손해배상(자)
1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part shall be dismissed.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff is the owner of BMF5 LPLI LE car (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the driver D of the Defendant’s vehicle C-winged vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant’s vehicle”) covered by the Defendant’s comprehensive automobile insurance, caused an accident that, around December 23, 2013, when the said vehicle was driven by the Defendant’s vehicle on the leuk-gun, Gyeonggi-gun, Macheon-gun, Masan-gun, and caused an accident that, around December 18:30, 2013, the Plaintiff driven the Defendant’s vehicle on the leuk-gun, Macheon-gun, Macheon-gun, Macheon-gun
(hereinafter “instant accident”). B.
After the accident of this case, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was repaired at the Dok Motor Vehicle Service Establishments, Inc., Ltd., a motor vehicle repair business entity, and the Defendant paid KRW 10,340,000 as insurance money.
C. The main repair content of the Plaintiff’s vehicle is the exchange, etc. of a stringer (consor, friendly), a member of a fish shed (consor), a string floor, a stringer, and a string ridge, etc. due to damage to the string of the vehicle.
On the other hand, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was registered on June 21, 2012 and passed one year and six months after the release of the instant vehicle at the time of the instant accident, and approximately 3,525km in odometer, and the amount of the used vehicle immediately before the instant accident is KRW 16,18,500.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 3, part of Gap evidence Nos. 3 (except for parts not trusted in the front) and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Assertion and determination
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion (1) The Plaintiff suffered damages from decline in the Plaintiff’s exchange value of KRW 4,910,000 even after repair due to the instant accident, which constitutes ordinary damages, and thus, the Defendant, the insurer of the instant vehicle, is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the said damages.
(2) It is apparent that there is a decrease in exchange value other than the repair cost in the case of the vehicle involved in an accident even if the value decline is deemed as special damage because the vehicle does not have any irrecoverable part to the plaintiffs, in light of the reality of the assessment statement (Evidence A No. 3) and the second and second trading market.