The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

1. The ordinary amount of damages when the property owned is damaged due to a tort shall be the cost of repair if it is possible to repair it, and if it is impossible to repair it, the reduced value of exchange shall be the normal amount of damages (see Supreme Court Decision 70Da2745, Feb. 9, 1971; Supreme Court Decision 81Da8, Jun. 22, 1982; Supreme Court Decision 90Da20206, Jun. 11, 1991; Supreme Court Decision 90Da20206, Jun. 11, 1991; Supreme Court Decision 90Da20206, Jun. 11, 1991).

According to the facts duly established by the court below, the franchise of the plaintiff's vehicle owned by the plaintiff is impossible to repair the plaintiff's vehicle to its original condition because the after floor and the upper part of the body were seriously damaged due to the accident in this case, and damage caused to the whole body of the body, which was damaged by the defect of close, the distortion of the roof, and the whole body of the body of the vehicle with a structure of a combined structure. However, physical and technical repairs are possible so as not to be defective in safety in operation, but the above damage caused by the impossibility of restoration to its original state to the extent that the damage remains due to the reduction of the use period, the function and aesthetic impairment, and the accident and the damage corresponding to the decline in the price reduction or assessment. Therefore, the court below was just to determine that the damage caused by the price decline in addition to the repair cost of the above vehicle due to the accident in this case includes damage caused by the above price decline, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding legal principles on the scope of compensation for damage caused by the damage to property

2. According to the reasoning of the court below, with respect to damages caused by the decline in the price of the above franchise, the court below recognized that the amount of damages is equivalent to KRW 7,700,000, which is the difference obtained by subtracting KRW 13,50,000, which is the appraised before repair from KRW 21,200,000, which is the appraised before the accident, by comprehensively taking account of the evidence Nos. 6 (Report of Vehicle Price Assessment), Gap evidence Nos. 8 (Report of Transfer), Gap evidence No. 10, 10, 11-2 each evidence No. 1, 10, 11-2 (Request for Sale and Estimate for Sale of Vehicles), and the testimony of the witnesses, and there are no errors in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence as to the above facts judgment, and there is no errors in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence due to incomplete deliberation or incomplete deliberation.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Song Man-man (Presiding Justice)