On March 21, 2015, Nonparty B was driving a C vehicle on March 21, 2015 and was moving back in the vicinity of the C, and Nonparty B caused a traffic accident that shocks the E-vehicle owned by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant vehicle”).

The Plaintiff paid all repair expenses for the instant vehicle.

The Defendant asserted against the Plaintiff that the fall of the instant vehicle had occurred due to the instant accident.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1 to 4, Gap evidence 2, Gap evidence 3 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the plaintiff is liable for damages arising from market price fluctuations;

A. The amount of damages when the property owned by a tort is damaged shall be the cost of repair if it is possible to repair it, and if it is impossible to repair it, the reduced value of exchange shall be the ordinary amount of damages.

Even after repair remains, the reduced value of exchange due to the impossibility of repair, in addition to the repair cost, shall also constitute ordinary damages (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 91Da28719, Feb. 11, 1992; 2001Da52889, Nov. 13, 2001); however, a vehicle destroyed by an accident has become repaired even though the vehicle was repaired.

Even if the assertion that the value of exchange has decreased, the liability for compensation is recognized only when the perpetrator knew or could have known of the special damage (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 78Da635, Jun. 13, 1978). In addition to the repair cost, there is an empirical rule that, if acceptable, the reasonable reduction of the value of exchange would always govern, in addition to the repair cost.

(2) If such damage is ordinarily foreseeable, it shall not be deemed that such damage is ordinarily foreseeable.

Supreme Court Decision 201Da1448 delivered on July 23, 1991