A. In a case where the repair cost significantly exceeds the exchange price of the damaged vehicle at the time of the accident, whether the part exceeding the exchange price of the repair cost can be claimed as damages (negative)

(b) Whether the loss of profit from the failure to operate a business for a period necessary for the replacement or repair of consideration is ordinary damage where a vehicle for business use is damaged (affirmative);

A. Even if the cost of the exchange for the damaged vehicle at the time of the accident has been spent for the repair cost, such circumstance is deemed to be impossible in an economic aspect and only the remainder after deducting the cost of the goods from the exchange price at the time of the accident can be claimed as compensation for damages. This is consistent with the fair concept above the compensation system only. Therefore, in a case where the cost of repair is required for higher repair than the exchange price, taking advantage of the network should be borne by the victim, unless there are special circumstances that need to be accepted in light of social norms.

(b) In cases where a vehicle for business use is destroyed by an accident and thus unable to carry on the business by the vehicle for a period necessary for its commercial replacement or repair, the loss of profits which would have been incurred if the vehicle had continued to carry on the business shall be recognized as ordinary damages;

Articles 763 and 393 of the Civil Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 87Meu1926 delivered on November 24, 1987 (Gong1988,167). Supreme Court Decision 72Da1820 delivered on December 12, 1972 (No. 203Da196 delivered on January 30, 197) (No. 72Da2235,2236 delivered on March 13, 197)

Dongyang Transport Corporation

Attorney Park Dong-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 89Na33383 delivered on February 8, 1990

Among the parts against the defendant in the original judgment, the part concerning the repair cost damages shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The defendant's remaining appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal against the dismissal of an appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

As to the Grounds of Appeal:

1. It is natural that the cost of repair recognized in cases where a motor vehicle is destroyed due to an accident should be the full amount of the cost of repair unless there is a special reason to the contrary, but the cost of repair, such as the so-called letter repair or excessive repair, shall not be included herein, unless there is a special reason to the contrary.

In addition, even if the cost of the exchange of the damaged vehicle at the time of the accident has been spent, the fact that only the remainder after deducting the cost of the goods from the exchange price at the time of the accident can be claimed as damages. Even if the damaged vehicle can be repaired technically, it is economically reasonable to use the vehicle in the previous state of damage so that it can be used for repair in an economic aspect, so that it can not be repaired in an economic aspect. It is consistent with the concept of fairness that is above the compensation system only. Accordingly, if there is a victim with repair cost higher than the exchange price, it should be done based on the network unless there are special circumstances to be done at the time. However, the court below determined that the above repair cost of the damaged bus exceeds the value of the repairing bus at the time of the accident, and determined that the repair cost of the above damaged bus exceeds the value of the repairing bus at the time of 00,000,000 won, which is more than the value of the repairing bus at the time of 90,000,000 won, which is more than the value of the above repair cost at the time.

However, it cannot be deemed that there is a reason for the insurer who has entered into an insurance contract with the Defendant to bear the damage to the automobile repair cost exceeding the exchange price solely on the ground that the contractor or the insured requested repair at the request of the victim. In light of the above legal principles, even though the exchange price of the damaged vehicle caused by accidents is not determined by evidence, if the scope of the claim for the repair cost is not clear, it is not so doing, and it is reasonable to interpret the above legal principles as above, which is a matter of law, and it is considerably contrary to social justice and equity, and thus, it is reasonable to

2. Where a motor vehicle for business use is damaged by an accident and thus it is impossible to carry on the business by using the relevant motor vehicle for a period necessary for the commercial replacement or repair, the profit-making loss that would have been incurred if it had continued to carry on the business shall be recognized as ordinary damage;

The decision made under the same purport is justified in the original judgment, and there is no reason to criticize it.

3. Accordingly, among the parts against the defendant in the original judgment, the part concerning the repair cost damages shall be reversed and remanded to the court below for a new trial. The appeal on the part concerning the business impossibility damages shall be dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Yong-ju (Presiding Justice)