(a) Where a building is damaged by a tort, ordinary damages;

(b) Where the property right is infringed by the tort, consolation money;

A. In a case where a building is damaged due to a tort, if it is possible to repair it, the cost of repair and, if it is impossible to repair it, the exchange value would normally be the normal damages.

B. Generally, in a case where a property right has been infringed by a tort of another person, mental suffering shall be deemed to have been recovered from the compensation for such property damage. Thus, in a case where a property damage has occurred which cannot be recovered from the compensation for property damage, this shall be deemed to be a damage due to special circumstances, and if the perpetrator knew or could have known such circumstances, compensation for such damage shall be recognized

a.B.Article 763 of the Civil Code (Article 393). Article 751 of the Civil Code

A. (B) Supreme Court Decision 90Da20206 Decided June 11, 1991 (Gong1990, 460) (Gong1991, 1902) Decided January 12, 1990 (Gong1991, 1902). Supreme Court Decision 88Meu25861 Decided June 27, 1989 (Gong1989, 1157) (Gong157).

Plaintiff 1 et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellee-appellant

Defendant et al.

Seoul High Court Decision 90Na51721 delivered on June 12, 1991

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

(1) In a case where a building is damaged due to a tort, if it is possible to repair it, the cost of repair, if it is impossible to repair it (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 88Meu28518, Jan. 12, 1990). In light of the records, the court below is just in holding that the housing of this case is equivalent to the construction cost, such as defect repair, on the premise that it is damaged to the extent that its repair is possible, considering the entire housing of this case as a whole, and there is no error of law such as violation of the rules of evidence, such as theory of lawsuit, misunderstanding of legal principles concerning the calculation of damages due to a tort, incomplete hearing

(2) Generally, in a case where a property right has been infringed by a tort of another person, mental suffering shall be deemed to have been recovered from compensation for such property damage. Thus, if a property damage has occurred which cannot be recovered from compensation for property damage due to a special circumstance, this shall be recognized only when the perpetrator knew or could have known such circumstance (see Supreme Court Decision 88Meu27249, Aug. 8, 1989). In light of the records, there is no evidence to support that the court below rejected the plaintiffs' claim for consolation money on the same purport, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to mental damage in a case where a property right has been infringed due to a mistake of facts against the rules of evidence, such as a theory of lawsuit, or an unlawful act of mistake of facts, such as a tort. There is no reason to support this issue.

(3) Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the 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 Lee Jae-sung (Presiding Justice)