Subject matters to be returned by the addressee under the deposit contract;

An object to be returned under a deposit contract shall be the object itself of the thing which has been received by the addressee, unless otherwise stipulated by the parties concerned, and if the article is entirely destroyed or lost, the obligation to return the deposited article shall become impossible, and even if the deposited article is a substitute, if it does not have any obligation to deliver the same kind of article and if the leased article was destroyed or lost due to the addressee's negligence, the obligation to compensate for

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 et al.

Defendant-Appellant Choi Byung-jin, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 76Na229 delivered on June 25, 1976

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The defendant's attorney's grounds of appeal are examined.

With respect to the First Ground:

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below held that the plaintiff's assertion of the defendant's expression representative could not be seen as being due to the defendant's negligence, and the non-party 1 would cancel the sales contract without holding the certificate of negligence storage or the power of attorney of the plaintiff, which was issued to the plaintiff before the plaintiff. The court below rejected the judgment of the court below in light of the above legal principles, since the plaintiff did not pay the down payment to the non-party 1 and asked the plaintiff to answer to the plaintiff, and it could easily be seen that there was doubt as to the existence of the right of attorney of the above non-party 1, even though it could not be seen as having received the payment and delivered the certificate of custody, and it can be seen as having been caused by the defendant's negligence to believe that the non-party 1 had the right to act on behalf of the plaintiff as to the cancellation of the sales contract. Thus, the court below rejected the above assertion by misapprehending the legal principles as to the representation of the plaintiff.

With respect to the second ground:

In the case of this case, unless there is a special agreement between the parties on the object to be returned by the deposit contract, the obligation to return the deposited object itself and if the object is entirely destroyed or lost, the obligation to return the deposited object becomes impossible, and even if the deposited object is a substitute, the obligation to deliver the same kind of goods cannot be imposed. From the same view, the judgment of the court below is just and there are no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the deposit and impossibility of performance, incomplete deliberation, or compensatory damages, as the judgment of the court below is justified that the obligation to return the deposited object is impossible, and that part of the deposited object is destroyed or lost by the Defendant’s negligence, and in this case, the obligation to return the deposited object is determined by the Defendant’s negligence.

With respect to the third point:

The lower court, based on Non-Party 2’s testimony, recognized the fact that the Plaintiff’s damage was 2,500 won at the market price of the deceased and the second 5 official flick, and 2,000 won at the market price of the ship’s 5 official flick, around March 1975 by Non-Party 2’s testimony, and based thereon, calculated the Plaintiff’s damage.

However, considering the testimony (record 105) of the above witness, it is reasonable to view that the above witness's testimony was sold to Nonparty 1 for the same 14th day of each box, and that the market price at the time of March 1975 was limited to 2,500 won for the company and 500 won for the company and 500 won for the company and 1,000 won for the company and 2,000 won for the company, and that there was no mentioning about the company's apology and the place of delivery. On the other hand, according to the facts established by the court below, the defendant sold 1,350 won for the company and 1,200 won for the company and 1,50 won for the company and 14th day of each box, and therefore, it is reasonable to view that the above amount was equivalent to the above amount, unless there was any special reason to the contrary, since the court below did not err in the rules of evidence or found the above witness's testimony and quality at the time of 197.

Therefore, the original judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court, which is the original judgment, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Ahn Byung-soo (Presiding Justice) (Presiding Justice)