(a) Methods of compensating for damage if a building is damaged by tort;

B. In the case of paragraph (a) above, whether there is liability to compensate for the increased repair cost due to the malfunction of the constructor after the tort

(a) Where a building is damaged due to a tort, the damage shall be compensated for in money, and no claim for recovery shall be made unless there are special circumstances, such as the parties express their different intent, etc.

B. In a case where a building is damaged due to a tort, if it is possible to repair the building, the damage shall, in principle, be deemed as ordinary damages at the time of the tort and the amount of damages shall be calculated based on the construction cost at the time of the accident, and the increased repair cost due to the occurrence of the building price, etc. after the accident, shall be deemed as damages due to special circumstances, and thus the liability

(a) Articles 763, 394(b), 763, and 393 of the Civil Act;

A. Supreme Court Decision 4293Da115 delivered on October 12, 1961, Supreme Court Decision 63Da242 delivered on June 20, 1963 (No. 11Du231 delivered on June 20, 1963) (No. 70Da649 delivered on September 22, 1970 (No. 18 ③No. 40 delivered on December 10, 1991)

Plaintiff 1 et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Dongnam General Construction Company

Busan High Court Decision 92Na6525 delivered on October 21, 1992

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. As to grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2

In a case where a building is damaged due to an illegal act, the damages should be compensated in money, and the parties cannot file a claim for restitution unless there are special circumstances, such as the parties’ declaration of different intent, etc. However, the argument merely criticizes the judgment of the court below made with the same purport under the different premise, and it cannot be accepted.

2. As to the third ground for appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the amount of damages equivalent to the construction cost, such as the repair cost of the building of this case suffered by the plaintiff due to the defendant's excavation work should be calculated as of June 1990, which is around the time of this case. The defendant recognized that the amount equivalent to the construction cost, such as the repair cost, is about 23,60,000 won, and that the defendant is liable for compensating 18,880,000 won among them. If it is possible to repair a building due to a tort, the damages should be deemed as ordinary damages at the time of tort and the amount of damages should be calculated based on the construction cost at the time. Thus, the above judgment of the court below is just, and even if the repair cost of the building of this case has been increased due to the plaintiff's repair work after the accident of this case, the increased repair cost should be deemed as damages due to special circumstances, such as the theory of lawsuit, and thus, there is a possibility of liability for damages only if it was foreseeable or foreseeable.

3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Jeong Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)