2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

A. As the owner of each motor vehicle indicated on the column for damaged vehicles (motor vehicles and the number of vehicles) in the attached Form No. 1, the claimed Plaintiffs, such as e.g., e., e., e., e., e.,

Each damaged vehicle owned by the above plaintiffs suffered damages, such as reduction of the use period, functional and aesthetic impairment of the damaged vehicle, decline in the exchange value of the damaged vehicle due to the accident power, etc., even after the repair of the emergency due to the above traffic accident (hereinafter “accident damage”).

In addition, the above plaintiffs requested a professional engineer to conduct an appraisal in order to calculate the difference in exchange value of each damaged vehicle, and the above appraisal cost is also the damage caused by the above traffic accident.

Therefore, the defendant has a duty to pay the plaintiffs the amount of each claim stated in the attached Form and damages for delay.

B. The claim for damages for fall short of the market price under the terms and conditions of automobile insurance (Plaintiff B and D) asserts that since the Defendant provided the payment criteria for damages for fall short of the standard terms and conditions of automobile insurance, at least the amount of damages for fall under the standard terms and conditions shall be paid to the above plaintiffs as ordinary damages or special damages for fall short of the market price.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination on the assertion of eassive damage, etc. 1) Determination on the assertion of eassive damage 1) Determination on the assertion of eassive damage should be made where the amount of damage is damaged due to tort if it is possible to repair it, and where it is impossible to repair it, the reduced value of exchange is the ordinary amount of damage, and where a part which cannot be repaired remains after repair, the reduced value of exchange due to eassive damage in addition to repair

Supreme Court Decision 2001Da52889 Delivered on November 13, 2001.