A. The Plaintiff is the owner of Grandland B’s passenger vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and the Defendant is the insurer who entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to C vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. D, around 02:00 on December 14, 2014, while driving the Defendant’s vehicle and driving the road near the Yandong-gu, Gyeongdong-gu, Gyeongdong-gu, Gyeongdong-si, the Plaintiff, who was parked due to negligence in Jeonju-si, was shocking the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). C.

Plaintiff

Vehicles have caused substantial damage to the total repair cost of KRW 2,659,00 (including components costs), such as the exchange of quota panels, the exchange of Dropical panel, and the Liby Panel's gold and painting.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, Eul evidence Nos. 2, 4, 5, and 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the damaged part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle occurred due to the instant accident remains, which constitutes ordinary damages, and thus, the Defendant is obliged to pay an amount equivalent to the exchange value decline as damages.

3. Determination

A. The amount of damages when the goods were damaged due to a tort shall be the cost of repair if it is possible to repair them, and, if it is impossible to repair them, the reduced exchange value shall be the ordinary amount of damages. If part of the goods are not repaired after repair, the reduced exchange value shall be the amount of damages, and if it remains impossible to repair them, the reduced exchange value due to impossibility

However, there is an empirical rule that, in addition to the repair cost, there is a decrease in a reasonable exchange value whenever it is possible to accept (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 91Da28719, Feb. 11, 1992; 2001Da52889, Nov. 13, 2001).

It can not be said that such damage can normally be predicted.

Supreme Court on June 22, 1982