손해배상(기)
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul Central District Court Panel Division.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. When goods are damaged due to a tort, the amount of ordinary damages shall be the repairing cost, if it is possible to repair them, and the exchange value shall be the amount reduced if it is impossible to repair them;
Where part of repair is not possible even after repair remains, the reduced value of exchange due to the impossibility of repair in addition to the repair cost falls under ordinary damages.
(See Supreme Court Decision 91Da28719 delivered on February 11, 1992, and Supreme Court Decision 2001Da52889 delivered on November 13, 2001). In a case where a motor vehicle causes serious damage to the main structural frame of the engine or body due to an accident, barring any special circumstance, it would accord with the empirical rule that even if the motor vehicle is technically feasible repairs, it would be deemed that there exists a repair impossible part to restore the motor vehicle to its original state, barring any special circumstance. Accordingly, the damage resulting from the decline in the price of the motor vehicle constitutes ordinary damages.
Whether such an accident constitutes an accident with serious damage should be determined objectively and reasonably in accordance with the transaction norms and empirical rules, comprehensively taking into account the following: (a) details and degree of the accident; (b) the parts and seriousness of the damage; (c) the repair method; (d) the annual formula and mileage of the automobile; (e) the proportion of the repair cost to the value of the automobile at the time of the accident; and (e) whether there was an acceptance of the degree to be recorded in the performance inspection register of used cars as an accident history; and (e) the party asserting that
(2) On May 17, 2017, the lower court rejected the Plaintiffs’ claim for damages against the decline in exchange values on the grounds that it is difficult to recognize that the Plaintiffs’ motor vehicle repair remains even after repair due to each of the instant traffic accidents, and that the decline in exchange values cannot be deemed as ordinary damages that could have been anticipated in light of the empirical rule.
3...