2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of the B-Motor vehicle, and the Defendant is the insurer who concluded the automobile insurance contract with the insured C and D.

B. On February 22, 2014, the Plaintiff’s automobile was destroyed due to the Plaintiff’s sudden breakdown, which was driven by C in the vicinity of the Seoul entrance to the Gandong Highway in Ansan-si. On the other hand, the said vehicle was destroyed by the Plaintiff’s vehicle following the front stop, which was driven by C, due to the front stop.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 3 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion maintained the destroyed automobile after the Plaintiff suffered the said traffic accident, but after the repair, the Plaintiff’s heavy and high-class market price of the Plaintiff’s automobile was lowered due to the accident.

Ultimately, due to the instant accident, the Plaintiff’s exchange value of the Plaintiff’s automobile (hereinafter “accident damage”) was reduced, and the accident constitutes ordinary damages or potential special damages arising from a traffic accident. As such, the Defendant is obligated to compensate the Plaintiff for damages for the amount of KRW 5,230,000 (330,000 for appraisal expenses of KRW 6,000 for the assessment expenses of the current price drop - KRW 1,100,000 for the previous payment) and damages for delay.

B. 1) The amount of damages when an article was damaged due to a tort shall be the cost of repair if it is possible to repair, and if it is impossible to repair it, the amount of reduced exchange value shall be the normal amount of damages. In the event there remain remaining parts for which partial repair is impossible after repair, in addition to the cost of repair, the reduced exchange value due to impossibility of repair shall constitute ordinary damages (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Da52889, Nov. 13, 2001). However, there is an empirical rule that there is a reduced exchange value whenever possible, in addition to the cost of repair, there is an empirical rule

(b).