Cases where it is recognized that the perpetrator knew or could have known the occurrence of damage due to special circumstances;

The occurrence of a loss due to special circumstances may be claimed only if the perpetrator has known or could have known that the perpetrator knew or could have known the loss.

Articles 393 and 763 of the Civil Act

Maduk Mesel

Defendant

Seoul Civil District Court Decision 64Na614 delivered on January 22, 1965

Of the original judgment, the part against the plaintiff is reversed.

The case shall be remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul Civil District Court.

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The defendant's expenses of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

As to the Plaintiff’s ground of appeal:

In light of the above facts and records, the court below held that the plaintiff was not 10,000 won for the above 0-day rental fee of 10,000 won for the above 0-day rental fee of 10,000 won for the above 10-day rental fee of 10,000 won and 45,00 won for the above 0-day rental fee of 10,000 won for the above 10-day rental fee of 10,000 won for the above 10-day rental fee of 10,000 won for the above 10-day rental fee of 10,000 won for the above 10-day rental fee of 10,000 won for the above 10-day rental fee of 10,000 won for the above 10-day rental fee of 10,000 won for the above 10-day rental fee and 10,000 won for the above 7.7.

As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal:

In this paper, the author argues that the amount of money that the Defendant was born to the Plaintiff and the contents of the contract with the Plaintiff and Nonparty Kim Jin-ok, which are opposed to the original judgment, and that the contract was concluded under the understanding of the Defendant, and that the amount received by the Plaintiff and the telephone rent, etc. are different from the original judgment, and only criticizes the lower court’s exclusive authority on the determination of evidence and fact-finding, which are contrary to the original judgment.

All arguments are groundless.

Therefore, according to Articles 400, 406, 395, and 384 of the Civil Procedure Act, a decision is made as per Disposition with the assent of all participating judges.

The judges of the Supreme Court, the two judges of the two judges of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge)