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.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of the Plaintiff’s low-priced vehicle B (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s vehicle”), and the Defendant is the insurer who entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to the Defendant’s vehicle C (hereinafter “Defendant”).

B. Around 10:10 on June 27, 2015, the driver of the Defendant vehicle driven the Defendant vehicle and driven the Defendant vehicle in the front section of the Defendant vehicle, which was stopped in the front section of the Plaintiff vehicle while driving in the vicinity of the branch office of the Dong-dong Highway, Dong-dong Highway.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). C.

The Defendant paid KRW 4,482,300 for the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle that occurred due to the instant accident.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2 through 4, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff’s vehicle was seriously damaged due to the instant accident, thereby resulting in the decline in the value of the vehicle to KRW 2,740,00,00, the Defendant, the insurer of the Defendant’s vehicle, is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the said damage.

B. (1) The amount of damages when the property owned by a tort is damaged shall be the cost of repair if it is possible to repair it, and if it is impossible to repair it, the reduced value shall be the normal amount of damages.

Even after repair remains, the reduced value of exchange due to the impossibility of repair in addition to the repair cost shall also constitute ordinary damages (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 91Da28719, Feb. 11, 1992; 2001Da52889, Nov. 13, 2001; 2001Da52889, Nov. 13, 2001); however, there is an empirical rule that, in addition to the repair cost, there is a reduced value of exchange whenever possible.

(2) If such damage is ordinarily foreseeable, it shall not be deemed that such damage is ordinarily foreseeable.

(See Supreme Court Decision 81Da88 delivered on June 22, 1982). (2) The case returned to the instant case, scambling, and the fact of the recognition, and each of the evidence mentioned above.