Plaintiff

DB insurance Co., Ltd.

November 8, 2018

Suwon District Court Decision 2018 Ghana61842 Decided July 20, 2018

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 3.45 million won with 15% interest per annum from March 24, 2018 to the day of complete payment.

1. Basic facts of the request;

① The Plaintiff is the owner of a low 5-year vehicle (the first registered date is July 26, 2017; hereinafter “Plaintiffs”). The Defendant is the insurer of the (vehicle registration number 2) vehicle (hereinafter “inter-vehicle”), ② the Plaintiff’s operation of the Plaintiff’s vehicle on January 12: 12, 2018, between the 5-year vehicle 1 and the 7-year vehicle 5-year vehicle appraisal and assessment method, or between the 5-year vehicle 1 and the 7-year vehicle appraisal and assessment method, and the 5-year vehicle appraisal and assessment method of the 7-year vehicle appraisal and assessment method, and the 1-year vehicle appraisal and assessment method of the 7-year vehicle appraisal and assessment method of the 7-year vehicle appraisal and assessment method of the 7-year vehicle appraisal and assessment method, and the 1-year vehicle appraisal and assessment method of the 5-year vehicle was not found to constitute an accident that occurred by neglecting the duty of the 5-year vehicle driver on the end of the 7-year vehicle.

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

(1) As the cause of the instant claim, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damage (3.45 million won) caused by the decline in the exchange value pursuant to Article 724(2) of the Commercial Act, since the Plaintiff’s physical and technical repair was completed due to the destruction of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident, but the Plaintiff’s physical and technical repair was inflicted on the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Defendant asserted that the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the damage caused by the decline in the exchange value pursuant to Article 724(2) of the Commercial

(2) Therefore, according to the above facts, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff’s transaction value of the Plaintiff’s vehicle at the time of the instant traffic accident was KRW 29.5 million, and KRW 3,765,789 as the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle at the time of the instant traffic accident was destroyed by the Plaintiff’s accident. ③ The Plaintiff’s vehicle at the time of the instant traffic accident was destroyed by the accident. ④ The Plaintiff’s vehicle at the time of the instant traffic accident was destroyed by a fish panel, e.g., the main structural frame, e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the g., the 1608.

(3) In a case where an insurer of liability insurance, who is the insurer of liability insurance, directly compensates for a third party damaged by an accident attributable to the insured pursuant to Article 724(2) of the Commercial Act, such insurer shall be liable to compensate only to the extent of the insured amount. It is clear under the above legal provisions.

However, according to the standard for paying physical compensation under the insurance clause of this case (Evidence 3) which applies to automobile insurance contract between the defendant and the person related to the Maritime Motor Vehicle, with respect to "damage resulting in a decline in the market price", a certain amount (15% of the repair cost for a motor vehicle not exceeding one year after departure and 10% of the repair cost for a motor vehicle which is more than one year but not more than two years after release) shall be paid only when the repair cost exceeds 20% of the transaction price of the motor vehicle immediately preceding the accident. The expenses (3,765,789 won) incurred in repairing the motor vehicle destroyed by the traffic accident of this case shall not exceed 20% of the transaction price of the plaintiff at the time. Thus, the damage claimed by the plaintiff does not fall within the scope of compensation as stipulated in the terms of this case, and there is no evidence to recognize that the above damage falls within the scope of the defendant's liability.

(4) Therefore, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit to examine the remainder of the issue.

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be dismissed due to the lack of reason, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just and the plaintiff's appeal is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Yang Sung-Gyeong (Presiding Judge)