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.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On November 26, 2012, at around 00:05, the Defendant’s comprehensive motor vehicle insurance: (a) the vehicle driver was driving the said motor vehicle on the road near the Dong-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City (Seoul Special Metropolitan City), and there was an accident that caused the Plaintiff’s shock of C Lasta taxi (hereinafter “the instant motor vehicle”).

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant accident”). B.

After the accident in this case, the instant vehicle was repaired by the D. Industrial Complex of the Automobile Repair Business, and the Defendant paid KRW 1,913,360 as insurance money.

C. The main repair content of the instant vehicle is the exchange of front gateers, post-face exchange, and front gate exchange, etc.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 and 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Assertion and determination

A. The Defendant, who is the insurer of the harmful vehicle, is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the damages, even after repair due to the instant accident, because, even after repair, the Plaintiff sustained a drop in the exchange value of the instant vehicle in KRW 640,214.

B. Determination 1) The amount of damages when a portion owned by a tort is damaged shall be the cost of repair if it is possible to repair, and if it is impossible to repair it, the amount of reduced value shall be the ordinary amount of damages. In a case where a part of repair remains after repair, in addition to the cost of repair, the reduced value of exchange due to impossibility of repair shall be deemed ordinary damages (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 91Da28719, Feb. 11, 1992; 2001Da52889, Nov. 13, 2001); however, in a case of this case, there is an empirical rule that the reduced value of exchange would always be reduced in addition to the cost of repair, or that such damage would normally be predicted (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 81Da88, Jun. 22, 1982).