손해배상
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the amount ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is the owner of the B-A-Wed Vehicle.
B. On September 25, 2015, the occurrence of an accident that shocks the Plaintiff’s vehicle while driving the vehicle in violation of the signal in the vicinity of Pyeongtaek-si-dong (hereinafter “instant accident”).
C. The Plaintiff’s vehicle was damaged due to the instant accident, such as fences, wheel chairss, lifts panels, and vehicle wheels, etc., and the Plaintiff spent KRW 5,562,650 at its repair cost.
[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, entry of Gap's 1 through 3, purport of whole pleading
2. Determination as to the existence of liability for damages
A. Even if repair is completed on the part of the Plaintiff’s damaged part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident, there remain remaining parts where repair is impossible, and it can be sufficiently predicted that the value of the Plaintiff’s vehicle would be reduced in light of the damaged part and the repair cost. As such, the Defendant is obliged to pay to the Plaintiff the Plaintiff the reduced value of the Plaintiff’s vehicle’s exchange due to the instant accident and the delayed payment damages.
B. (1) The amount of damages when a vehicle was damaged due to a tort of the relevant legal doctrine constitutes repair cost if it is possible to repair, and the reduced value of exchange would normally be the amount of damages if it is impossible to repair. However, in cases where part of repair remains after repair, the reduced value of exchange due to impossibility of repair, in addition to repair cost, constitutes ordinary damages.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 91Da28719, Feb. 11, 1992; 2001Da52889, Nov. 13, 2001). Furthermore, where repair of damaged vehicles is possible, there is an empirical rule that a considerable decrease in value of exchange is subject to the reduction of repair cost.
In addition to the repair cost, damage caused by the decline in exchange value can not be considered as ordinarily foreseeable or as a result of the decline in exchange value.