[손해배상청구사건][고집1974민(1),130]
The scope of damages for damage caused by a tort if the property owned is damaged.
Where property owned is damaged due to a tort, in principle, if the cost of repair at the time of the damage falls under ordinary damages and it is impossible to repair it, the reduction of exchange price shall be calculated as ordinary damages. Therefore, an amount equivalent to the depreciation after the repair shall not be included in the amount of damage, unless there are special circumstances
Article 750 of the Civil Act
Plaintiff, Ltd.
Defendant corporation
Daejeon District Court (72 Gohap424 delivered on behalf of the court of first instance)
1. Of the parts against the plaintiff in the original judgment, the dismissal of the plaintiff's claim regarding the money ordered to be paid next shall be revoked.
2. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 470,00 won with an annual interest rate of 5% from October 7, 1972 to the full payment day.
3. The plaintiff's remaining appeal is dismissed.
4. All the costs of lawsuit shall be five minutes for the first and second instances, and such two parts shall be borne by the plaintiff and the remainder by the defendant.
5. Provisional execution shall be limited to the above paragraph 2 above.
The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 1,495,800 and the amount at the rate of 5 percent per annum from the day following the service of the case to the full payment. The costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant and a declaration of provisional execution.
The part against the plaintiff in the original judgment shall be revoked. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of 670,000 won with the rate of 5% per annum from October 7, 1972 to the full payment.
The judgment that the lawsuit costs shall be borne by the defendant and provisional execution declaration
1. The judgment of the court below as to the establishment of tort among the reasons why a party member should explain this case, the defendant is responsible for compensating for damages, and the judgment of the court below as to the non-party 1, who is the driver belonging to the plaintiff company, was not negligent in the occurrence of an accident is identical to the judgment of the court below, thereby citing this in accordance with Article
2. We examine the claims of KRW 200,00,000, the cost of repairing the damaged vehicle due to the plaintiff's main accident, which is within the limit of the plaintiff's appeal, was repaired, but the damaged vehicle was reduced.
Comprehensively taking account of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 5 (Receipt), 6-1 through 3 (Written estimate), and the testimony of the above witness and the non-party 3 of the original trial witness, which are acknowledged to be established by the testimony of the non-party 2, the plaintiff paid 470,000 won (excluding 100,200 won for the accessories necessary for the repair of the damaged vehicle, and 70,000 won for the driver's repair cost) to the non-party 4 industrial company on December 25, 1969 due to the replacement of the cargo owned by the plaintiff due to the accident of this case. The plaintiff accepted the damaged vehicle as above, but it can be recognized that the exchange value of 200,000 won has decreased, and there is no counter-proof evidence.
In the event of damage caused by a tort, the repair cost at the time of the damage is assessed against ordinary damages, and it is reasonable to reduce the exchange price if the repair is impossible, so the amount of compensation for the damage compensation for the damage caused by the damage to the owned property shall be calculated as ordinary damages. If the repair is impossible, the reduced exchange value shall be calculated as ordinary damages. If the repair is not possible, as seen above, the compensation amount for the damage compensation for the damage compensation caused by the damage of the damaged vehicle in this case where it is recognized that the repair is possible, and 470,000 won shall be calculated as ordinary damages, and 200,000 won, which is reduced while the repair is repaired, shall not be calculated as compensation amount in this case unless there are special circumstances. Accordingly, the defendant shall be liable to the plaintiff to pay 470,000 won as compensation for the damage caused by the damage of the damaged vehicle in this case, and the plaintiff's damage compensation for the damage caused by the damage of the vehicle in this case shall be dismissed.
Therefore, the plaintiff's above claim for damages is reasonable within the above scope of recognition, and the remainder is without merit. Accordingly, the part which dismissed the plaintiff's claim concerning the above recognition amount from among the part against the plaintiff in the original judgment, which has different conclusions, is unfair, and since the plaintiff's appeal is with merit, the defendant is cancelled by Article 386 of the Civil Procedure Act and the defendant is ordered to pay the above recognition amount to the plaintiff. Since the remaining appeal of the plaintiff is without merit, it is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the application of Articles 96 and 92 of the Civil Procedure Act to the plaintiff, and Article 199 of the provisional execution order to the provisional execution
Judge Han Man-Sung (Presiding Judge)