2. H:

3. I

4. K;

5. L.

6. N;

7. U;

1. In a case where an article was damaged due to a tort, the amount of ordinary damages shall be determined by the cost of repair if it is possible to repair it, and where it is impossible to repair it, the exchange value shall be reduced if it remains to repair it, and where part of it is impossible to repair it even after repair is repaired, the exchange value decrease due to the impossibility of repair shall also constitute ordinary damages (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 91Da28719, Feb. 11, 1992; 2001Da52889, Nov. 13, 2001).

Meanwhile, in the event that a motor vehicle is seriously damaged due to an accident, its repair and maintenance functions and technical restoration for the operation of the motor vehicle, even if it is difficult to view it completely as such. The extent of the accident and the damaged part of the motor vehicle’s repair panel’s repair and maintenance work can not be considered as complete reinstatement. The extent of the accident and the damaged part of the motor vehicle’s repair and maintenance panel’s repair and maintenance work can be reduced due to the decline in the strength of the vehicle or the generation of noise and vibration, etc. It is highly probable that the use of the motor vehicle is reduced or the remaining and locked if it is not possible for the motor vehicle dealer to trade or arrange for the sale of the motor vehicle at the time of the accident (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Da16648, Apr. 1, 2006). It should be determined in the Motor Vehicle Management Act that the motor vehicle dealer is not the owner of the motor vehicle, but the manufacturer of the vehicle’s repair and maintenance work at the time of the accident.

2. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court rejected the Plaintiffs’ claim for damages for the decrease in the exchange value on the grounds that it is difficult to recognize that the Plaintiffs’ vehicle repair-related parts remain even after repair due to each of the instant traffic accidents, and that the exchange value decline cannot be deemed as ordinary damages foreseeable in light of the empirical rule.

However, according to the reasoning of the judgment below and the records, ① the plaintiffs' vehicle occurred at about 4 to 4 months after the new registration, and about 1,00,00 or about 3,520,00 won of the plaintiffs' vehicle at the time of the accident, ② the plaintiff's vehicle was damaged to the point of 7,830,000 won of the repair fee for the use of the repair panel, 0,000 won for the use of the repair 6,950,00,00 won for the use of the 6,950,00,00,000 won for the use of the 6,00,00,00,000,000 won for the use of the 6,00,00,00,000,00 won for the use of the 6,950,00,00,000 won for the use of the wheel, 7,07,000,000 won for the use of the wheel.

Examining these facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiffs’ vehicles have suffered significant damage to the extent that it is impossible to completely restore to their original state even if physical and technical repairs are possible due to each of the instant traffic accidents, considering the annual type, degree and degree of damage to the Plaintiffs’ vehicles, and the amount of expenses required for repair, etc., and if damage to the exchange value has occurred due to the impossibility of recovery, such damage shall be included in ordinary damages.

Nevertheless, the lower court rejected the Plaintiffs’ claim for damages against a decline in the exchange value solely for the reasons indicated in its holding. In so determining, it erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on a decline in the exchange value of automobiles and the scope of damages, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The allegation contained in the grounds of

3. Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Chang-tae, Counsel for the defendant

Justices Park Sang-ok