Cases where there is an error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the return of the deposited goods.

Unless otherwise stipulated, the object to be returned by the addressee is itself and is entirely destroyed, the obligation to return the deposited object shall be impossible, and even if the substitute is leased, there shall be no obligation to deliver the same kind of object.

Article 684 of the Civil Act, Article 701 of the Civil Act

Youngam Land Improvement Cooperatives

Korea Transportation Corporation

Busan District Court Decision 66Na83 delivered on November 9, 1966, Decision 66Na83 delivered on November 9, 1966

The original judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Gwangju High Court.

Defendant Seo-gu’s ground of appeal Nos. 2 and 4 of the same Young-dong.

According to the original judgment, the court below recognized the fact that the two branches, which are the deposited goods, have been lost due to the non-party 1's actualization of non-party 1, the employees of the branch offices of the defendant company Young-gu branch office of the defendant company, with no dispute over the establishment of the original judgment, and even if the above two branches are not existing due to the fact that the two branches had already been lost, the defendant shall, upon the plaintiff's request, deliver to the plaintiff the dongyang (YU) No. 701 (SU) and the defendant shall deliver the dongyang (SU) to the plaintiff at the request of the plaintiff, and if it is impossible to execute delivery, the defendant shall be liable to pay the price converted into 240 won per the aboveyangyang PP, which is recognized by the witness testimony of the first instance court when it is impossible to execute delivery."

However, the object to be returned by the bailee under the deposit contract is itself a numerical value of the object which is not agreed upon by the parties, and if the object is entirely destroyed, the liability to return the deposited object shall be separate from each other, or if it is caused by any cause attributable to a person, the obligation to return the deposited object shall not be deemed to be impossible, and even if the deposited object is a substitute, it shall not be deemed to have the obligation to deliver the same kind of object as that of the substitute, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the return of the deposited object, and it is reasonable to discuss this point. Accordingly, the original judgment shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the Gwangju High Court, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Mag-kim Kim-bun and Magman