Normal damage in the event that an article is damaged due to a tort;

In case where goods are damaged due to a tort, the repairing cost at the time of damage falls under ordinary damages, and in case where repair is impossible, it is reasonable to reduce the exchange value as ordinary damages.

Article 750 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 71Da544 delivered on May 24, 1971

Plaintiff Automobile Corporation

Macheon Tourism Automobile Corporation

Busan District Court (79Gahap1338)

(1) The original judgment is modified as follows.

(2) The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 1,062,050 and the amount at the rate of five percent per annum from September 28, 1979 to the date of full payment.

(3) The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

(4) The costs of the lawsuit are divided into seven parts through the first and second trials, and five parts are the remainder of the defendant's remaining two.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1,573,300 won with the interest rate of 5% per annum from the day following the service of a copy of the fargument 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 original judgment shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

The reasons for the decision of the party members on this issue are as follows: (a) the evidence of the fact-finding, which does not conflict with the establishment of the evidence in the evidence Nos. 1, 2 (record, indictment), and (b) the evidence Nos. 1, 2-1, 4 (case No. 1, written opinion, written opinion, written opinion, report on offender's branch report, and the fact-finding report) are as shown in the reasoning of the original judgment; and (b) therefore, it shall be accepted in accordance with Article

2. Scope of damages.

In full view of the contents of Gap evidence Nos. 1-1, 2, 3 (Detailed Statement of Transactions), Gap evidence Nos. 2, 2, 3, 4 (A's certificate of vehicle repair, contents certification, summary order), and Eul evidence Nos. 1-2 (Written Indictment), the plaintiff accepted the plaintiff's bus due to the accident No. 4 general (4.5 days) and the whole purport of the arguments. The plaintiff paid 538,300 won at the repair cost. The average net income of the bus No. 1 is 113,000 won (total revenue amount of KRW 130,000,000). The plaintiff's 4 employees on the spot immediately after the accident No. 1-2 (written indictment) and non-party No. 1-1's testimony, the plaintiff could not be acknowledged as 100 won on the average of 0 days during the accident No. 10,000 won in total, and 100 won in total during the defense.

In addition, the plaintiff sought compensation for damages equivalent to the amount of KRW 300,00,00 due to the defects in the plaintiff's bus due to the accident in this case. However, in case where the goods were damaged due to a tort, in principle, the cost of repairing the goods constitutes ordinary damages. If the repair is impossible, it is reasonable to reduce the exchange value (see Supreme Court Decision 71Da544 delivered on May 24, 1971, 71, 71Da544 delivered on April 24, 197), and the plaintiff's bus was accepted as repair cost of KRW 538,30,00 due to the damage of the plaintiff's bus due to the accident in this case, the above argument in the court below is without merit. Thus, the damage suffered by the plaintiff is the sum of the repair cost of KRW 538,30, 1300, 1300, 1300, 200, 305, 2005, 2005.

The defendant asserts that the accident of this case is caused by competition between the plaintiff's bus driver's negligence and that it should be considered in calculating the amount of damages. However, as seen above, the accident of this case occurred by competition between the plaintiff's driver's negligence and the (vehicle number omitted) driver's negligence of the non-party 2 who belongs to the (vehicle number omitted), and it cannot be deemed that the plaintiff's bus driver who stopped on the side of the road for the purpose of getting passengers to board and alight. Thus, the defendant's argument is without merit.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff damages for delay at the rate of the Civil Act from September 28, 1979 to the full payment day, which is obvious from September 28, 1979, on the record that the delivery day of a copy of the gusheed gushes, at the plaintiff's request.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is justified to the extent recognized above, and the remaining claims are dismissed. Since the original judgment is deemed to have partially different conclusions, it is modified, and it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Articles 96, 89, and 92 of the Civil Procedure Act to the burden of litigation costs.

Judges fixed ticket (Presiding Judge) Mobile Engines