[Plaintiff, Appellant] Hyundai Motor Company (Attorneys Son Ji-yeol and 5 others, Counsel for the plaintiff)
[Defendant, Appellee] Defendant 1 and 5 others (Attorney Kim Ki-deok, Counsel for the defendants)
[Judgment Below] Daejeon High Court Decision 2013Na3109 decided January 21, 2016
[Order]
All appeals are dismissed. The costs of the appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
[Reasoning]
The damages that a manufacturing company suffers due to a suspension of operations caused by an illegal industrial action may include, first, damages arising from the loss of sales profit that could have been obtained by selling the products that could have been produced but were not produced due to the suspension of operations, and second, damages arising from the failure to recover fixed costs (such as rent, taxes and public charges, depreciation, insurance premiums, etc.) that are incurred regardless of whether operations are suspended. The party seeking such damages must prove that a certain quantity of products was not produced due to the suspension of operations, and that the products, had they been produced, could have been sold. However, unless there is indirect counter-evidence of special circumstances—such as that the products were so-called "loss-making products" whose selling price was below the production cost, or that there was no possibility of selling the products over an extended period due to a recession or other special circumstances existing at the time of the suspension of operations, or that sales were not properly made due to defects or flaws in the products—it is reasonable to presume that, had the products been produced, they would have been sold thereafter, that the manufacturing company would have obtained sales profit therefrom, and that the fixed costs incurred in their production would also have been recovered as part of the cost of goods sold (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 93Da24735 decided December 10, 1993).
The court below, for the reasons stated in its judgment, determined that it was difficult to conclude that the Plaintiff failed to produce a certain quantity of products, or failed to sell the products that were not produced and thereby failed to recover fixed costs, due to the industrial action at issue in this case, in which the Defendants and others participated. Upon examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the legal principles set forth above and the evidence lawfully admitted, the above determination by the court below does not contain any error such as a misunderstanding of the legal principles concerning the recognition or proof of pecuniary damages arising from a tort, a contradiction in the reasoning of the judgment, or a failure to fulfill the duty to clarify and to conduct the necessary deliberation, thereby exceeding the limits of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of the rules of logic and experience.
Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of the appeal are to be borne by the losing party. This judgment is rendered by the unanimous opinion of the participating Justices as stated in the Order.
Justice Lee Ki-taek (Presiding Justice), Kwon Soon-il (Justice in charge), Park Jung-hwa