beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is the owner of CNAS G80 vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicle”), and the Defendant is the insurer who entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with D vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).
B. On December 23, 2018, the Plaintiff’s vehicle driven on the Gidong-gu Hodong-dong-Jungdong-gu Bungju to the Cheongju-ju-do Highway, and the Defendant’s driver, who was driving in the front direction, neglected his duty at the front direction of the Defendant’s vehicle, thereby leading the back part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle to the front end of the Defendant vehicle (hereinafter “instant accident”).
C. As a result of the instant accident, KRW 4,775,770 of the repair cost was incurred due to the destruction of the Plaintiff’s wheel, wheelchairs, members of a wheeler, Dumcing Panel, and joint flooring Panel, etc., and the Defendant paid the Plaintiff the insurance money equivalent to KRW 4,775,770 of the repair cost.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5, purport of the whole pleadings
2. The parties' assertion
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant accident constitutes an accident with serious damage, such as the destruction of major structural parts of the automobile, and thus, the repair unreparable even if the repair was completed technically. Accordingly, the Plaintiff suffered damage due to the decline in the price of the automobile, and thus, the Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 3,390,000 as the insurer of the Defendant vehicle, and the delay damages therefrom.
B. Defendant’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff’s vehicle was entirely repaired and does not have any further damage, and even if the Plaintiff’s accident occurred, this constitutes damages due to special circumstances, and there is no reason to deem that the Defendant knew or could have known of it. 2) The Plaintiff’s loss is realized when the Plaintiff’s vehicle was actually sold, and the Plaintiff continued to use the vehicle.