손해배상
1. The part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid under the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked.
The defendant.
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is the owner of B CoCoC’s passenger car (hereinafter “instant passenger car”), and the Defendant is the insurer who entered into a mutual aid agreement with a limited partnership company (hereinafter “instant mutual aid agreement”) that compensates for damages arising from an automobile accident with the central call taxi.
B. Around 14:30 on November 1, 2014, a C-si affiliated with a limited partnership company, Central Call-si (hereinafter “instant taxi”) destroyed the instant car by shocking the front left-hand part of the instant car, where the front-hand part of the instant car was driven by a four-lane radius in the direction of the National Bank of the National Bank of the Suwon-dong, a five-lane front of the E-distance located in D in the Gwangju Mine-gu, Gwangju metropolitan area, along a four-lane in the direction of the private distance of the National Bank of the Suwon-dong, from the south-dong, the said car was destroyed by the impact on the front left-hand part of the instant taxi.
(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). C.
On December 15, 2014, the Defendant paid KRW 11,160,000 as the repair cost of the instant passenger vehicle in accordance with the instant mutual aid agreement to the two-motor vehicle North Mine Rearrangement Project Center that accepted the instant passenger vehicle.
[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 1 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The parties' assertion
A. The plaintiff suffered losses in addition to the repair cost due to the accident of this case, which is usual damages, and thus, the defendant is obligated to compensate the plaintiff. Even if the above damages were not ordinary damages, the defendant knew or could have known of the special damages. Thus, the defendant is obligated to compensate the plaintiff.
B. It is difficult to view that the Plaintiff suffered loss due to the decline in the exchange value of the instant car, and even if such loss occurred to the Plaintiff, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant knew or could have known of such loss.