1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. On March 15, 2016, the defendant was under the influence of 0.171% of blood alcohol level on or around 23:00, and the defendant was found guilty of four lanes in front of Hyundai Apartment 61, which is 342 degrees at the pressure of Gangnam-gu Seoul, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, for the galsian department room at a speed of 342 degrees in front of Hyundai Apartment 61, which is located at the speed of 342 roads at the pressure of Gangnam-gu, Gangnam-gu, Seoul. At the same time, while the signal, etc. at the front line was driven at a speed of Sims, in violation of the right-hand turn, while the signal, etc. at the right-hand turn at the opposite direction, while the plaintiff was driving under the new subparagraph, the left-hand part of the passenger car and the left-hand part of the left-hand part of the car, so that the plaintiff could not be able to repair the above crime, such as a fine for damages to the victim and 36.

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. At the time of the instant accident, the Plaintiff operated the CDA model of 73,946,00 won E250 won for the 73,946,000 won for the vehicle price at the time of the instant accident, and after the instant accident, the Plaintiff was obligated to pay KRW 10,254,000 for the vehicle price at the new cost when replacing the vehicle with the GLE250 model with the vehicle price of KRW 83,200,000 for the 83,200,000 for the car price as the vehicle cost was anticipated to have been incurred for six months in the event of the installation of the same option in the same vehicle at the same time after the instant accident. As such, the Defendant was obligated to pay the Plaintiff the above total amount of KRW 10,254,000 for the vehicle price.

B. The instant accident was caused by the Defendant’s shocking of the Plaintiff, who driven in violation of the signal in drinking condition, and was under normal driving. Even though the Defendant did not look at the Plaintiff’s details, the Defendant was able to attach the same to the residential place during the escape, and the criminal procedure was conducted.