beta
Text
All appeals are dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, the claim for damages on the ground that ownership of a specific article is infringed and that the object is not present, in principle, the amount of damages shall be calculated based on the exchange price at that time based on the time of tort.
(2) According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court determined as follows: (a) as of August 21, 2010, the amount of damages to be paid to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant; hereinafter “Plaintiff”) who is the title trustee of the instant land by arbitrarily disposing of the instant land on August 21, 2010, is KRW 127,30,000, the market price of the instant land appraised as of August 21, 2010 was already reflected in the appraised value of KRW 127,30,000 according to the S market development plan; and (b) thus, the amount of damages to be paid to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant; hereinafter “Plaintiff”) who is the title trustee of the instant land by arbitrarily disposing of the instant land on August 21, 2010.
In light of the aforementioned legal principles and records, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the assessment of damages, or by omitting judgment, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.
2. As to the ground of appeal No. 2, the obligor’s exercise of the right of defense based on the statute of limitations is also governed by the principle of good faith and the principle of prohibition of abuse of rights, which are the major principles of our Civil Act, and thus, the obligor conducts to believe that the obligee’s exercise of right or the interruption of prescription was impossible or considerably difficult before the completion of the statute of limitations, or that such measures were unnecessary, or there was an objective obstacle that the obligee was unable to exercise his right, or that there was an objective obstacle that the obligor did not invoke the statute of limitations after the completion of the statute of limitations.