Whether a separate consolation money can be claimed for general mental suffering caused by infringement of property rights.

As the general mental suffering caused by infringement of property rights is restored by compensation for the property damage, a separate consolation money shall not be claimed unless there are any special circumstances.

Article 751 of the Civil Act

Mar. 31, 1970, 69Da2106 decided Mar. 31, 1970 (Article 751 (21) 545, 5945, 18 (1) 289)

Plaintiff

Limited Partnership Company, Japan Trucking Transport Agents

Gwangju District Court Gwangju District Court Decision 81Gahap46

Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the defendant revoked the part of the judgment against the defendant ordering the plaintiff to pay the above amount of KRW 1,180,000 and the above amount of KRW 5% per annum from April 10, 1981 to the date of full payment, and dismissed the plaintiff's claim corresponding to this part.

The defendant's remaining appeal is dismissed.

All the costs of lawsuit shall be divided into two parts of the first and second instances, one of them shall be borne by the defendant, and the remainder by the plaintiff.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 3,362,00 won with 25 percent interest per annum from the day following the day when the copy of this case was served on the defendant to the day of full payment.

The judgment that the lawsuit costs shall be borne by the defendant and the declaration of provisional execution

The part of the first instance judgment against the defendant shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to this part shall be dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be assessed against the plaintiff at all of the first and second instances.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

In light of the following facts, the non-party 4's identification number No. 1 and the non-party 2's identification number No. 3's identification of the above non-party 4 (the non-party 4's identification number omitted)'s non-party 1's identification of the above non-party 4's identification of the above non-party 1's identification number and the non-party 2's identification of the non-party 3's identification of the non-party 4's identification of the above non-party 1's identification of the non-party 4's identification of the non-party 1's identification of the non-party 4's identification of the non-party 1's identification of the non-party 4's identification of the non-party 1's identification of the non-party 2's identification of the non-party 3's identification of the non-party 4's identification of the non-party 1's identification of the non-party 4's identification of the same

2. Damages to be compensated;

The plaintiff's claim for consolation money of 29,00 won for 13 days from December 25, 1980 to 1981. (1) The plaintiff's claim for consolation money of 2,563,00 won for 20 days from 10 days from 10 days from 1980 to 20 days from 20 days from 20 days from 13 days from 1981. (2) The plaintiff's owner (vehicle number 3 omitted) suffered losses from 2,00 won from 2,563,00 from 3 days from 10 days from 10 days from 20 days from 20 days from 20 days from 20 days from 30 days from 10 days from 10 days from 20 days from 20 days from 30 days from 20 days from 20 days from 10 days from 20 days from 20 days from 20 days from 3 days from 20 days from 20 days from 20 days from 20 days from 20 days from 2 of 20 days from 20 days from 2.

3. Accordingly, the defendant is obligated to pay damages for delay at the rate of 5% per annum from April 10, 1981 to the date following the day when the copy of the gusheet was delivered to the defendant as the plaintiff's claim against the plaintiff (the plaintiff is entitled to pay damages for delay at the rate of 1,180,000 won per annum from April 10, 1981 to the day after the full payment was made (the plaintiff is entitled to Article 3 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, which is the interest rate of 2,50% per annum as prescribed by the Presidential Decree, pursuant to Article 3 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings). However, in this case, it is reasonable for the defendant to dispute the existence or scope of the damages for delay. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining part of the appeal is dismissed as the defendant's appeal is dismissed by applying Article 3 (1) of the above Act.9).

Judges Lee Jong-ho (Presiding Judge)