손해배상(기)
1. The Defendant’s KRW 11,654,00 for the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from August 30, 2016 to January 23, 2018.
1. In light of the fact that there is no dispute over the liability for damages, Gap's evidence Nos. 2 through 4, Eul's evidence Nos. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings and videos, the employees belonging to the defendant in his name are found to have carried out restoration work, such as removing rains that were damaged after the accident and installing rains, which are new articles, by driving a freight b-type vehicle owned by the defendant (hereinafter "the instant vehicle") on Aug. 24, 2015, which was owned by the plaintiff as the instant vehicle (hereinafter "the instant accident"), and thereby, he was damaged by the former owner as the instant vehicle (hereinafter "the instant accident").
According to the above facts, the Defendant, as the owner of the instant vehicle, is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the damages incurred by the instant accident that occurred during the operation of the instant vehicle.
2. Scope of liability for damages
A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the Plaintiff incurred KRW 23,308,00 (the amount of KRW 11,375,866, labor cost, KRW 12,65,451, and KRW 883,723, including cost of materials, KRW 12,65,45,451, and cost of KRW 883,723) due to the instant accident, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff damages amounting to KRW 23,308,00 and delay damages therefrom.
(b) If it is impossible to repair an article owned by a tort due to the pertinent legal principles, the exchange value at the time of the damage shall be deemed ordinary damages. In addition, in calculating the exchange value based on the recovery cost required to restore the article to its original state with a new article because it is impossible to purchase used materials whose useful life has already expired even though the damaged article was old (old).