1. The plaintiff's appeal and the defendant's incidental appeal are all dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

purport, purport, ..

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of the B-Motor vehicle (hereinafter “victim”), and the Defendant is a stock company with the purpose of insurance business, etc.

B. On September 26, 2015, the Plaintiff suffered an accident where the front and rear parts of the Plaintiff’s vehicle were destroyed due to the front and rear parts of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, which was covered by the Defendant’s comprehensive motor vehicle insurance, on the front and front roads of 57 wooden Complex 8, 807, Goyang-gu, Ansan-si, Seoul.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). The Defendant paid KRW 12,658,800 for the repair cost of the damaged vehicle due to the instant accident.

C. The damaged vehicle is the vehicle first registered on April 7, 2015, and the value of the damaged vehicle at the time of the instant accident is KRW 28,510,000.

Meanwhile, in the terms and conditions of the Defendant’s comprehensive automobile insurance contract [Attachment 2], the items of automobile price decline damage as of the criteria for payment of substitute compensation “in the event that the cost of repairing an automobile due to an accident (limited to a motor vehicle which is less than two years after departure) exceeds 20% of the value of the automobile immediately preceding the accident, 15% of the cost of repairing shall be paid, and in the case of a motor vehicle which is more than one year but not more than two years after release, 10% of the cost of repairing shall be paid.

(hereinafter referred to as the "Terms and Conditions Provisions of this case"). 【No dispute exists, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, Gap evidence No. 7, Eul evidence No. 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) The plaintiff suffered losses from the traffic accident caused by the driver's negligence of the driver of the vehicle in the household, which caused a decline in the vehicle's value of 5,980,000 won in addition to the repair cost. The defendant asserts that the plaintiff has a duty to pay to the plaintiff the above value decline and the total of 6,343,00 won paid by the plaintiff for the issuance of the value-added assessment statement (= KRW 5,980,000) and damages for delay thereof (= KRW 5,980,000). The defendant cannot be deemed to have suffered damages from the value-added, and even if there is damages from the family value decline.