beta
Text
1. In accordance with the expansion of the purport of the claim in the trial, the judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:
The defendant.
Reasons
1. On January 20, 2014, the Defendant’s liability for damages caused by the Defendant’s comprehensive motor vehicle insurance (hereinafter “instant accident”) that caused the Plaintiff’s fluent rice drop to the Plaintiff’s house fluent thunder located on the road due to the negligence of operating the said vehicle by leaving the road due to neglecting the duty of pre-fluence on the 06:00 on January 20, 2014 and neglecting the duty of pre-fluenting. There is no dispute between the parties.
According to the above facts, the defendant, who is the insurer of the household, is obligated to compensate the plaintiff for the damage caused by the accident in this case.
2. Scope of liability for damages
A. As seen earlier, the Plaintiff’s instant accident involving property damage caused the collapse of rice plants. According to the Plaintiff’s evidence No. 13, the Plaintiff’s cost of repairing rice plants can be acknowledged as constituting KRW 1,200,50.
According to the above facts, the plaintiff's property damage caused by the accident of this case is KRW 1,200,500.
Accordingly, according to the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff’s cost of repairing rice plants is KRW 3,300,000, and according to the Plaintiff’s statement of evidence Nos. 6, it can be recognized that a written estimate is made to the effect that the Plaintiff’s cost of repairing rice plants is spent for KRW 3,300,000 as the Plaintiff’s cost of repairing rice plants.
However, it is insufficient to recognize the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff did not compensate for damages caused by the instant accident and was issued a written estimate of a large amount. In light of the fact that the Plaintiff did not accept one’s house hushes due to the instant accident, it is insufficient to recognize the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff’s statement of evidence No. 6 alone is KRW 3,300,000, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
B. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant is obligated to pay consolation money to the plaintiff, since the plaintiff collapsed hulle of a house hull, thereby infringing upon the plaintiff's privacy.
In general, other person's illegal acts.