1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

Basic Facts

The Plaintiff is the owner of the accusation vehicle B (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff vehicle”), who is an individual entrepreneur engaged in transportation business using the above vehicle, and the Defendant is the insurer who entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to the vehicle C (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant”).

On December 24, 2014, while driving the fourth line road in Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Daejeon Special Metropolitan City, the driver of the Defendant vehicle shocked the Plaintiff vehicle parked in his place due to the mistake that failed to fulfill his duty to crypt the front line. Accordingly, the Plaintiff vehicle was destroyed by an electronic device, etc.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). The Plaintiff entrusted the repair of the Plaintiff’s vehicle to D Industrial Company and E, and repaired it for a total of 37 days from December 24, 2014 to January 29, 2015.

The defendant recognized the liability for damages of the defendant's vehicle and agreed on the ratio of negligence to 10% of the plaintiff's vehicle and 90% of the defendant's vehicle, and paid the automobile repair cost accordingly.

The Defendant paid to the Plaintiff the Plaintiff 5,514,210 won (=204,230 won x 30 days x 0.9) calculated by applying the Defendant’s liability ratio of 90% as of the 30th day of the period of the temporary closure, in accordance with the insurance terms and conditions.

[Reasons] The Plaintiff’s assertion of the purport of the whole pleadings and the statements in Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 7, Eul’s evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings was 400,000 won per day due to the end of the pleading, and the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff KRW 5,286,00,00,00, calculated by applying the Defendant’s liability ratio of 90% as of 30 days each day to the end of the pleading. Thus, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff KRW 10,80,00 (=40,000 x 30 days x 0 x 0.9) remaining after deducting the amount of KRW 5,514,210 already paid from the Defendant.

Even if it is necessary to calculate the amount of a leave fee according to the insurance policy, it should not be applied as it is, and the rate should be calculated by reflecting the inflation rate.

Defendant’s assertion