A. If the occurrence of damage is recognized, the part concerning the deliberation and determination of the amount of damage

B. Scope of ordinary damages out of damage from loss of profit due to damage to fishing grounds

A. In a case where the occurrence of damages is recognized as a tort, the court shall deliberate and determine the amount of damages, barring special circumstances, so long as the defendant's error in the execution of reclamation works of public waters and the fact that the damages were incurred as a result of the inflow of a large quantity of earth and sand into the fishing ground is determined, the court shall deliberate and determine the amount of damages.

B. In a case where the fishing ground is damaged due to the destruction of earth and sand flow and fish dries due to error in the reclamation and construction of public waters, the damages suffered by the victim due to the failure to obtain the profit which would have been obtained if the damaged dys and sand had been recovered normally at the time of the tort at least from among the damages incurred by the loss of profit-making, and the damages incurred by the loss of profit-making during the period required for restoring the damaged part or replacing the damaged part into a new fishing ground where it is impossible to restore or restore it.

A. Articles 750 and 763 of the Civil Act; Articles 126 and 265 of the Civil Procedure Act; Articles 763 and 393(1) of the Civil Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 67Da1024 Decided September 26, 1967, Supreme Court Decision 81Da1045 Decided April 13, 1982

Plaintiff 1 and two others, Attorneys Lee Jae-won, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Defendant

Gwangju High Court Decision 81Na617 delivered on March 10, 1983

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Gwangju High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The lower court determined that the Plaintiffs were able to cultivate and quash the above fishing ground by obtaining a license for fishing right to the public waters located in the Jeonnam-gun Navy, and that the Defendant was able to recover from 150 meters away from August 1978 to December 12, 1978 due to the Defendant’s erroneous construction of the bank works for reclamation of public waters two times or less due to the Defendant’s erroneous construction, and that the fish plaging in the above fishing ground flows into large quantities of sand and destroyed the above fishing ground due to the above reclamation works, and that the 64,000 square meters from the total area of the above fishing ground was 65% and 276,000 square meters from the total area of the above fishing ground, and that the Plaintiffs were unable to recover from 197,000 square meters of the above fishing ground due to the Defendant’s unlawful acts, and that the Plaintiffs were able to have suffered damages from 197,000 square meters of the total amount of damages incurred by the Plaintiffs’ damages.

However, in a case where damages are found to have occurred due to a tort, unless there are special circumstances, the amount of damages must be deliberated and determined. Thus, the court below which found the damages caused by the defendant's tort shall deliberate and determine the amount of damages. Among the damages caused by the defendant's loss of profit, at least by the plaintiffs' loss of profit, at the time of the defendant's tort, the damages suffered due to the plaintiffs' failure to obtain the profits that would have been gained if they were recovered due to their normal growth, and the damages caused by the loss of profit during a considerable period of time, which would be incurred by the restoration of the above fishing ground or by the new fishing ground of the same size as the damaged portion due to the impossibility of restoration, shall be the ordinary damages caused by the defendant's tort, and the records show that there are materials to recognize the amount of damages. The court below did not confirm the occurrence of damages caused by the reduction of production volume and so it did not deliberate and determine the amount of damages, but did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to damages or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the Gwangju High Court which is the original judgment. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Jeong Tae-tae (Presiding Justice)