Appropriateness of compensation for consolation money for damage or destruction of an article

It is common to view that the compensation for damages caused by the damage or destruction of the victim's property is recovered by compensating for the amount equivalent to the price. Unless there are special circumstances, it is unfair to pay the compensation again in addition to the compensation for damages.

Article 751 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff

Attorney Lee Im-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Gwangju High Court Decision 88Na1478 delivered on March 31, 1989

The part of the judgment of the court below ordering the defendant to pay consolation money of two million won (including delay damages) shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the Gwangju High Court.

The defendant's remaining appeals are dismissed.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below recognized that the plaintiff and his family living for 20 years and operated the medicine room was damaged by the accident of this case and the plaintiff's wife suffered injury due to the number of days of treatment, and ordered payment of 2 million won as consolation money.

However, it is reasonable for the court below to order the defendant to pay consolation money in this case where it is not known that the compensation for damages caused by the damage or destruction of an article owned by it is ordinarily deemed that the amount equivalent to the price is restored to the depth of the article, and unless there are special circumstances, the payment of consolation money in addition to the price compensation is unfair and it is not known at all that the plaintiff's wife had any part of the body, even if examining records, it was not clear that the plaintiff's wife had any part of the body. The appeal to this point is justified

However, the defendant's argument that the price calculation of the building destroyed among the grounds of appeal is improper is nothing more than the assertion that the court below is unable to believe the evidence obtained by free conviction, and it cannot be accepted. The court below's decision on this point is not acceptable as it is against the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit.

Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below which cited the plaintiff's claim for consolation money is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Gwangju High Court, which is the court below, and the remaining defendant's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as

Justices Kim Yong-sung (Presiding Justice)