손해배상(기)
1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;
2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. The fact that there is no dispute between the parties to the judgment as to the cause of the claim, and according to the Gap evidence No. 1, the defendant entered into an automobile insurance contract with B as to the vehicle C owned by B (hereinafter "Defendant vehicle"), and around 10:46 on July 9, 2014, the defendant was found to have disposed of the boiler owned by the plaintiff (hereinafter "the boiler of this case"), which was installed at the right edge of the above road (hereinafter "the boiler of this case"), while driving the Defendant vehicle on the 17-gil-ro and the 36-ro road at the right edge of Pyeongtaek-si on July 9, 2014 at the right edge of the 1st three-party fire fighting plane, while driving the Defendant vehicle at the right edge of the above road.
However, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff suffered damages equivalent to KRW 3,570,000, which is the purchase price of the boiler of this case, because the boiler owned by the Plaintiff was destroyed to the extent that it could not be used by the Plaintiff due to the foregoing accident, as alleged by the Plaintiff, and there
Rather, according to the statements in Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including additional numbers), at least since 2010, the boiler of this case was built on the said paths without marking or protecting devices informing the Plaintiff that it was owned by the Plaintiff. Accordingly, it was recognized that the boiler of this case was ordered two times from the head of office office office in Pyeongtaek-si in 2014 to restore the said boiler to its original state, and even according to the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Plaintiff purchased the boiler of this case around December 9, 2012 and was placed on the said paths as it was without using approximately one year after purchasing the boiler of this case, and it is difficult to view that the boiler of this case was not of economic value as alleged by the Plaintiff, and it is also difficult to recognize that the boiler of this case was destroyed and no longer usable due to the said accident.
2. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is different.