손해배상
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
1. On October 16, 2013, the summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion was shocked by the Plaintiff’s B B B B B, who was under way in a white zone at the point where the port of the port of the Hosan-gu, Suwon-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant vehicle”) had driven his own car volume at around 5 p.m. on October 16, 2013.
After the occurrence of the above traffic accident, the Plaintiff repaired the above automobile, but after the repair, the high-end market price of the instant automobile was lowered due to the power of the accident.
On January 16, 2014, the Plaintiff sold the instant motor vehicle to a third party, but could have received KRW 22 million if the accident had not occurred, the Plaintiff sold the instant motor vehicle in KRW 14 million on the ground that it was the vehicle that occurred in the instant accident. Ultimately, the instant accident caused the decline in the exchange value of the instant motor vehicle in KRW 8 million.
The above exchange value damage falls under ordinary damages caused by traffic accident or under potential special damages, and thus, the defendant is obligated to compensate the plaintiff for 8 million won and damages for delay.
2. The amount of damages when the goods were damaged due to the tort shall be the cost of repair if it is possible to repair them, and, if it is impossible to repair them, the reduced value of exchange shall be the ordinary amount of damages. In the event there remain parts that cannot repair them after repair, the reduced value of exchange due to the impossibility of repair shall be the ordinary amount of damages in addition to the cost of repair.
However, in the instant case, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is difficult to recognize that the objective price of the instant vehicle was KRW 22 million around January 16, 2014, which was at the time of the disposal of the instant vehicle, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.
As shown in the plaintiff's argument, each entry of the evidence Nos. 6 and 7 is the highest price of the vehicle in which the accident occurred.