(a) Standards for calculating the amount of damages, in cases where goods are destroyed due to a tort;

(b) Where a victim whose goods are destroyed due to a tort has received compensation for damage determined by the standards for the price of the goods at the time of their destruction, and a claim for compensation for damages

The calculation of damages in a case where the goods were lost due to the tort shall be computed at the time of loss.

The price will be determined by the price, and the price will include the benefit arising from the ordinary use and profit in the present and in the future.

Article 750 of the Civil Act

Sale Kimam

Korea

Seoul High Court Decision 64Na1537 delivered on June 3, 1965, Seoul High Court Decision 64Na1537 delivered on July 3, 1965

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The ground of appeal No. 1 by the plaintiff's attorney is examined.

The theory is that a person who was destroyed by a tort can claim compensation for damages caused by the tort as well as the actual damages caused by the impossibility of using and making profits from the property. However, the damages caused by the destruction of the property should be determined by the price at the time of the destruction. The price of the property should be determined by the price at the time of the destruction. Therefore, if the victim receives compensation according to the standard of the price of the property at the time of the destruction, it shall be determined by the price at the time of the loss

It can be said that compensation has been made for the benefit arising from the ordinary use of the goods.

Therefore, in this case, the plaintiff can get a future fishing operation with the sunken fishing vessel of this case.

The part claiming a benefit constitutes the benefit arising from ordinary use and benefit, and thus the original sales

The decision is justified in rejecting the plaintiff's claim as to that part, and it is groundless in this regard. The second ground of appeal is examined.

In determining the scope of the amount of damages for the tort in this case, it is reasonable to set the price of the goods at the time of the destruction according to the standard, and it cannot be said that the original judgment was erroneous in recognizing the price at the time of the sinking of the fishing vessel in this case and the quantity of the lost net (in recognizing the quantity of the lost net, it is clear that the original judgment cited the testimony of the witness in the case of recognizing the quantity of the lost net net, it is a clerical error in the witness training) and that medical expenses or travel expenses paid to the crew and their families of the fishing vessel sunken in this case owned by the plaintiff are paid from an intentional point of view as the plaintiff as the owner and it cannot be said that the legal obligation was paid by the plaintiff, so the original judgment that

is the same.

In addition, it is reasonable that the court below rejected the plaintiff's claim for compensation for that part of the ship because the anchor line, etc. claimed by the plaintiff, is a part of the ship.

Therefore, this appeal is without merit, and is dismissed, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the losing party and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices of the Supreme Court Dog-gu (Presiding Judge) Dog-Jak and Mag-gu Mag-gu