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.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of B-A-Wurd-Wed-Wed-Wed-Wed-Wed-Wed-Wed-Wed-Wed-Wed-Wed-Wed-C (hereinafter “Plaintiff”).

On October 27, 2012, around 15:40 on October 27, 2012, the Plaintiff: (a) driven the instant motor vehicle and was in the vicinity of the U.S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S., the insured motor vehicle that the Defendant company purchased the motor vehicle insurance, and (b) the Defendant Company

(hereinafter “instant accident”). (b)

In the instant accident, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was destroyed by the front part, exchanged a panel, a quota panel, and a string, and displayed a set of members with a set of books and a set of books and seals.

The Defendant paid insurance proceeds of KRW 4,355,170 at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Reasons for Recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence No. 4, the result of appraisal by the first instance appraiser D, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff seeking compensation for damages, while there is a decrease in the exchange value of the Plaintiff’s vehicle not recovered due to the instant accident.

The amount of damages when the property owned is damaged due to a tort shall be the cost of repair if it is possible to repair it, and if it is impossible to repair it, the reduced value of exchange shall be the ordinary amount of damages, and if part of it is not repaired after repair remains, the reduced value of exchange due to impossibility of repair in addition to the cost of repair shall constitute ordinary damages.

(See Supreme Court Decision 91Da28719 delivered on February 11, 1992). However, where acceptance is possible, damage resulting from a decline in exchange value constitutes special damage in addition to the repair cost.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 81Da8, Jun. 22, 1982; 91Da42883, Mar. 10, 1992). In full view of the health care unit, Gap evidence No. 2, and the purport of the entire pleadings as a result of appraisal by appraiser D of the first instance trial, the parts of the Plaintiff vehicle are destroyed and repaired due to the instant accident, and the present vehicle is currently repaired.