(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2020.08.25 2019나64114

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2020.08.25 2019나64114

손해배상(기)

Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff falling under the following amount shall be revoked.

2...

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of a motor vehicle as indicated below (hereinafter “the instant motor vehicle”) and caused shock damage by violating the signal signal of the instant motor vehicle among the left-hand turn according to the normal signal at around 09:08, July 5, 2018, as of November 16, 2017, at the time of the first registration date of the accident, the registration number of the motor vehicle that was the owner of the instant motor vehicle destroyed by the instant motor vehicle (hereinafter “the instant accident”).

B. The Defendant is an insurer who concluded an insurance contract with respect to the instant vehicle involved in the accident.

C. The Defendant paid KRW 99,900 as damages due to the decline in the exchange value of the instant vehicle due to the instant accident.

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

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. Due to the Plaintiff’s assertion, the instant motor vehicle has been destroyed by a serious damage, such as damage to the main external panel, and thus, the repair unreparable portion remains, even after completion of technical repair, and the resulting damage to the price decline of the motor vehicle was caused by that fact.

Therefore, the defendant, who is the insurer of the household vehicle, is obliged to pay to the plaintiff 2,820,000 won and damages for delay for the damage caused by the decline damage.

B. When an article is damaged due to a tort of the relevant legal doctrine, the amount of ordinary damages would be the repairing cost if it is possible to repair the article, and the exchange value would be reduced if it is impossible to repair it.

Where part of repair is not possible even after repair remains, the exchange value reduction due to the impossibility of repair in addition to the repair cost shall also constitute ordinary damages.

On the other hand, the main structural part of the automobile is damaged.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2020.06.24 2020나3313

-서울중앙지방법원 2020.07.21 2020나9939

-서울중앙지방법원 2020.12.01 2020나32847

-대법원 2018.06.12 2017다213258

-서울중앙지방법원 2020.11.20 2020나17756