The case holding that the amount of damages is the exchange value of only the building except the possessory right for maintenance where the leased building constructed on the maintenance of the city was destroyed by fire.

The case affirming the judgment of the court below holding that the amount of damage caused by the destruction of a building is an exchange value of the building except the right to use the site, on the ground that there is no evidence to prove that the building was destroyed and the right to use the site was extinguished, and thus, it cannot be seen that the right to use the site was extinguished.

Article 393 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff (Attorney Hong-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant (Attorney Kim Young-jin, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 93Na45703, 45710 delivered on March 27, 1996

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the lease contract between the plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant, hereinafter the plaintiff only) and the defendant with respect to the building of this case owned by the non-party 1 in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu (resident 1 omitted) was terminated on November 7, 1991 when the building of this case, which is the object of lease, was destroyed by fire, and therefore, the defendant is obligated to return 37,00,000 won to the plaintiff. The defendant's assertion that the plaintiff's damage claim acquired by the non-party 1 due to the fire's failure to return the object of lease of this case is set off on the amount equal to the plaintiff's claim for return of the leased object of this case 0,000 won, which is the leased object of this case's 10,000 won, since it is difficult to view that the plaintiff fulfilled its fiduciary duty with respect to the preservation of the building of this case which is the object of lease of this case 10,000 won.

In light of the records, the above recognition and judgment of the court below are just and acceptable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the calculation of damages or incomplete deliberation, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal. The ground of appeal is without merit or acceptable.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant who is the appellant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)