[1] Where an article is destroyed or damaged by a tort, the scope of ordinary damages

[2] The case affirming the judgment of the court below which calculated the amount of damages on the basis of the arrival price of the green batteries in case where the green batteries confiscated in a customs office has been damaged to the extent that it has no value remaining due to a customs officer's error

[1] Generally, damages caused by a tort shall be deemed ordinary damages where the market price at the time of loss when the goods are destroyed, where the goods are damaged, or where it is possible to repair or restore the goods to their original state, or where repair or restoration is impossible or excessive, the amount of exchange value reduced due to the damage shall be deemed as ordinary damages.

[2] The case affirming the judgment of the court below which calculated the amount of damages on the basis of the arrival price of the green batteries in case where the green batteries confiscated in a customs office has been damaged to the extent that it has no value remaining due to a customs officer's mishandling

[1] Articles 393 and 763 of the Civil Act / [2] Articles 393 and 763 of the Civil Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 95Da38233 delivered on January 23, 1996 (Gong1996Sang, 663)

Plaintiff 1 and one other (Attorney Kim Jong-sik, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Korea

Seoul High Court Decision 2004Na43796 delivered on July 12, 2005

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against each party.

We examine the Plaintiffs and the Defendant’s grounds of appeal in sequence.

1. Judgment on the Defendant’s grounds of appeal

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, after compiling the adopted evidence and recognizing facts as stated in its judgment, the court below found that the green batteries confiscated by the defendant neglected to keep the seized green batteries with due care as a good manager and caused the deterioration of the green batteries, so the defendant is liable to compensate for damages arising therefrom to the plaintiff 1 (hereinafter "the plaintiff 1") who is the owner of the seized green batteries, and this does not change because the seized green batteries was entrusted to the bonded warehouse of this case as set forth by him at the request of the importer, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of facts against the rules of evidence and misunderstanding of legal principles as to the responsibility for the storage of the seized green batteries, contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal by the defendant.

2. Judgment on Plaintiff 1’s grounds of appeal

A. The part pertaining to the green batteries entered in the seizure list

In general, damages caused by illegal acts shall be deemed ordinary damages, such as the market price at the time of the destruction when the goods are destroyed, the repair cost when the goods are damaged, the expenses for restoration when the goods are repaired, or the expenses for restoration to the original state when the repair or restoration to the original state is impossible or when the expenses are excessive (see Supreme Court Decision 95Da38233, Jan. 23, 1996). The exchange value of green batteries stored in a bonded area without completing import customs clearance cannot be deemed the same as the domestic market price, which is the exchange value of green cells already distributed in the Republic of Korea on the ground that they are the same goods. The exchange value of green batteries stored in the bonded area cannot be deemed as the exchange value of green batteries, which is the exchange value of green batteries that is the exchange value of the same goods. The total amount of expenses incurred in domestic import from the export site to the date of entry into the domestic port, namely, the arrival price. Thus, if such green batteries batteries is damaged to the extent that it is not impossible to restore its original state due to a bonded area, barring special circumstances.

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records and the above legal principles, the court below recognized the facts as stated in its reasoning after compiling the adopted evidence, and judged that the damage suffered by the plaintiff 1,523.7 kilograms, which were seized at the Incheon Customs Office under the defendant's control, due to the damage to the extent that the remaining value would be lost due to a customs officer's mistake in the custody of the customs officer, shall be 128,676 dollars (1,523 kilograms x 84.45 USD per kilogram208 per kilogram208 per kilogram208 won (128,676 USD 128,676 x 1,308 won at the time of the disposition of the return of the seized goods) shall be deemed the price at the arrival of the above green batteries (1,523 kilograms x 84.45 dollars per kilogram208 won at the time of the disposition of the seizure of the seized goods. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal by the plaintiff

B. The part concerning green batteries not entered in the seizure list

(1) Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records and relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, the court below acknowledged the facts as stated in its judgment after compiling the adopted evidence, and found that the remaining green batteries 7,210 kilograms that were not entered in the list of seizure among green batteries stored in the bonded warehouse of this case cannot be deemed as having been actually seized by the customs officer belonging to the defendant, and the responsibility for keeping them cannot be viewed as having been committed against the non-party company, the owner of the plaintiff 1 or the importer of the bonded warehouse of this case, who was entrusted with custody from the defendant, and the head of Incheon Customs Office or the head of the office of office office of Suwon Customs office of the defendant, and it cannot be viewed as having been committed against the non-party company, the owner of the non-party company, who was entrusted with custody from the plaintiff 1 or the importer, and the total amount of the imported green batteries including the above green batteries was designated as the controlled cargo and controlled strictly by a customs officer. In so doing, the judgment of the court below was just, and there was no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the responsibility of the proprietor's.

(2) Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records and relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, the court below acknowledged the facts as stated in its judgment after compiling the adopted evidence, and found the facts as stated in its reasoning, even if the head of office office of Suwon Customs Office, which was seized, corrected and sealed the whole entrances of the bonded warehouse of this case where all the remainder green cells are stored, it is a legitimate act based on Article 81 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Customs Act (Presidential Decree No. 15977 of Dec. 31, 1998), and thereby does not prohibit import customs clearance or return of the remainder green cells. Accordingly, if the head of Pyeongtaek Branch Office opened the entrance at the request of the non-party company, which is the proprietor of the bonded warehouse of this case, the court below rejected the defendant's act of maintaining the remainder green cells only with the above act of the head of Pyeongtaek Branch office, or the defendant's act of managing the plaintiffs or the non-party company, which is the owner of the remaining green cells, as alleged in the ground of appeal.

3. Judgment on Plaintiff 2’s ground of appeal

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records and relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, the court below acknowledged the facts as stated in its judgment after compiling the adopted evidence and acknowledged the facts, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the defendant actually occupied the green paper of this case without any legal basis, such as that the defendant did not take customs clearance procedures against the green paper of this case, and the responsibility to keep the green paper of this case is against the non-party company, the owner of the non-party company, who was entrusted with the custody by the plaintiff 2 (hereinafter "the plaintiff 2"), and cannot be deemed to have the head of Incheon Customs Office or the head of office office office of Suwon Customs Office, and even if the office of office office of Pyeongtaek-si corrected and sealed the whole entrance of the bonded warehouse of this case, it cannot be deemed to have interfered with the legitimate management of the green paper of this case by the plaintiff 2 or the non-party company. The defendant's liability to compensate for damages on the premise that the above act of the head of office of Pyeongtaek-party branch office constitutes a tort, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the limitation of the management freight and liability.

4. Conclusion

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

Justices Kim Young-ran (Presiding Justice)