beta
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2016.03.18 2015나32224

손해배상(자)

Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1. Purport of the claim.

Reasons

1. Facts of premise;

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of B rocketing SUV vehicles [30,310,99 won (including value-added tax) at the first registration and delivery price on September 27, 2010; hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicle”) and the Defendant is a mutual aid insurer of C cab owned by Samchi Transport Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. At around 04:55 on December 22, 2013, the Defendant vehicle caused multiple confrating accidents involving the Plaintiff’s vehicle that was illegally parked on the road side (the front is parked) while driving a road near the shooting distance of the E-school located in Seongbuk-gu Seoul, Seongbuk-gu Seoul.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). C.

In the above accident, the plaintiff vehicle has been repaired because its parts are considerably damaged on the front, left, and front and rear sides of the vehicle, and 9,028,246 won = 104,720 won (including value added tax, F) for repair expenses, such as front and rear glass of the vehicle + 6,366,910 won for repair parts + 2,556,616 won for repair parts (including value added tax and value added tax) + 2,56,616 won for repair parts (including value added tax and GG industry company), and the defendant paid 6,479,070 won for the plaintiff's repair expenses by reflecting the reduction and negligence ratio (15% for the plaintiff's negligence ratio).

At the time of the instant accident, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was 90,208km, and there was no particular history of accident. However, on December 11, 2013, there was a history of repairing the odometer 80,000 won (repair cost).

[Reasons for Recognition] : Facts without dispute, Gap 1-4 evidence, Eul 1-2 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Legal doctrine

(a) Where goods are damaged due to a tort, the perpetrator would generally be adequate to compensate the victim for the reduced exchange value if it is impossible to repair the goods, and if it is possible to repair the goods, the repair cost would be adequate.

However, even if it is possible to repair an automobile, the damaged part may be repaired in light of the contents of the parts or accessories requiring repair, the damaged part, and the amount of the cost required for the repair.