Open Decision Ledger · Civil procedure & enforcement
The court's duty to press for proof of the amount of damages
Supreme Court, Oct. 16, 2025, 2024Da314227 (judgment)
No holding summary · checked against points at issue. The official text publishes no summary of the holding for this decision. The quotation and factors in this record are copied verbatim from the points at issue; the evidence for each axis is taken from the points at issue, the order and the reasons.
Case name: 구상금
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Where damage from a tort is established but the parties' claims and proof of the amount of damages are inadequate, what must the court do?
Holding
The court must actively exercise its power to clarify and press for proof of the amount of damages even where the parties' claims and proof are inadequate, and in some cases must examine and determine the amount of damages on its own motion. On this record the court below was wrong to refuse lost income and solatium merely because the plaintiff did not itemise them or submit supporting evidence. Because the assignment claim, the alternative damages claim and the subsidiary unjust-enrichment claim had to be decided together, those parts were reversed and remanded.
Points at issue, verbatim
불법행위로 인하여 손해가 발생한 사실이 인정되나 손해액에 관한 당사자의 주장과 증명이 미흡한 경우, 법원이 취하여야 할 조치
Unofficial English translation
Measures that a court must take where the fact that damage has occurred due to a tort is acknowledged, but the parties' assertions and proof as to the amount of damage are insufficient
Disposition
Partly reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결의 제1 예비적 청구의 양수금 청구 중 원고 패소 부분과 이에 해당하는 제1 예비적 청구의 손해배상 청구 및 제2 예비적 청구 부분을 모두 파기하고, 이 부분 사건을 서울동부지방법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed in its entirety in the part concerning the portion of the claim for the assigned money under the first alternative claim in which the plaintiff lost, the claim for damages under the first alternative claim corresponding thereto, and the second alternative claim, and this part of the case is remanded to the Seoul Eastern District Court.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
법원은 손해액에 관한 당사자의 주장과 증명이 미흡하더라도 적극적으로 석명권을 행사하여 증명을 촉구하여야 하고, 경우에 따라서는 직권으로라도 손해액을 심리·판단하여야 한다
Unofficial English translation
Even if the parties' assertions and proof as to the amount of damage are insufficient, the court must actively exercise its power of elucidation to urge proof, and if necessary must investigate and determine the amount of damage ex officio
Factors
- 불법행위로 인하여 손해가 발생한 사실이 인정되나
- 손해액에 관한 당사자의 주장과 증명이 미흡한 경우
- 법원이 취하여야 할 조치
Unofficial English translation
• where the fact that damage has occurred due to a tort is acknowledged, but
• the parties' assertions and proof as to the amount of damage are insufficient
• measures that a court must take
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2016. 11. 10. 선고 2013다71098 판결
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2013Da71098 decided November 10, 2016
Decisions referred to
대법원 2011. 7. 14. 선고 2010다103451 판결(공2011하, 1603), 대법원 2016. 11. 10. 선고 2013다71098 판결(공2016하, 1888)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
How far must the court press for proof of the amount of damages, and under what conditions must it examine and determine the amount itself under Article 202 of the Civil Procedure Act?
The remand judgment of the Seoul Eastern District Court will show how the clarification power is used item by item in an assignment claim. A later decision interpreting Article 202 of the Civil Procedure Act on the ex officio determination of the amount of damages, or an amendment to that Article, would require this entry to be read again.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
7 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-24
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on 7 of the 8 axes; the readings differed on axis 8 (open question and revisit condition).
Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “How far must the court press for proof of the amount of damages, and under what conditions must it examine and determine the amount itself under Article 202 of the Civil Procedure Act?” vs Independent “What amounts of lost earnings and nonpecuniary damages will further examination establish for each victim?”
The primary reading asks how far the court must press for proof and when it must determine the amount itself under Article 202; the independent reading asks what amounts further examination will establish for each victim.
불법행위로 인하여 손해가 발생한 사실이 인정되나 손해액에 관한 당사자의 주장과 증명이 미흡한 경우, 법원이 취하여야 할 조치Raw responses and comparison record: Protocol · Blind readings (JSONL) · Axis comparison (JSONL) · SHA-256 (JSON)
Lower-court contrast & scope of application
Lower-court reading vs. Supreme Court holding
Lower-court context: The Seoul Eastern District Court, in its judgment of 12 November 2024 (2023Na31312), held that the plaintiff had acquired the victims' entire damages claims against the defendant, but when assessing them allowed only the victims' past medical expenses and refused lost income and solatium for want of supporting evidence. It deducted each victim's liability insurance limit from that sum and rejected the assignment claim to the extent it exceeded it. It also rejected the defendant's argument that the plaintiff's payment of the mutual aid benefit was a malicious payment of a non-debt under Article 742 of the Civil Act.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court found no error in rejecting the defendant's malicious-payment argument, although some of the reasoning was inappropriate. On the plaintiff's appeal it held that once damage from a tort is established, the court must press for proof of the amount and, in some cases, must examine and determine the amount of damages on its own motion, and that the court below misread the law on assessing damages by refusing lost income and solatium for want of itemisation and evidence without using its power to clarify. Since the assignment claim, the alternative damages claim and the subsidiary unjust-enrichment claim were bound together, all three were reversed and remanded, while the rest of the plaintiff's appeal, which stated no specific grounds, and the defendant's appeal were dismissed.
Distinguishing conditions
- A case in which the fact that damage was caused by a tort is not itself established, since the duty to press for proof presupposes established liability and damage.
- A case in which the amount of damages has been claimed by item and proved with evidence, so that the court's clarification is not needed to decide it.
- An appeal against the parts other than the assignment claim that states no specific grounds for complaint, since those parts were dismissed rather than heard.
Record verification notes
First map the structure of the claims: primary subrogation damages (not reversed), first alternative damages and assignment, second alternative unjust enrichment, since the reversal reached the part of the assignment claim the plaintiff lost and, with it, the claims joined to it by election or in the alternative. Then check whether the record shows the court below exercising its power to clarify, item by item, and whether the plaintiff's notice of appeal and statement of grounds specify anything beyond the assignment claim. The rejection of the defendant's argument under Article 742 of the Civil Act was left standing, so it need not be reopened on remand.
From the official text
Points at issue
불법행위로 인하여 손해가 발생한 사실이 인정되나 손해액에 관한 당사자의 주장과 증명이 미흡한 경우, 법원이 취하여야 할 조치
Unofficial English translation
Measures that a court must take where the fact that damage has occurred due to a tort is acknowledged, but the parties' assertions and proof as to the amount of damage are insufficient
Summary of the holding
The official text publishes no summary of the holding for this decision. The quotation and factors in this record are copied verbatim from the points at issue; the evidence for each axis is taken from the points at issue, the order and the reasons.
Order
원심판결의 제1 예비적 청구의 양수금 청구 중 원고 패소 부분과 이에 해당하는 제1 예비적 청구의 손해배상 청구 및 제2 예비적 청구 부분을 모두 파기하고, 이 부분 사건을 서울동부지방법원에 환송한다. 원고의 나머지 상고 및 피고의 상고를 모두 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed in its entirety in the part concerning the portion of the claim for the assigned money under the first alternative claim in which the plaintiff lost, the claim for damages under the first alternative claim corresponding thereto, and the second alternative claim, and this part of the case is remanded to the Seoul Eastern District Court. The plaintiff's remaining final appeal and the defendant's final appeal are dismissed.
Provisions referred to
민사소송법 제202조
Read 2026-10-24 · Cross-read 2026-10-24. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.
Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.
Back to the ledger