Summary
Only by separating the recognition of occurrence, the reasons for the difficulty, the circumstantial facts used, and the scope of damages does the basis for a reasonable amount remain on the record.
6.1The Standard by Which the Path Opens
통상·특별손해의 범위와 채권자의 과실에 대한 참작은 액수 증명 완화와 구분한다. 이런 구분을 전제로 삼을 때, 최종 금액만 남기면 어떤 사실이 바뀔 때 결론이 달라지는지 알 수 없다. 산정 이유가 함께 기록되지 않으면 독자는 어떤 인정 사실이 액수 판단을 떠받쳤는지 가려낼 수 없고, 반대로 어느 사실이 달라지면 상당액 판단도 흔들리는지 짐작하기 어렵다. 이런 불투명함은 단순한 서술상의 결함이 아니라 판단의 근거를 검증할 수 없게 만드는 문제로 이어진다. 따라서 산정 근거, 다시 말해 액수 판단을 지탱하는 인정 사실을 별도로 남겨야 한다는 물음이 성립한다. 그래서 액수의 불확실성을 어떻게 결론에 남길 것인가? 이 물음은 최종 금액의 표시 방식이 아니라, 금액에 이르는 판단의 층위를 나누어 기록할 수 있는가에 관한 것이다. 이 절이 다루는 것은 이 구제의 통로가 열리는 기준이며, 열린 뒤의 소송 전개는 별개의 물음이다.
민사소송법 제202조의2는 "손해가 발생한 사실은 인정되나 구체적인 손해의 액수를 증명하는 것이 사안의 성질상 매우 어려운 경우에 법원은 … 상당하다고 인정되는 금액을 손해배상 액수로 정할 수 있다."고 규정한다. 이 문언은 세 가지를 축으로 삼는다. 먼저 '손해가 발생한 사실'이 인정되어야 한다는 주체적·객관적 전제이고, 다음으로 '구체적인 손해의 액수'를 증명하기 어렵다는 증명곤란의 사유이며, 마지막으로 법원이 '상당하다고 인정되는 금액'을 정할 수 있다는 판단의 방식이다. 이 셋은 각기 다른 질문에 답한다. 발생 인정은 손해배상 청구의 기초가 서 있는지를, 증명곤란은 왜 정확한 액수를 요구할 수 없는지를, 산정 방식은 법원이 무엇을 근거로 금액을 정하는지를 묻는다. 이 조문이 다루는 쟁점은 이 셋의 구분에 관한 것이며, 청구의 성립 요건이나 배상의 범위를 별도로 확장하는 것은 아니다.
같은 방향에서 대법원 2023. 4. 27. 선고 2021다262905 판결은 "불법행위로 인한 손해배상청구소송에서 재산적 손해의 발생 사실은 인정되나 그 구체적인 손해액수를 입증하는 것이 사안의 성질상 곤란한 경우, 법원은 … 관련된 모든 간접사실들을 종합하여 상당인과관계 있는 손해의 범위인 수액을 판단할 수 있다."고 설시한다. 이 설시는 발생의 인정과 액수의 산정을 이어 놓으면서도 구분한다. 앞의 축은 손해가 있었다는 사실이고 뒤의 축은 그 손해가 얼마나 되는지를 어떤 사실에서 끌어내는가 하는 점이다. 따라서 발생 인정·곤란의 이유·사용한 간접사실·배상범위를 나누어야 상당액의 근거가 남는다. 발생을 인정한 근거와 곤란하다고 본 이유, 법원이 종합한 간접사실, 그리고 그 종합에서 도출한 상당인과관계 있는 범위가 각각 어디에 놓였는지가 기록되어야 판단의 지지점이 드러난다. 어느 한 축만 남으면 그 금액이 무엇에 의존한 것인지 되짚을 길이 없다.
상세한 설명이 오히려 금액의 불확실성을 강조한다. 곤란의 사유와 간접사실을 하나하나 늘어놓을수록 정확한 액수를 알 수 없다는 인상이 강해지고, 그 자체로 상당액 판단의 근거가 약해 보일 수 있다는 우려다. 이 우려는 기록이 길어질수록 증명의 공백이 부각된다는 점에서 실제 불편을 담고 있다. 그러나 그 불편을 해소하려고 산정 이유를 승소 가능성이나 회수율로 환산할 수는 없다. 상당액 판단을 이길 가능성이 몇 퍼센트인지, 결국 얼마를 받아낼 수 있는지의 문제로 바꾸면, 법원이 종합한 간접사실과 그 판단의 층위가 지워진다. 반론이 지적하는 불리함, 즉 상세한 기록이 불확실성을 드러낼 수 있다는 점은 그대로 두면서, 그 불확실성을 확률이나 회수의 문제로 치환하는 방식은 배제된다.
원고 A의 손해 발생은 인정되지만 일부 거래자료가 없어 구체적 액수를 밝히기 어렵다. 이 장면은 조문이 요구하는 앞단의 전제와 맞아떨어진다. 손해 발생은 인정되고 있고, 문제는 구체적 액수이며, 사유는 일부 거래자료의 부재이다. 다만 이 장면만으로는 이 구제의 통로가 열렸다고 단정할 수 없다. 요구하는 급부·당사자·조건이 청구취지에 특정되었는지, 선택한 소의 권리를 방어할 수 있는지는 장면에 담기지 않았다. 사용할 간접사실이 실제로 심리되었는지도 정해져 있지 않다. 장면이 확정하는 것은 발생의 인정과 액수 증명의 어려움이라는 두 조건의 방향뿐이고, 나머지 조건의 충족 여부는 미확정으로 남는다. 손해 발생의 인정이 부정되면 액수 곤란만으로 상당액을 정한다는 결론을 중단한다.
이 절이 허용하는 것은 좁다. 손해 발생이 인정되고, 사안 성질상 구체적 액수 증명이 매우 어려우며, 사용할 간접사실이 심리되었고, 요구하는 급부·당사자·조건이 청구취지에 특정되어 선택한 소의 권리를 방어할 수 있을 때, 이 구제의 입구가 열린다는 것이다. 허용하지 않는 것도 분명하다. 손해 발생 자체가 부정된 채 액수 곤란만 남은 경우, 혹은 발생과 액수의 어느 부분이 미증명인지 나누어져 있지 않은 경우, 이 산정의 문을 열 근거가 생기지 않는다. 자료가 부족하다는 사실만으로 상당액이 정해진다고 보아서도 안 되고, 산정 이유가 확보되었다는 이유로 실제 회수가 보장된다고 보아서도 안 된다. 다음으로 물어야 할 것은 이 판단을 시기적으로 어디까지 끌고 가야 하는가이다.
6.2The Conditions That Block Relief
최종 금액만 남기면 어떤 사실이 바뀔 때 결론이 달라지는지 알 수 없다. 손해 발생은 인정되고 사안 성질상 구체적 액수 증명이 매우 어려우며 사용할 간접사실이 심리된 경우에는 이 구제가 작동한다. 그런데 같은 액수 증명의 어려움을 다루면서도 이 구제가 작동하는지 막히는지는 다른 질문이다. 원고 A의 손해 발생은 인정되지만 일부 거래자료가 없어 구체적 액수를 밝히기 어렵다는 장면에서, 액수의 불확실성을 어떻게 결론에 남길 것인가를 물어야 한다.
민사소송법 제202조의2는 “손해가 발생한 사실은 인정되나 구체적인 손해의 액수를 증명하는 것이 사안의 성질상 매우 어려운 경우에” 법원이 상당한 금액을 손해배상 액수로 정할 수 있다고 정한다. 여기서 문언이 정하는 주체는 법원이고, 행위는 상당하다고 인정되는 금액의 정함이며, 조건은 손해 발생 사실의 인정과 구체적 액수 증명의 사안 성질상 매우 어려움이다. 이 절은 이 조건의 앞뒤를 구분하는 데만 관여한다.
같은 조건은 두 단계로 나뉜다. 앞단에서 손해가 발생한 사실이 인정되는지가 먼저 결정되고, 뒤단에서 구체적 액수를 증명하기가 매우 어려우므로 모든 사정을 종합해 상당액을 정할 수 있는지가 결정된다. 이 둘은 왜 구별되어야 하는가. 액수 증명의 어려움은 앞단의 발생 인정을 대신하지 않고, 발생이 인정되지 않은 상태에서는 뒤단의 액수 정함이 설 자리를 잃기 때문이다. 손해 발생 자체가 인정되지 않아 액수 증명 완화 규정으로 배상액을 정할 전제가 없는 경우에는 이 구제가 막힌다.
이 구절에서 가장 강한 반론은, 발생과 액수를 나누어 기술하면 할수록 금액의 불확실성이 더 부각된다는 것이다. 정확한 액수를 요구하면 기록을 남기지 않은 쪽이 그 부족의 이익을 누리고, 상세한 사정의 서술은 결국 정할 금액이 없다는 인상을 남길 수 있다. 그러나 산정 이유를 승소 가능성이나 회수율로 환산할 수는 없다. 상당액을 정하는 근거는 그 금액을 떠받치는 인정 사실이지, 소송에서 이길 가능성이 크다는 뜻도 아니고, 실제로 회수할 비율이 높다는 뜻도 아니기 때문이다.
합성 장면에서 확인되는 사실은 원고 A의 손해 발생은 인정되지만 일부 거래자료가 없어 구체적 액수를 밝히기 어렵다는 것뿐이다. 이 사실은 발생 인정과 액수 곤란이 함께 놓인 경우로, 앞의 조건과 대조하면 상당액을 정할 전제 쪽에 놓인다. 다만 어떤 간접사실이 심리되었는지, 어떤 산정 이유가 기록에 남았는지는 이 장면이 정하지 않으므로 미확정으로 남는다.
이 절이 허용하는 것은, 발생이 인정되고 액수 증명이 매우 어려운 경우에 상당액의 근거를 남기는 일이다. 허용하지 않는 것은, 발생의 인정 없이 액수의 곤란만으로 배상액을 정하거나, 그 상당액의 근거를 승소 가능성과 회수율로 바꾸는 일이다. 여기서 산정 근거는 액수 판단을 지탱하는 인정 사실을 뜻한다.
6.3The Boundary That Remains When There Is No Data
앞서 손해 발생 자체가 인정되지 않아 액수 증명 완화 규정으로 배상액을 정할 전제가 없는 경우에는 이 구제가 막힌다고 보았는데, 이제 문제가 달라진다. 이 장면에서 자료가 없어 판정할 수 없는 경계는 어디인가.
민사소송법은 "손해가 발생한 사실은 인정되나 구체적인 손해의 액수를 증명하는 것이 사안의 성질상 매우 어려운 경우에 법원은 변론 전체의 취지와 증거조사의 결과에 의하여 인정되는 모든 사정을 종합하여 상당하다고 인정되는 금액을 손해배상 액수로 정할 수 있다."고 규정한다(민사소송법 제202조의2). 이 문언은 판정의 출발점을 손해 발생의 인정에 두고, 산정의 난점을 구체적 액수의 증명이라는 별도의 문제로 다룬다. 법원이 종합할 대상으로 변론 전체의 취지, 증거조사의 결과, 이에 의하여 인정되는 모든 사정을 들고 있는 것도 같은 구분에 따른다.
이 출발점은 상당액을 정할 수 있다는 결론을 지탱한다. 대법원도 "재산적 손해의 발생 사실은 인정되나 그 구체적인 손해액수를 입증하는 것이 사안의 성질상 곤란한 경우, 법원은 증거조사의 결과와 변론 전체의 취지에 의하여 밝혀진 당사자들 사이의 관계, 불법행위와 그로 인한 재산적 손해가 발생하게 된 경위, 손해의 성격, 손해가 발생한 이후의 제반 정황 등의 관련된 모든 간접사실들을 종합하여 상당인과관계 있는 손해의 범위인 수액을 판단할 수 있다."고 판시하였다(대법원 2023. 4. 27. 선고 2021다262905 판결). 따라서 여기서 산정 근거는 액수 판단을 지탱하는 인정 사실을 뜻하며, 발생의 인정과 산정의 근거는 나누어 읽어야 한다.
그렇다면 상세한 설명이 오히려 금액의 불확실성을 강조한다고 보는 견해는 일리가 있다. 간접사실과 산정 이유를 늘어놓을수록 어느 시점까지가 인정되고 어느 지점부터가 추정인지가 노출되며, 그 노출 자체가 액수의 취약함을 드러내는 자리가 된다. 그러나 그 불이익은 결론의 유보로만 흡수될 수 없다. 발생 인정·곤란의 이유·사용한 간접사실·배상범위를 나누어야 상당액의 근거가 남는다는 요구를 포기할 때 생기는 손실은 따로 있다. 어느 부분이 미증명인지 가려지지 않으면 산정의 이유가 무엇에 걸리는지 읽을 수 없다. 그렇더라도 산정 이유를 승소 가능성이나 회수율로 환산할 수는 없다.
원고 A의 손해 발생은 인정되지만 일부 거래자료가 없어 구체적 액수를 밝히기 어렵다는 장면에서, 정해진 것은 발생의 인정과 액수의 곤란이라는 두 항목이다. 이 장면은 만약 손해 발생의 인정이 부정되는 것으로 확인되어 액수 곤란만으로 상당액을 정한다는 결론을 중단하는 경우와는 구별된다. 발생이 이미 선 장면에서는 구제가 막힌 경우가 아니라 산정의 문제가 남는다. 다만 거래자료의 부족이 어느 부분의 미증명인지는 자료가 없어 판정할 수 없는 상태로 남는다. 발생과 액수의 어느 부분이 미증명인지 나누어져 있지 않은 경우에는 판정을 미확정으로 남기며, 이를 구제가 막힌 경우와 구별한다.
이 미확정은 판정을 못 하는 상태이지 구제가 닫힌 상태가 아니다. 액수 판단을 지탱하는 인정 사실의 목록이 아직 갈라지지 않았다는 뜻이며, 그 갈라짐을 전제로 하는 산정의 문은 열려 있다. 산정 이유를 승소 가능성이나 회수율로 환산하면 그 경계는 무너진다.
6.4The Records Needed for Determination
이 구별을 전제로 삼을 때, 원고 A의 손해 발생은 인정되지만 일부 거래자료가 없어 구체적 액수를 밝히기 어렵다. 이 장면에서 액수의 불확실성을 어떻게 결론에 남길 것인가? 그리고 이 판정을 위해서는 어떤 기록이 필요한가?
법령 문언은 증명 완화의 도정을 구체화한다. 민사소송법 제202조의2는 "손해가 발생한 사실은 인정되나 구체적인 손해의 액수를 증명하는 것이 사안의 성질상 매우 어려운 경우에 법원은 … 상당하다고 인정되는 금액을 손해배상 액수로 정할 수 있다"고 정한다(민사소송법 제202조의2). 여기서 주체는 법원이고, 행위는 상당액의 정이며, 조건은 손해 발생의 인정과 액수 증명의 사안 성질상 중대한 곤란이다.
같은 조문은 정할 수 있는 금액이 '변론 전체의 취지와 증거조사의 결과에 의하여 인정되는 모든 사정'에서 나오도록 한다(민사소송법 제202조의2). 따라서 최종 금액과 산정 근거는 나누어 기록한다. 대법원 2023. 4. 27. 선고 2021다262905 판결도 발생 사실의 인정, 액수 입증의 사안 성질상 곤란, 그리고 밝혀진 간접사실의 종합을 나란히 둔다(대법원 2023. 4. 27. 선고 2021다262905 판결). 이 구별이 없는 기록에서는 어떤 사실이 바뀌면 금액이 달라지는지 드러나지 않는다.
상세한 설명이 오히려 금액의 불확실성을 강조한다는 반론이 남는다. 기록을 자세히 나열할수록 거래자료의 공백이 부각되고, 자료를 만든 쪽 대신 손해를 입은 쪽이 그 공백을 감당한다는 비판이다. 산정 근거는 금액을 떠받치는 인정 사실의 문제이고, 확률이나 회수 기대치의 추정은 이 절의 도정 안에 들어오지 않는다. 반론이 지적한 공백의 부담은 지우지 않되, 그 부담을 숫자로 옮겨 놓는 방식은 허용하지 않는다.
합성 장면에서 확인되는 것은 손해 발생의 인정과 일부 거래자료의 결손, 구체적 액수의 입증 곤란이다. 이 사실들은 판례가 열거한 간접사실, 즉 당사자 사이의 관계, 손해 발생 경위, 손해의 성격, 발생 이후의 제반 정황(대법원 2023. 4. 27. 선고 2021다262905 판결)과 대조될 때 산정 근거의 자리를 잡는다. 다만 이 장면에는 연도·금액·기산일이 정해져 있지 않다. 따라서 실제로 어떤 간접사실이 얼마만큼 심리되었는지, 상당액이 얼마로 정해졌는지는 이 장면만으로 판단할 수 없다.
이 절이 허용하는 것은, 손해 발생 증거·액수 증명곤란 사유·석명 경과·간접사실·산정 이유에 기록된 자료만으로 단계를 판정한다는 결론이다. 없는 기록을 추정으로 메우지 않는다는 점에서, 발생과 액수의 어느 부분이 미증명인지가 나뉘어 있지 않다면 그 사안은 미확정으로 남는다. 만약 손해 발생의 인정이 부정되는 것으로 확인되면 액수 곤란만으로 상당액을 정한다는 결론은 중단된다. 통상·특별손해의 범위나 채권자 과실의 참작을 이 기록 안에 끌어와 산정 근거로 삼는 판단은 허용되지 않는다.
6.5Circumstances That Change the Decision
As noted in the previous section, this judgment rests on the evidence of the occurrence of harm, the reasons for the difficulty in proving the amount, the course of clarification, the indirect facts, and the reasons for calculation; and without that record, the conclusion remains undetermined. The question is how the uncertainty of the amount is to be left in the conclusion—that is, what must change before the judgment that a reasonable amount can be determined comes to a stop.
Article 202-2 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that, in cases where "the fact that harm has occurred is acknowledged, but proving the specific amount of the harm is extremely difficult in light of the nature of the case," the court may determine an amount it finds reasonable as the amount of damages. This provision first fixes the subject as the court and the act as the determination of the amount. The condition is divided into two parts: the first is the acknowledgment of the fact that harm has occurred, and the second is the circumstance that proving the specific amount is extremely difficult in light of the nature of the case. Here only the distinction between these conditions is addressed.
This distinction between the two parts is precisely the decision standard of this section. Supreme Court Decision 2021Da262905 decided April 27, 2023 also, premised on "a case where the fact of the occurrence of pecuniary harm is acknowledged, but proving its specific amount is difficult in light of the nature of the case," holds that the amount falling within the scope of harm bearing adequate causation can be judged by synthesizing the revealed indirect facts. Thus the acknowledgment of occurrence and the difficulty as to the amount cannot substitute for one another. If this distinction is blurred, the reasonable amount loses its basis.
The strongest counterargument to this judgment is aimed at the point that a detailed explanation only emphasizes the uncertainty of the amount. The more the reasons for calculation and the indirect facts are set out, the more the impression remains that the amount is not precise; conversely, there is the loss and inconvenience that, if the record is withheld, it might appear to be an established sum. The counterargument goes further to point out that, if an exact amount is demanded, the party that created the harm may enjoy the benefit of the insufficient record. This disadvantageous aspect is left as it stands. Still, the reasons for calculation cannot be converted into a probability of success or a recovery rate. That conversion goes beyond the scope of the answer given earlier.
In light of the synthetic scene, the circumstance that the occurrence of harm to Plaintiff A is acknowledged but that some transaction records are missing, making it difficult to establish the specific amount, is placed within the conditions for determining a reasonable amount. However, whether the evidence of the occurrence of harm, the reasons for the difficulty in proving the amount, the course of clarification, the indirect facts, and the reasons for calculation have all been examined is not determined by this scene alone. If part of that record is absent, the conclusion remains undetermined. Parts that cannot be read from the scene are not filled in.
Accordingly, what this section permits is the judgment that separates the acknowledgment of the occurrence of harm from the difficulty of proving the amount, and that stops the determination of a reasonable amount when that distinction collapses. Here, the acknowledged facts that support the assessment of the amount are called the basis for calculation, and in a record that leaves only the final sum, it does not appear what facts have changed. What this section does not permit is reaching a definitive conclusion without separating which part of the occurrence and the amount remains unproven, and converting the assessment of the amount into a probability of success or a recovery rate.
6.6The Strongest Counterargument and the Answer
The work of making clear what the basis of the assessment of the amount is is not merely a question of the length of sentences. As noted above, the scope of ordinary and special damages and the consideration of the creditor's negligence are distinguished from the relaxation of proof of amount. If so, now when the occurrence of harm to Plaintiff A is acknowledged but some transaction records are missing, making it difficult to establish the specific amount, the question arises whether setting out the calculation process in detail may not instead put the uncertainty of the amount on display.
Article 202-2 of the Civil Procedure Act provides: "Where the fact that harm has occurred is acknowledged, but proving the specific amount of the harm is extremely difficult in light of the nature of the case, the court may determine an amount it finds reasonable as the amount of damages by synthesizing all circumstances recognized from the purport of the entire oral argument and the results of the examination of evidence." In this provision, the court places side by side the acknowledgment of the fact that harm has occurred and the difficulty of proving the specific amount, and determines a reasonable amount by synthesizing all circumstances revealed from the purport of the entire oral argument and the results of the examination of evidence. The object is the amount found reasonable, not the probability that the claim will be recognized or the recoverable percentage.
In the same direction, Supreme Court Decision 2021Da262905 decided April 27, 2023 holds that, in damages for tort, where the fact of the occurrence of pecuniary harm is acknowledged but proving the specific amount of harm is difficult in light of the nature of the case, the court may judge the amount falling within the scope of harm bearing adequate causation by synthesizing indirect facts such as the relationship between the parties, the circumstances under which the tort and the resulting pecuniary harm arose, the nature of the harm, and the various circumstances following its occurrence. Here the basis for calculation means the acknowledged facts that support the assessment of the amount, and these must be written out separately as the acknowledgment of occurrence, the reasons for the difficulty, the indirect facts used, and the scope of compensation, so that the basis for the reasonable amount remains. The reason this distinction is important is that the object addressed by the preceding sentences is the grounds for calculating the amount, not the prospects of winning or losing the lawsuit. The work of filling in the reasons for calculation and the assessment of the probability of success belong to different questions, and the moment the former is converted into the latter, the character of the preceding judgment disappears.
The strongest counterargument to this distinction is aimed at the point that the party that created the harm may obtain the benefit of not having kept records, by being required to give the exact amount. If the party that destroyed the materials or failed to prepare them thereby shifts onto the other party the burden of detailed explanation, the result is that the system for relaxing proof turns the lack of records into an advantage. Indeed, the disadvantage pointed out by this counterargument cannot be ignored, and the scene in which Plaintiff A cannot establish the amount because some transaction records are missing lies precisely at that vulnerable point. Even so, this disadvantage cannot be resolved by turning the reasons for calculation themselves into probability figures. The reasons for calculation cannot be converted into a probability of success or a recovery rate; instead, what remains is the method of reading the basis for calculation left in the record separately as the acknowledgment of the occurrence of harm, the reasons for the difficulty in proving the amount, the course of clarification, the indirect facts used, and the reasons for calculation.
In the synthetic scene, the occurrence of harm to Plaintiff A is acknowledged, and because some transaction records are missing, it is difficult to establish the specific amount. On these facts alone it cannot be confirmed which of the indirect facts illustrated in the precedents has been examined, or how far the clarification has proceeded, and so these items remain undetermined. What is confirmed, however, is that the difficulty of proving the amount is not the same expression as a denial of the occurrence of harm itself. Attaching this condition is the reason for leaving the reasons for calculation without probability substitution, and it is what makes it possible to read, at precisely that point, what fact must change for the conclusion to change.
The conclusion this section permits is to leave in the record, separated into the acknowledgment of occurrence, the reasons for the difficulty, the indirect facts, and the reasons for calculation, the grounds necessary for determining a reasonable amount; it does not permit converting this into a probability of success or a recovery rate. The circumstance that some materials are lacking is handled only as a component constituting the basis of the assessment of the amount, and is not converted into a value that lowers the probability of victory. Conversely, if it is confirmed that the occurrence of harm itself is denied, no reasonable amount can be determined on the difficulty of the amount alone, and that boundary must continue to be observed.
6.7The Link to the Application and the Dispositive Part
Accepting from the previous section the premise that the reasons for calculation cannot be converted into a probability of success or a recovery rate, this section now asks where and how that uncertainty should remain in the written judgment.
Article 202-2 of the Civil Procedure Act provides: "Where the fact that harm has occurred is acknowledged, but proving the specific amount of the harm is extremely difficult in light of the nature of the case, the court may determine an amount it finds reasonable as the amount of damages by synthesizing all circumstances recognized from the purport of the entire oral argument and the results of the examination of evidence." This provision divides the subject as the court, the act as the determination of a reasonable amount, and the conditions as the acknowledgment of the occurrence of harm and the extreme difficulty of proving the amount.
The conclusion of this section is that only by separating the acknowledgment of occurrence, the reasons for the difficulty, the indirect facts used, and the scope of compensation does the basis for the reasonable amount remain. Supreme Court Decision 2021Da262905 decided April 27, 2023 holds that, "where the fact of the occurrence of pecuniary harm is acknowledged, but proving its specific amount is difficult in light of the nature of the case," the court "may judge the amount falling within the scope of harm bearing adequate causation by synthesizing all relevant indirect facts, such as the relationship between the parties, the circumstances under which the tort and the resulting pecuniary harm arose, the nature of the harm, and the various circumstances following the occurrence of the harm." This holding places the acknowledgment of occurrence, the difficulty of proof, the synthesis of indirect facts, and the scope of the amount judged each in a different position, and makes clear that the amount judged by the court is bound to the scope of harm bearing adequate causation.
The counterargument that a detailed explanation only emphasizes the uncertainty of the amount is ultimately aimed at the loss that, if only defects remain in the record, the court too will find it hard to determine a reasonable amount and the parties cannot predict that calculation. The probability of success concerns the outcome of the lawsuit, and the recovery rate concerns the realistic collection of the damages award; these are separate questions, and neither is a circumstance the court synthesizes in determining a reasonable amount. Accordingly, this conclusion is to leave the basis for calculation in the form of acknowledged facts suited to its purpose, while not erasing the disadvantage of emphasizing uncertainty.
The places where the basis for calculation remains are the evidence of the occurrence of harm, the reasons for the difficulty in proving the amount, the course of clarification, the indirect facts, and the reasons for calculation. Where which part of the occurrence and the amount remains unproven is not separated, this section leaves it undetermined; and the facts, service, and results of performance of an actual case, and the years, amounts, accrual dates, and judgment outcomes absent from the synthetic scene, cannot be established by this scene.
What this section permits is the work of leaving the basis for calculation in separated form where the occurrence of harm is acknowledged, the proof of the amount is extremely difficult, and the indirect facts to be used have been examined; what it does not permit is the work of converting that basis for calculation into a probability of success or a recovery rate. Insofar as the basis for calculation consists of the acknowledged facts supporting the assessment of the amount, what fact must change for the conclusion to change is read not from the sum but from the arrangement of those acknowledged facts.
6.8The Scope This Section Undertakes
This observation opens the question now under consideration, namely how the uncertainty of the amount is to be left in the conclusion. The previous section concluded that the acknowledgment of occurrence, the reasons for the difficulty, the indirect facts used, and the scope of compensation must be separated for the basis of the reasonable amount to remain. Taking up that division, this section asks how the same conclusion is maintained on the premise that the scope of ordinary and special damages and the consideration of the creditor's negligence are distinguished from the relaxation of proof of amount.
This provision limits the subject to the court, the act to the determination of the amount of damages, and the conditions to the acknowledgment of the occurrence of harm and the extreme difficulty, in light of the nature of the case, of proving the specific amount.
These conditions mesh with the premise taken from the previous section. Supreme Court Decision 2021Da262905 decided April 27, 2023 states: "Where the fact of the occurrence of pecuniary harm is acknowledged, but proving its specific amount is difficult in light of the nature of the case, the court may judge the amount falling within the scope of harm bearing adequate causation by synthesizing all relevant indirect facts revealed from the results of the examination of evidence and the purport of the entire oral argument, such as the relationship between the parties, the circumstances under which the tort and the resulting pecuniary harm arose, the nature of the harm, and the various circumstances following the occurrence of the harm" (Supreme Court Decision 2021Da262905 decided April 27, 2023). Here the synthesis of indirect facts lies on the same axis as the work of separately recording the acknowledgment of occurrence, the reasons for the difficulty, the indirect facts used, and the scope of compensation, and leaving them as the basis for calculation—that is, as the acknowledged facts supporting the assessment of the amount. Only by not mixing the two levels does it appear that the determination of the scope of harm is situated differently from the acknowledgment of the occurrence of harm.
The counterargument that a detailed explanation only emphasizes the uncertainty of the amount is aimed at a substantive loss. If the reasons for calculation left in the record highlight the gaps in materials that they cannot fill, the disadvantage arises that the creditor bears the burden of proof and the debtor obtains room for dispute from that lack of records, for if converted into a probabilistic value, it becomes not the recognition of the facts supported by the basis for calculation but an estimate of procedural prospects. The disadvantage pointed out by the counterargument is left as it stands, but the direction of the conclusion is maintained.
These facts leave the acknowledgment of the occurrence of harm and the difficulty of proving the amount separated, and enumerate only the latter condition. However, as the scene does not fix the year, amount, or accrual date, the specific amount falling within the scope of compensation and whether the course of clarification actually occurred cannot be established here.
What this section permits goes no further than separating the scope of ordinary and special damages and the consideration of the creditor's negligence from the relaxation of proof of amount, and leaving the basis for calculation by separating the acknowledgment of occurrence, the reasons for the difficulty, the indirect facts used, and the scope of compensation. What it does not permit is establishing a conclusion by converting the reasons for calculation into a probability of success or a recovery rate. Undetermined materials or amounts remain unverified. How do the texts of Article 202-2 of the Civil Procedure Act and Supreme Court Decision 2021Da262905 decided April 27, 2023 support this conclusion?
6.9Application of the Text of the Provisions and the Holdings of Precedents
On the premise, established by the previous section, that the scope of ordinary and special damages and the consideration of the creditor's negligence are distinguished from the relaxation of proof of amount, what remains is how the uncertainty of the amount is to be left in the conclusion. In this scene, what remains is what the court must first confirm and what it must record separately in order to determine a reasonable amount.
This provision divides the subject as the court, the act as the determination of the amount found reasonable, and the conditions as the acknowledgment of the occurrence of harm and the difficulty of proving the amount in light of the nature of the case. Supreme Court Decision 2021Da262905 decided April 27, 2023 also holds: "Where the fact of the occurrence of pecuniary harm is acknowledged, but proving its specific amount is difficult in light of the nature of the case, the court … may judge the amount falling within the scope of harm bearing adequate causation by synthesizing all relevant indirect facts" (Supreme Court Decision 2021Da262905 decided April 27, 2023).
It is no accident that the provision and its gist repeat the same structure. The occurrence of harm is the premise for determining the amount of compensation, and the difficulty of proof only widens the amount on that premise. The indirect facts used are the examined materials, such as relationship, circumstances, nature, and various circumstances; the scope of compensation is the limit of the amount bearing adequate causation. Only by separating these four does it remain where the reasonable amount came from. Accordingly, the basis for calculation—that is, the acknowledged facts supporting the assessment of the amount—consists, in the end, of the facts placed in these four items.
Splitting the items in this way gives rise to the criticism that a detailed explanation only emphasizes the uncertainty of the amount—the worry that the longer the record, the more a gray zone appears in place of an established sum. Yet the author does not retreat from a definitive answer. For conversion becomes not the reasonable amount but a price tag for the prospects of litigation. It is better to leave the uncertainty in place while making clear where it originated, than to have it concealed somewhere.
What is confirmed in the scene of Plaintiff A is the acknowledgment of the occurrence of harm, the absence of some transaction records, and the resulting difficulty in proving the specific amount. These three overlap head-on with the conditions of Article 202-2 of the Civil Procedure Act. However, which indirect facts have been examined and how far the clarification has progressed are not told by the scene, and so are left undetermined. Just as a lack of materials is not the same as the absence of any remedy, so too an undetermined item is not itself a ground for dismissal.
Accordingly, the conclusion this section permits goes as far as the separation of the four items and the confirmation of the acknowledged facts placed in them; it does not permit the determination of a specific amount or the numerical expression of the probability of success. The basis for calculation means the acknowledged facts supporting the assessment of the amount, and the work of making clear what those acknowledged facts are remains. What does the basis for calculation mean in this judgment?
6.10Fine Distinctions Within the Stage
Its basis is the text of Article 202-2 of the Civil Procedure Act and Supreme Court Decision 2021Da262905 decided April 27, 2023. What, then, does the basis of calculation mean in this determination? What is at issue is what the determination of the amount rests upon, not how large the amount is or which side wins the adjudication. Accordingly, this section does not reproduce the derivation of the figure or pass the issue over to the preceding volume of the series; it examines the place occupied by the facts found from which the reasonable amount remains.
Article 202-2 of the Civil Procedure Act provides: "Where the fact that harm has occurred is found, but proof of the specific amount of harm is extremely difficult in light of the nature of the case, the court may determine the amount of damages by setting a figure it deems reasonable, taking into account all circumstances recognized from the purport of the whole of oral argument and the results of the examination of evidence." This text divides the subject as the court, the act as the setting of the amount, and the conditions as the finding that harm has occurred and the difficulty of proof owing to the nature of the case. Accordingly, what the provision permits is the determination of the amount based on the circumstances found, not filling in the value of harm whose occurrence has not been proved.
Supreme Court Decision 2021Da262905 decided April 27, 2023 stated, premised on "[3] in a claim for damages arising from a tort (unlawful act) in which the fact of occurrence of property damage is found, but proof of the specific amount of such damage is difficult in light of the nature of the case," that "the court … may determine the amount that falls within the scope of damage bearing adequate causation (proximate cause), by taking into account all relevant circumstantial facts, such as the relationship between the parties, the circumstances under which the tort (unlawful act) and the consequent property damage came to occur, the nature of the damage, and all manner of circumstances following the occurrence of the damage." The circumstantial facts used in this text are not numbers standing in for an amount that has been directly proved; they are the facts that sustain the determination of the scope. If they are heaped together on one side, it will not be apparent which facts set the scope and which explain the difficulty, and for that reason one cannot trace which determination changes when the amount changes.
Nevertheless, there is room for the view that a detailed explanation rather heightens the uncertainty of the amount. If the final amount is written down together with them, it leaves an impression of being settled; whereas if, instead of piling up the grounds, one writes the four items mentioned above separately, the gap that cannot be converted into figures becomes visible. The disadvantage on that account is real, and the concern that the party that created the harm may enjoy the benefit of the paucity of the record is likewise not to be ignored. The found facts that sustain the determination of the amount do not mean the likelihood that a legal route will succeed, and if the reasons for the calculation of the reasonable amount are replaced with such numbers, the reasons themselves disappear.
This scene shows a state in which, while the occurrence of harm exists, the materials surrounding the amount are lacking; whether it falls within the reasons of difficulty explained above, and whether the circumstantial facts to be used were examined, cannot be settled by the scene alone. If, however, it is matched with the foregoing conditions, the finding of occurrence remains and only part of the amount is undetermined, and that undetermined status does not mean that there was no harm. By contrast, recovery performance or actual payment, which the scene does not include, are not the object of determination in this section and are therefore left undetermined.
The conclusion this section permits is the narrow determination that the basis of calculation means the found facts that sustain the determination of the amount, and that the grounds for the reasonable amount remain only if the four are separated. What is not permitted is converting the reasons for the calculation into likelihood of success or recovery rate; nor is it permitted to set a reasonable amount on the ground of difficulty as to the amount even where the occurrence of harm is denied, or to broaden the determination with payment facts lying outside the scene. Accordingly, this section stops at clarifying the meaning of the basis of calculation and does not determine how that basis comes to be preserved in the record or how the adjudication goes. In the judicial calculation of damage amounts where proof is difficult, how are operation, blockage, and undetermined status to be distinguished from one another?
6.11Synthesis of Effectiveness, Blockage, and Undetermination
In a scene where the occurrence of harm to Plaintiff A is recognized but, some transaction records being absent, it is difficult to establish the specific amount, what remains is how to adjudicate the state in which the occurrence stands while only the amount is blurred.
Supreme Court Decision 2021Da262905 decided April 27, 2023 lays down the following under the same conditions: "the court … may determine the amount that falls within the scope of damage bearing adequate causation (proximate cause), by taking into account all relevant circumstantial facts—such as the relationship between the parties, the circumstances under which the tort (unlawful act) and the consequent property damage came to occur, the nature of the damage, and all manner of circumstances following the occurrence of the damage—as revealed by the results of the examination of evidence and the purport of the whole of oral argument." The subject that the text prescribes is the court, the object is the amount of damages, and the premise is the recognition of the fact that harm occurred. The reason for the difficulty lies not merely in the lack of materials but in the nature of the case, and the materials available are the circumstantial facts that have been brought to light.
Accordingly, the text of this provision requires one first to clarify what the materials sustaining the determination are, and only then to arrive at a reasonable amount. Here the basis of calculation means the found facts that sustain the determination of the amount, and this is a separate condition under which a reasonable amount becomes available on the ground of difficulty owing to the nature of the case. The recognition of occurrence is the first stage for setting a reasonable amount; the reason for the difficulty is the second stage at which that door opens; and the circumstantial facts used are the basis of the third stage. The reason for dividing them thus is so that the state in which the occurrence of harm is recognized but, some transaction records being absent, it is difficult to establish the specific amount, is not treated with the same result as a state in which the occurrence itself does not stand. If the occurrence collapses, the premise for setting a reasonable amount on the ground of difficulty as to the amount alone disappears as well.
The strongest counterargument to this distinction lies in the contention that a detailed explanation rather heightens the uncertainty of the amount. The longer one writes out the reasons for the difficulty, the more plainly the loss and inconvenience appear that, if an exact amount is demanded, the party that created the harm may enjoy the benefit of the paucity of the record. Even so, the author's answer is that the reasons for the calculation cannot be converted into likelihood of success or recovery rate. The basis of calculation is the found facts that sustain the determination of the amount; likelihood of success denotes the validity with which those facts bear on the conclusion, and the recovery rate denotes the degree to which the damages are actually collected, and neither is a ground supporting the calculation of a reasonable amount. That does not mean, however, that the disadvantage the counterargument points to disappears. The burden that remains with the party on whose side the gap of an insufficient record arose, and the demand that grounds to support the determination of the amount are necessary, are kept together.
In the synthetic scene, the fact that the occurrence of harm to Plaintiff A is recognized but, some transaction records being absent, it is difficult to establish the specific amount has already been confirmed. This scene is posited as satisfying the first item of the conditions for opening—the recognition of the occurrence of harm—and the second item—the state in which proof of the amount is extremely difficult in light of the nature of the case. Whether the circumstantial facts to be used were examined, however, cannot be settled by this scene alone; the circumstantial facts used, and the basis of calculation, which consists of the reasons for the calculation that remain, must be separately confirmed according to the record. A case in which, without separation as to which part is unproved, the occurrence and the amount are blurred together is not settled either as opened or as blocked by this scene.
The conclusion this section permits is that, provided the recognition of the occurrence of harm and the difficulty of proof of the amount are each examined separately and the circumstantial facts taken as the basis of calculation are set out together, the framework of determination for setting a reasonable amount remains. It does not permit the conclusion that this is a value converted into likelihood of success or recovery rate, or that it extends to cases in which the occurrence itself does not stand. Where it is not separated which part of the occurrence and the amount is unproved, it is left undetermined, and the lack of materials is not converted at once into an inability to obtain relief.
6.12이 권의 결론과 남는 물음
The question remains how the uncertainty of the amount is to be left in the conclusion, and that question extends to the place of the basis of calculation that ought to be preserved in the record. The basis of calculation means the found facts that sustain the determination of the amount, and according to the form in which those found facts are preserved, what may be asserted in later procedures diverges. Accordingly, this section attends less to the derivation of the reasonable amount itself than to the arrangement of the facts that support that derivation.
In this text, the court is the subject that sets a reasonable amount, and that determination is founded on the materials known as the purport of the whole of oral argument and the results of the examination of evidence. What is at issue is not the occurrence of harm but the proof of the specific amount, and the condition that proof of the amount is extremely difficult in light of the nature of the case is posited as a premise.
Supreme Court Decision 2021Da262905 decided April 27, 2023 lays down: "[3] where, in a claim for damages arising from a tort (unlawful act), the fact of occurrence of property damage is found, but proof of the specific amount of such damage is difficult in light of the nature of the case, the court … may determine the amount that falls within the scope of damage bearing adequate causation (proximate cause), by taking into account all relevant circumstantial facts." The circumstantial facts the court takes into account include the relationship between the parties, the circumstances of the occurrence of the tort (unlawful act) and the property damage, the nature of the damage, and all manner of circumstances following the occurrence of the damage. These statements in the precedents concretize the range of materials prescribed by the provision at the level of circumstantial facts, and presuppose that the recognition of occurrence and the calculation of the amount are different stages of determination.
The reason this distinction must be maintained is that the basis of calculation means the found facts that sustain the determination of the amount. When the recognition of the occurrence of harm, the reasons for the difficulty of proof of the amount, the circumstantial facts used, and the scope of compensation bearing adequate causation (proximate cause) are each separately preserved in the record, the reasonable amount is explained by the connections among the four items. It becomes apparent what change in which item alters the amount, and the case in which the recognition of occurrence is maintained while only the evaluation of the circumstantial facts differs is separated from the case in which the circumstantial facts are the same but the reasons for the difficulty differ. Conversely, if these items are preserved only as a single lump, the reasonable amount remains only as a derived figure, and no ground remains to sustain the determination.
A counterargument may arise that a detailed explanation rather heightens the uncertainty of the amount: the longer the record becomes, the more the fact that the exact amount is unknown is thrown into relief, and the side that puts forward a settled number appears the clearer. Behind it lies the concern that, where the party that caused the harm has failed to prepare transaction records, a demand to keep the record in detail may result in shifting that disadvantage onto the creditor's side. The reasons for the calculation merely show the chain of found facts that support the reasonable amount; they do not in themselves mean the success or failure of the lawsuit or the ratio of actual recovery, and the conversion would amount to changing the form of determination prescribed by the relaxation of proof of the amount.
In this scene, the evidence of the occurrence of harm remains, the reason for the difficulty of proof of the amount is particularized in the form of the absence of some transaction records, and which circumstantial facts were examined is preserved together at the point where clarification was carried out. That alone, however, is what the scene fixes; which circumstantial facts were actually adopted, within what range the reasonable amount was set, and how the case fared and what the recovery result was are not made known.
What this section permits is the work of separating the recognition of occurrence, the reasons for the difficulty, the circumstantial facts used, and the scope of compensation, and thereby preserving the basis of calculation; what it does not permit is replacing that division with the language of likelihood of success or recovery rate, or inserting unconfirmed outcomes of the case. The record of the basis of calculation only reveals on which facts the determination of the amount stands; it neither fixes the results of subsequent procedures nor supplies facts that were not recorded. What remains is to fix the timing of assertions on the basis of that record. By when must assertions be filed?
Statutes referred to
Decisions referred to
Questions left open
- Is the same relaxation needed even where the difficulty of proof is attributable to the victim?
- To what degree must the reasons for the calculation be specific?
- How is one to examine whether an amount that has passed through a reduction adequately covers actual recovery?