1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff corresponding to the amount ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1. Basic facts

A. At the time of the traffic accident listed below (hereinafter “the instant accident”), the Plaintiff is the owner of the vehicle indicated below (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and the Defendant is the insurer who entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to the Maritime Vehicle that caused the instant accident.

Plaintiff

On August 23, 2019, May 27, 2014, 2019, the fault ratio A CWFF car to the traffic accident on the date of the first registration date of the vehicle, and 100% of the shock on the right side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle when the melting vehicle entered the road from the on-road parking lot on the street.

B. At the time of the instant accident, the odometer, the average market price of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, the actual repair cost, the repair volume, and the previous accident history are as listed below.

Part of the average market price of the odometer 68,154km of existing accident history 68,154km 16,000,000 won 13,082,387 - Major frameworks: Bar exchange - Outboards exchange - No dispute exists over any electric, rear, interscept, and fences (applicable for recognition), entry in Gap evidence 1 through 4, the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. The amount of damages when an article is damaged due to a tort (1) is the cost of repair if it is possible to repair it, and if it is impossible to repair it, the reduced value of exchange would be the ordinary amount of damages. Therefore, in cases where parts that cannot be partially repaired remain even after repair are repaired, the reduced value of exchange due to impossibility of repair, in addition to the cost of repair, shall be deemed as ordinary damages.

(2) In the event of an accident causing serious damage to a motor vehicle due to the destruction of its major structural frame, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Da52889, Nov. 13, 2001), it is in accordance with the empirical rule to view that, even if the repair has been completed technically possible, the repair impossible parts are left, barring any special circumstance, and the resulting damage to the price decline of the motor vehicle is attributable.