1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The following facts do not conflict between the parties, or each entry or video set forth in Gap evidence 1 to 4, Gap evidence 6-1 to 25, and Gap evidence 27 may be admitted by integrating the whole purport of the pleadings. A

The Plaintiff owned the Rail Vehicle B (hereinafter “instant damaged vehicle”), and the Defendant is the insurer who entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to the vehicle driven by the other party driver at the time of the occurrence of the traffic accident (hereinafter “instant damaged vehicle”).

B. On January 27, 2016, the driver of the other party driving the instant Maritime Vehicle at around 08:10, and driving the instant Maritime Vehicle at the front of Pyeongtaek-si apartment, and driving the instant Maritime Vehicle at the slope of the public prosecutor’s office’s office in violation of the signal apparatus installed in the said place at the front of Pyeongtaek-si apartment. According to the new subparagraph, the driver caused a traffic accident in which the part, such as the steering gate and the steering gate of the instant Maritime Vehicle, which passed the said intersection from the 3rd apartment room of the Schan City, to the court room, was brought about (hereinafter “instant accident”).

C. Around August 20, 2012, the Plaintiff purchased a new lane of approximately KRW 14,719,000 for the instant damaged vehicle (including value added tax). The instant damaged vehicle was damaged or modified due to the instant accident, such as the right shoulder, the right shoulder, the right shoulder, the right shoulder, and the right shoulder.

On March 18, 2016, the Defendant paid KRW 6,217,200 in total to Hyundai Automobile Industry Co., Ltd., which accepted the instant damaged vehicle, for the repair cost of the instant damaged vehicle.

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that even after completion of repair on the damaged or modified part due to the instant accident, noise, vibration, function, and aesthetic impairment, durability reduction, durability reduction, period of use reduction, and accident-related power.