A. On January 29, 2014, around 20:05, the Plaintiff was involved in a traffic accident that conflicts with the Defendant, an insurance company, the insured vehicle (hereinafter “instant hazard vehicle”) (hereinafter “instant traffic accident”), and the said traffic accident occurred due to the negligence of the instant hazard vehicle.

B. The damaged vehicle of this case destroyed the front gateer, front panel, front wheeler, front wheeler, etc. due to the traffic accident of this case, and due to this, a total of 3,241,445 won was paid, and the Defendant paid the Plaintiff the above repair cost with the insurance money.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 and 3 (including branch numbers in case of additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Although the repair of the damaged vehicle caused by the instant traffic accident alleged by the Plaintiff was completed, there was a decline in exchange value due to the decline in durability, functional and aesthetic disorder, accident power, etc.

Therefore, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the damages remaining in the damaged vehicle due to the instant traffic accident.

3. 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 reduced exchange value shall be the ordinary 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 also be the ordinary damages (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Da52889, Nov. 13, 2001). However, there is an empirical rule that the reduced exchange value shall always be the reduced value, in addition to the cost of repair where repair is possible.