2015Na306505 Damages (i.e., losses)

)

Park Jong-hee in the Gu and America

Stock Company

Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul

Representative Director;

Attorney Lee Do-young

Daegu District Court Decision 2015Ga Office decided August 27, 2015

10086 decided

March 3, 2016

March 24, 2016

1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part shall be dismissed;

2. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Purport of claim

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 2,974,982 won with 5% interest per annum from December 14, 2013 to the service date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

2. Purport of appeal

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Basic facts

A. On December 14, 2013, the OO driven a passenger car No. 00000 (hereinafter referred to as a “victim”) around December 14, 2013, and stopped a signal change while driving on the gold-air area in the Gu-U.S.A., Si-U.S., Si-S., the OO concealed the back portion of the Plaintiff’s driver’s Xxxxxxxxxxxxxx car (hereinafter referred to as “victim”). (hereinafter referred to as “the instant accident”).

B. The Plaintiff owns 99% of the shares of the damaged vehicle. The Defendant is an insurer that entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with OE (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”). The terms and conditions of the instant insurance contract provide for the following for the automobile price decline damage (hereinafter “accident damage”).

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

D. The Defendant spent KRW 4,685,700 in total as follows, as the damages for the instant accident related to the instant accident.

A person shall be appointed.

(e) details of the repair of the damaged vehicle are back to back to back to back to back to back to back to back to back to back to back to back to back to back to back to back to back to back to back to back to back to back to back to back to back

F. Meanwhile, the damaged vehicle first registered on December 12, 2012 and passed one year and two days after the delivery of the instant accident at the time of the instant accident, and approximately 12,552 km of the odometer.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

Even after the completion of repair due to the instant accident, there still remains a loss of 3,005,033 won on the damaged vehicle. This constitutes an ordinary loss, or a loss due to special circumstances, a clause clause is known or could have known.

Therefore, the defendant, who is the insurer of the household vehicle, is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 2,974,982 won (=3,005,03 won x 99%, and less than won) equivalent to the plaintiff's share in the damaged vehicle (99%) out of the damages caused by the decline in the market price and damages caused by delay.

3. Determination

(a) Relevant legal principles;

The amount of damages when a property owned by a tort is damaged shall be the cost of repair if it is possible to repair, and if it is impossible to repair it, the amount of reduced exchange value shall be the ordinary amount of damages. In cases where part of the repair is remaining even after repair, it shall be deemed that the reduced value of exchange due to impossibility of repair, in addition to the repair cost, constitutes ordinary damages (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 91Da28719, Feb. 11, 1992; 2001Da52889, Nov. 13, 2001). However, if repair is possible, it shall not be deemed that there is an empirical rule that there is a reduced value of exchange at any time other than the repair cost, or that there is a ordinarily foreseeable loss (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 81Da88, Feb. 22, 1982).

B. Determination

1) In the instant case, as evidence as shown in the Plaintiff’s assertion, each description of Gap evidence Nos. 4 (Calculation Table of Loss in Vehicle Value) and Gap evidence Nos. 7 (the actual transaction price data on the SKKKKK's and the accident vehicle) and the appraisal commission of △△△△△, a technology corporation for the trial of the political party, is the result.

However, in light of the following circumstances that are acknowledged by comprehensively considering the results of partial commission of appraisal of △△△△△△, which is a technology corporation for the trial of the political party, and the overall purport of the oral argument as a result of the request for supplementation of the appraisal of △△△△△, the pertinent evidence alone is insufficient to acknowledge the Plaintiff’s assertion that the damaged vehicle remains unrepairable even after the repair thereof, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

A) The evidence Nos. 4 and 7 are merely data related to the amount of vehicle value decline or the amount of the market price of a vehicle that the Plaintiff received by arbitrarily entering the vehicle information, accident level, repair details, etc. after accessing the website operated by an individual business entity, such as a seller of a high-speed vehicle on the Internet. There is no evidence to ensure objectivity and fairness.

B) The result of the appraisal commission for △△△△△△, which is a technology corporation for the trial of the party, divided into each item of judgment into "the degree of damage, whether to restore the damaged vehicle's market price due to the instant accident, whether to recover it, the history of the accident, and the factors for the manufacturing year," and applied the pertinent depreciation rate to "3%, 1%, 3%, and 3%" in the above order. The simple "10%" was determined by the total depreciation rate of the damaged vehicle, and the amount of damages caused by the instant accident is calculated as 1,460,70 won (=14,607,000 won X-the total depreciation rate of the damaged vehicle as of the date of the instant accident). However, there are problems as follows.

① Without directly observing the damaged vehicle, the appraiser △△△△△ did not directly observe the damaged vehicle and analyzed the fluctuation in the market price only by the vehicle damaged photograph at the time of the accident. The result of the appraisal remains after the repair, and there is no specific explanation as to what part is impossible to repair the damaged vehicle. In addition, there is no explanation about the objective basis for or method of calculating the depreciation rate for each item. Rather, the result of the appraisal request for the supplementation of the knivers for the kniversal technology corporation is called “the calculation basis for the decrease in the exchange value according to the knowledge of the appraiser.”

The damaged vehicle was damaged by the front part of the accident in this case, and the damaged part was damaged by the front part, which was then damaged by the panel, the rear fluor, and the ridge, and there was no damage to the main structural part of the engine room and the body frame. As seen earlier, all damaged parts were replaced or sealed and repaired, and there is no evidence to prove that there was any malfunction in the performance or function of the damaged vehicle after the accident in this case. Rather, according to the result of the appraisal and supplementary commission for the damaged vehicle, which is a technology corporation for the trial of the party, there is no part that is impossible to repair because the damaged vehicle was restored to its original part after repair.

③ Although the damaged vehicle did not have any repair completion after the accident in this case, the said appraiser applied the pertinent depreciation rate to 3% and 1% without any specific grounds in relation to the item, i.e., the degree of damage and restitution of the original state. In relation to the item, i.e., the “accident repair force” item, i., the practice of the used vehicle market in which the consumer’s desire to purchase is lowered and the difference of market price is formed is lower than that prior to the accident, the said appraiser also applied 3% of the depreciation rate without any specific grounds.

C) The standard for the payment of damages for the decline in the market price stipulated in the terms and conditions of the instant insurance contract may also serve as reference for the instant accident. However, the repair cost of the damaged vehicle is KRW 2,740,70 (i.e., part cost of KRW 964,070 + public fee of KRW 1,527,70 + value-added tax of KRW 249,000), which is merely about 14,607,000, which is the market price of the damaged vehicle at the time of the instant accident, and thus does not satisfy the requirements for exceeding 20% under the said terms and conditions.

2) Meanwhile, even though there was no impossible part after the instant accident, the occurrence of damages to the damaged vehicle due to the instant accident constitutes a special damage. It should be determined on the basis of whether the driver of the damaged vehicle knew or could have known it at the time of the instant accident.

However, it is difficult to view that the perpetrator knew or could have known the above special damage at the time of the accident in cases where the degree of damage of the damaged vehicle is very serious and the perpetrator could have sufficiently known it at the time of the accident.

As seen earlier, it is difficult to view that the degree of damage of the damaged vehicle caused by the instant accident is serious. Thus, it is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff submitted the evidence alone either knew or could have known the aforementioned special damage, and there is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

3) Ultimately, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit to further examine the scope of damages.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed due to the lack of reason, and since the part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendant is unfair, the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part shall be dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Allowable judge of the presiding judge

Judges Oo-crimes

Judges Yu Sung-sung