 1,212 was shocked (hereinafter the instant accident).

C. On October 28, 2004, in order to verify whether the above DV display displays were damaged, the Plaintiff requested a performance test (hereinafter the inspection of this case) to KON on the whole quantity of the DV display panel 1,212. As a result, the above DV display panel 1,212 among the 278 parts (hereinafter the product of this case) was proved to have been damaged to the extent that the use could not be impossible, and the remaining quantity did not seem to have been damaged by external appearance, but it was a result of the examination to the extent that the above shock could have been caused by the above shock, even though the defects were not discovered.

D. Before the instant accident occurred, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Korea Broadcasting Education Institute on December 10, 2003 to supply KRW 108,00 per month 50 per 1,000 per 1,00 won per 1,000 won per 1,000 won between the instant product and the KON, Korea Co., Ltd. on February 2, 2004, to supply KRW 300 per 95,00 per 1,50 per 1,00 won per 1,50 won per 1,000 won per 1,000 won per 1,000 won per 1,000 won per 1,000 won per 1,000 won per 1,50 won per 1,204 between EMN and the Plaintiff. The instant product was imported from Hong Kong to the Plaintiff’s customer, but the instant product was supplied from time to the Plaintiff’s customer due to the instant accident.

E. In addition, in order to purchase a kind of DV display display similar to the instant product at a domestic wholesale price, the level of KRW 105,600 is required.

F. After the instant accident occurred, the Defendant paid to the Plaintiff KRW 12,917,096 as the import price of the instant product, KRW 11,210,00,00 for the said inspection expenses (including transportation expenses for inspection), and KRW 25,160,462 as the compensation for damages suffered by the Plaintiff due to the instant accident.

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion

In the event the ownership of the instant product was destroyed due to a tort, the amount of damages should be calculated on the basis of the exchange price at the place of tort at the time of the destruction. Since the average domestic price per unit of the instant product is KRW 105,600, the Plaintiff sustained damages equivalent to KRW 16,439,704 due to damage to the instant product (i.e., KRW 105,600 per unit price x 278 x 278 import price paid to the Plaintiff).

In addition, among the goods involved in the accident of this case, the increase of A/S due to the occurrence of defects in the accident of this case with respect to the remainder of the goods other than the products of this case, and the plaintiff suffered losses to pay A/S agency expenses of KRW 8,300,000 more than before the occurrence of the accident of this case.

Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff the damages for delay stated in the purport of the claim to the plaintiff as the user of the recovery of the tortfeasor who caused the accident of this case (=16,439,704 won + 8,300,000 won) and the damages for delay stated in the purport of the claim.

B. Damages sustained by the Plaintiff due to the instant accident

(1) An amount equivalent to the exchange price of the instant product

In the event that an article is destroyed or damaged to the extent that it is impossible to repair it, it is reasonable to determine the exchange price at the place of the illegal act at the time of the illegal act.

According to the facts stated in Paragraph 1, the product of this case is already subject to customs clearance at the time of the accident of this case, and the plaintiff had already supplied the same kind of goods as the product of this case to the customer of this case at a price exceeding 95,000 won per unit prior to the occurrence of the accident of this case. The product of this case is intended to supply the product of this case to the former customer, so it is inappropriate to calculate the exchange price of the product of this case by the price supplied to the customer in Korea by the plaintiff, who is the place of tort, to the customer of this case. Accordingly, at least 26,410,000 won (= 95,000 won) at the time of the accident of this case, the exchange price of the product of this case at least

(2) Inspection expenses for the product, etc. of this case

Since the prosecutor of this case was essential to calculate the amount of damages suffered by the plaintiff by selecting damaged articles among the items damaged by the accident of this case, the inspection costs of this case 11,210,000 shall also be deemed as damages suffered by the plaintiff.

(3) Whether expenses A/S increase or not

The plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff suffered losses from the increase of A/S due to the accident of this case in addition to the expenses of KRW 8,300,000 for A/S agency prior to the occurrence of the accident of this case, but it is not sufficient to recognize the above only by the descriptions of Gap evidence 6-1 through 6, Gap evidence 12, Gap evidence 13-1 through 6, Gap evidence 16, and 17. The plaintiff's assertion of this part is without merit, since there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

(4) Sub-determination

Therefore, the damages suffered by the Plaintiff due to the instant accident is KRW 37,620,00 (=26,410,000 + KRW 11,210,000).

C. The amount that the Defendant paid to the Plaintiff as damages

The Defendant paid KRW 25,160,462 to the Plaintiff as compensation for damages incurred by the Plaintiff due to the instant accident after the instant accident occurred, as seen in paragraph (e) of Article 1-5.

D. Sub-committee

According to the above, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff 12,459,538 won (=37,620,000 won - 25,160,462 won) which has not yet been compensated among the damages suffered by the plaintiff and damages for delay calculated at each rate of 20% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act from October 8, 2004, which is the date of the accident of this case (the date of tort) to the date of the judgment of the court of the first instance, which is deemed reasonable to dispute as to the existence and scope of the obligation of this case, until December 21, 2006, and from the next day to the date of full payment.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is justified within the above scope of recognition.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is justified within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed without merit. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is partially unfair, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the above recognition fee in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and the plaintiff shall be ordered to pay the above recognition fee to the defendant, and the remaining appeal by the plaintiff shall be dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kang Young-ho (Presiding Judge)