Cases of recognizing damage caused by a tort as special damage, during the repairing period of the light flag destroyed by the tort;

From September 19, 1965 to the completion of repair, it can be recognized that a tort has lost the profits which could have been gained by 113,100 won per day, in total, from 1,950 won per day. The above loss profits could have been sufficiently gained in light of the characteristics of the category of vehicles used to transport agricultural crops, etc. and the seasonal special circumstances that the freight season destroyed by the tort could have been used for transporting agricultural crops, etc.

Articles 763 and 393 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 70Da2445 delivered on December 29, 1970 (Kakadd. 9351; Supreme Court Decision 18No38, Supreme Court Decision 71Da2590 delivered on December 26, 1972, Supreme Court Decision 71Da2590 delivered on December 26, 1972 (Supreme Court Decision 203No. 206, Supreme Court Decision 750(189) of the Civil Act)

Plaintiff

Korea

Seoul Central District Court (65 Ghana1340) in the first instance trial

Of the original judgment, the part against the defendant exceeding the amount equivalent to five percent per annum from November 16, 1965 to the full payment system shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's above claim is dismissed.

All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant through the first and second trials.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 212,200 won with 5% interest per annum from September 20, 1965 to the full payment.

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

The part of the original judgment against the defendant (Appellant) shall be revoked.

The plaintiff (Appellant)'s claim is dismissed.

All court costs are assessed against the plaintiff in the first and second instances.

(1) According to Gap's evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (Evidence of Inspection Protocol) without dispute, the non-party 1, a driver or employee belonging to the 15th group of the Army, should have judged that the vehicle had been overtaken at a point 70-meter away from the 5th unit of the Korean Steel-gun of Gangwon-do, and should have been overtaken at a point 1/4 meters away from the 12nd unit of the Army at the right side of the 10th unit of the 15th group of the 15th group of the 1965 group of the 15th group of the 1965 group of the 10 group of the 15th group of the 10th group of the 10th unit of the 10th unit of the 12th unit of the 10th unit of the 1st unit of the 10th unit of the 2nd vehicle of the 10th group of the 1st unit of the 10th unit of the 2nd vehicle.

(2) 위 인정사실은 공무원이 공무를 수행하던 중에 과실로 원고에게 입힌 불법행위임이 분명하므로 피고는 그 불법행위로 인한 원고의 손해를 배상하여 줄 의무있다 할 것이다. 따라서 그 손해액에 대하여 살펴보건대, 성립에 다툼이 없는 갑 제1호증(불기소결정등본)의 기재내용 및 원심증인 소외 3, 4의 증언 내용과 그들의 증언에 의하여 진정 성립을 인정할 수 있는 갑 제4호증(기계수리증명서), 같은 제5호증(견적서)의 각 기재내용을 종합하여 보면 원고는 앞서 인정한 충돌사고로 파손된 경운기를 수리하기 위하여 14종 20점의 부속품을 구입하고 그 대금으로 금 81,900원을 지출하고 또 그 수리비용으로 금 2,000원을 지출하여 합계금 83,900원의 손해를 입은 사실, 경운기는 볏단 따위를 운반하는데 쓰이는 자동차류로서 원고가 본건 불법행위 당시에 하루에 금 2,500원씩의 사용료를 받고 이를 다른 사람에게 빌려주어 인건비와 유료비등의 비용금 550원을 공제하고 금 1,950원씩의 벌이를 하고 있었는데 부속품의 구입곤란 및 조립곤란 등으로 인하여 1965.11.15.에 이르러서야 본건 불법행위로 인한 파손부분의 수리를 끝마치므로서 불법행위가 있은 1965.9.19.부터 위 수리가 끝날 때까지 58일 동안 사용수익치 못하여 그동안 하루 금 1,950원씩 합계금 113,100원을 얻을 수 있었던 수익을 상실한 사실을 인정할 수 있고 이에 저촉되는 증거없는바 위 상실이익은 본건 불법행위로 인하여 파손된 경운기가 농작물 등의 운반에 쓰이는 자동차류라는 용도의 특수성과 그 경운기를 사용하지 못한 기간이 추수기였다는 계절적인 특별한 사정에 비추어 충분히 얻을 수 있었던 수익인데 본건 불법행위로 인한 사용수익의 방해로 말미암아 원고가 상실한 수익이라고 볼 수 있으므로 이상 금 83,900원과 금 113,100원을 모두 전단 (1)에서 인정한 본건 불법행위 및 그로 인한 피고의 채무불이행으로 인하여 원고가 입은 손해라고 할 수 있다.

(3) The plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff claimed compensation for damages since he consumed the medical expenses of 3,500 won for the treatment of the wound suffered by the tort in this case. However, even according to the contents of Non-Party 5's testimony and the contents of Gap's evidence No. 8-1,2 (Receipt) which can be recognized as the authenticity by the testimony of Non-Party 5, the summary of the above testimony is nothing more than the purport of selling 3,500 won to the "Operation Fee", and since the above evidence No. 1 contains a statement that he has received 3,500 won from anyone, it cannot be acknowledged that the plaintiff consumed 3,500 won for the treatment of the wound of the argument, and there is no other evidence, so the plaintiff's above assertion is groundless.

(4) In addition, the Plaintiff sought damages for delay at the rate of 5% per annum from September 20, 1965 to the full payment rate of 113,100 won from the day following the tort occurred with respect to the repair cost of 83,900 won and 113,100 won of the lost portion due to the tort. However, the Plaintiff’s damages for delay from September 20, 1965 to November 15, 1965, the damages for delay from September 20, 1965 to November 15, 1965 for the same period for which the Plaintiff separately claims 113,100 won of the lost amount and 83,900 won per annum from the Defendant’s damages for delay from November 15, 1965 to 196.

(5) Thus, the plaintiff's main claim is reasonable to the extent that it is the sum of 83,900 won for repair costs and 113,100 won for lost profits, and damages for delay at the rate of 197,000 won per annum from November 16, 1965 to the full payment rate of 5%, so it shall be accepted, and the remainder shall be dismissed as it is actual. Since the court below accepted the plaintiff's claim in excess of the above limit, it is decided to unfairly revoke the excess portion pursuant to Article 386 of the Civil Procedure Act, and the above plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed, and the payment of litigation costs shall be determined as per Disposition by applying Articles 96, 89, and 92 of the same Act.

Judges Lee Jae-sung (Presiding Judge)