(영문) 부산지방법원 2016.12.15 2016나46427

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 부산지방법원 2016.12.15 2016나46427

손해배상(기)

Text

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.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of BM3 passenger vehicles (hereinafter “instant vehicle”), and the Defendant is the insurer who concluded the automobile insurance contract for D truck owned by C.

B. Around November 22, 2015, C driven the instant truck at the lower end of the lower part of the lower part of the districts of Busan (hereinafter “instant accident”), and the Defendant paid the Plaintiff KRW 5,662,90,00 in total, including the repair cost of the instant vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, 3, 4, Eul evidence, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The alleged vehicle of this case suffered from the loss of exchange value of KRW 2,897,848 in addition to the repair cost due to the accident of this case, and the defendant is obligated to pay 2,897,848 won and delay damages to the plaintiff.

B. 1) Determination 1) The amount of damages when an article was damaged due to a collision of legal principles shall be the cost of repair if it is possible to repair, and, if it is impossible to repair, the reduced value of exchange shall be the ordinary amount of damages. In the case of remaining parts for which partial repair is impossible after repair, the reduced value of exchange due to impossibility of repair, in addition to the cost of repair, shall be the ordinary damages (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Da52889, Nov. 13, 2001). However, when a vehicle was damaged due to a collision of a vehicle, it cannot be deemed that there is an empirical rule that there is a significant decrease in value whenever possible, in addition to the cost of repair, or that such damage can be ordinarily predicted (see Supreme Court Decision 81Da88, Jun. 22, 1982).

The argument that the exchange value has decreased is related to special damages, and even if there are such circumstances, the perpetrator is the perpetrator.

참조판례

-대법원 2001. 11. 13. 선고 2001다52889 판결

유사 판례

-서울동부지방법원 2015.03.11 2014나3322

-수원지방법원 2015.01.30 2014나35768

-수원지방법원여주지원 2016.05.12 2016가단51301

-수원지방법원 2016.06.28 2015나38054

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.11.17 2016나38435