Gangnam-gu Seoul ○○ Dong

OO0000, a German representative director,

Law Firm Shin, Attorney Shin Young-hoon

Attorney Kim Chang-soo

Busan Shipping Daegu ○○ Dong

A. It is confirmed that the Plaintiff’s obligation to pay damages to the Defendant based on an automobile insurance contract concluded between the Plaintiff and ○○○ regarding the accidents indicated in the separate sheet does not exist exceeding KRW 5,00,000.

B. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

2. 1/5 of the total costs of litigation shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

Won based on an automobile insurance contract concluded between the Plaintiff and ○○○ in connection with the accident described in the attached Form

It is confirmed that the liability for damages against the defendant intentionally does not exceed KRW 603,260,000.

(A) The Plaintiff’s liability for damages in the first instance court shall not exceed 842,380 won.

The confirmation was sought, and the purport of the claim was expanded in the trial.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the court of first instance shall be modified as follows: In relation to the accident described in the attached Form, the plaintiff and the YOOO

Accordingly, the plaintiff's liability for damages against the defendant under the automobile insurance contract 603,260 won

that it does not have any excess.

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract with the insurance period from July 3, 2010 to July 3, 2011 with respect to the ○○○○○○○○○○○○ Automobiles (hereinafter referred to as “insured vehicles”).

B. On July 8, 2010: around 45, 2010: Around 45, while driving an insured vehicle on the ○○○○○○○○○ road located in Busan, Daegu, Busan, for parking, the front part of the front part of the Defendant’s ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ car (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) parked on the front part of the insured vehicle (hereinafter “the instant accident”).

C. Meanwhile, the Defendant did not repair the Defendant’s vehicle immediately after the instant accident, and on the other hand, on December 2010.

25. 02: A serious damage was caused by the fronter, the main set, the left-hand lux, the left-hand lux, the front panel, etc. of the Defendant’s vehicle due to any of the 3-round 00-round 190-round 20-round 200-round 200-round 20-round 20-round

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 4, Gap evidence 5-1 through 4, Gap evidence 6-1, 2, Gap evidence 7-1 through 4, the purport of the whole of the pleadings, or the whole of the arguments

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

According to the above facts, the Plaintiff, as an insurer of the insured vehicle, has the duty to compensate the Defendant for the damages incurred by the Defendant due to the instant accident.

3. Scope of liability for damages;

A. The parties' assertion

이 사건 사고로 인하여 피고가 입은 손해의 액수에 대하여 원고는, 이 사건 사고로 인한 피고차량의 수리비는 861, 810원인데, 피고는 주차금지장소인 간선도로에 피고차량을 주차한 과실이 있으므로 위와 같은 피고의 과실비율 30 % 를 고려하면, 원고의 피고에 대한 이 사건 사고와 관련한 손해배상금 지급채무는 603, 260원 [ 는 861, 810원 x ( 100 % - 30 % ) ] 이라고 주장하고, 피고는, 피고차량의 범퍼는 특수재질인 카본섬유로 되어 있어 접촉사고가 나면 움푹 들어가는 것이 아니라 범퍼 안쪽에 금이 가기 때문에 범퍼를 교체하여야 하므로, 원고는 피고에게 지급하여야 할 손해배상금은 38, 000, 000원이라고 주장한다 .

(b) judgment;

In a lawsuit seeking damages due to an illegal act, where it is difficult to prove the specific amount of damage in light of the nature of the case, even though the maximum amount of property damage was recognized as having occurred, the court may determine the amount of damage which is the scope of proximate causal relation by comprehensively taking into account all the relevant indirect facts, including the relation between the parties revealed by the result of examination of evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings, the background leading up to the illegal act and property damage caused thereby, the nature of the damage, and all the circumstances after the damage occurred (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Da60447, Nov. 23, 2006, etc.).

5) In light of the following circumstances that are acknowledged to include the purpose of the present case’s statement, i.e., the front part of the Defendant’s vehicle was partially damaged due to the instant accident, but the front part of the Defendant’s vehicle was severely damaged due to the second accident between the Defendant and the front part of its repair site, the front part of the instant vehicle was severely damaged due to the front part, the left part, the front part of the instant vehicle was repaired at once, and the Defendant cannot specify the degree of damage caused by the instant accident and the second accident, i.e., the amount of the instant vehicle’s 0 minutes after the date of the instant accident, and the Plaintiff’s 10 minutes after the date of the instant accident, which is difficult to consider as being 0 months after the date of the instant accident, based on the premise that it is difficult for the Plaintiff to present the front part of the instant vehicle’s repair site at the cost of the instant vehicle’s 1,203, and thus, it is difficult for the Plaintiff to present the instant report on the front part of the present vehicle.

Therefore, according to the assessment of damages, each of the above evidence is produced by adding the above evidence Nos. 1 and the whole purport of the pleadings, namely, the following circumstances, i.e., ① the fronter of the Defendant’s vehicle is manufactured in such a way as to combine it with the body of the Defendant’s body after making the string of the strings after making the string of the strings. The fronter is easy to strings, ② the string of the strings, ② it is impossible to connect the strings with the 0strings, even if it is impossible to connect the 0strings to the Defendant, and even if it is cut by using the strings, there is a high possibility that the 0thrings might be reduced by shocks, ③ even if the 0thrings of the Defendant’s 2ndrings are re-concepted by the Defendant’s 0thrings, and there is a defect in the 0thrings of the Defendant’s 2nd.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s obligation to pay damages in relation to the instant accident against the Defendant does not exceed KRW 5,00,000, and as long as the Defendant contests the existence of the Plaintiff’s obligation to compensate in excess of the above recognition amount, the Plaintiff has a benefit to seek confirmation of non-existence.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with some different conclusions, it is so decided as per Disposition by accepting part of the plaintiff's appeal and changing the judgment of the court of first instance as above.

Judges Jin-Constition

Judges Shin Jae-won