(a) Whether there exists a benefit to seek damages separately from the principal lawsuit concerning the provisional attachment and execution expenses of the vessel under guard;

(b) Scope of compensation for damage where a ship is repaired due to insignificant damage.

1. Expenses for provisional attachment and execution of custody of a ship shall be borne by the execution obligor pursuant to Articles 707 and 513(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, and may be recovered without a separate title of debt at the time of execution of a final judgment in favor of the creditor in the merits. Therefore, there is no benefit to file a lawsuit separately by deeming it as tort in the principal lawsuit.

2. In a case where a tort is damaged, the damage is the repair cost, if repair is possible, the decrease in the exchange value is ordinary damages. In a case where a ship repairs a minor damage due to an accident, the claim for the decrease in exchange value and the amount of damages at the rate of 5 percent per annum per annum during the period of a partnership with respect to the decrease in exchange value arising from the damage caused by the accident is a special damages. Therefore, there is an assertion and proof that the existence of special circumstances and its circumstances are known or could have been known to the perpetrator, and there is no rule of experience that the exchange value will be reduced even after the repair is possible due to minor damage

Articles 707, 513(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, Articles 750, 763, and 393 of the Civil Act

Korea

Hague Entertainment Co., Ltd., Counsel Kim Young-ju, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Daegu High Court Decision 78Na15 delivered on July 26, 1978

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal by the plaintiff performer are examined.

1 Points

The expenses for provisional attachment and execution of custody of the ship shall be borne by the execution obligor pursuant to Article 707 and Article 513(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, and may be recovered without a separate title of debt at the time of execution of a judgment in favor of the creditor's lawsuit on the merits. Therefore, the court below's decision that rejected this part of the claim is just and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the nature of execution expenses.

2 Points

In a case where an article was damaged due to a tort, the cost of repairing the article can be repaired, and if the repair is impossible, the decrease in the value of exchange would be an ordinary loss. According to the facts acknowledged by the court below, one sea is repaired by suffering a minor loss. Thus, it is deemed that the plaintiff's claim for payment of damages at the rate of 1/100 of the price of the line and 5/100 per annum of the 23-day-day-day-day-day-period-period-period-period-period-period-period-period-period-period-period-period-period-period-period-period-period-period-period-period-period-period-period-based special damages. Thus, there is no assertion or proof that the existence of the special situation and its circumstances were known or known to the defendant, the court below's rejection of the claim is legitimate, and it cannot be viewed

Three Points

As the Plaintiff asserts, even if the Defendant was liable to compensate for damages equivalent to the ordinary vessel maintenance cost of the vessel during the repair period of the vessel was unable to be operated during the repair period of the said vessel, the Plaintiff claimed that the period of suspension of service due to the instant accident is 23 days combined. However, according to the purport of the oral argument shown in the record, only 10 days out of 23 days during the repair period and the closure period of 13 days cannot be deemed as a period of inevitable suspension due to the instant accident, and therefore, it cannot be deemed as a period of suspension of service due to the instant accident. Thus, even if the amount of 10 days is calculated as the amount claimed by the Plaintiff as 10 days during the repair period of the said vessel, it cannot be viewed as 6,213,284 won even if the amount was calculated as 10 days as the amount claimed by the Plaintiff, even if the total amount is recognized as damages, it cannot be viewed as a period of suspension of service due to the said error in the judgment of the court below.

4 Points

In light of the records, the court below's decision is legitimate and there is no violation of the rules of evidence against the rules of evidence. Thus, the court below's decision is without merit.

Therefore, this decision is delivered with the assent of all Justices who reviewed the appeal.

Justices Yang Byung-ho (Presiding Judge)