1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, Defendant C and lot damage insurance company corresponding to the following amount ordered to be paid.

1. Basic facts

A. 1) The Plaintiffs are EM5 vehicles (hereinafter “Plaintiffs”).

2) Defendant D is the owner of F&L passenger cars (hereinafter “Defendant”) and Defendant N&C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) is the insurer who entered into an automobile insurance contract regarding the Defendant’s vehicle.

B. On April 21, 2016, Defendant C, while driving the Defendant’s vehicle on April 21, 2016, was invaded by the central line in front of a restaurant located in Gumisi G and caused an accident that shocks the front part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle into the front part of the Defendant vehicle (hereinafter “instant accident”).

C. Due to the instant accident, Plaintiff 1’s trop, pentlon’s pentle, gylon’s pentle and gylon’s pentle were destroyed, and KRW 1,357,00 was required as repair cost.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including branch numbers in case of additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Due to the instant accident which caused the Plaintiffs’ claim, the Plaintiff Company, as the driver of the instant vehicle, has sustained damages due to the decline in the value of exchange in KRW 32.10,00,00 even after the repair, pursuant to Article 750 of the Civil Act, Defendant C, the driver of the instant vehicle, is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the damages arising from the decline in the exchange value of each Plaintiff’s vehicle jointly in accordance with Article 724 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, pursuant to Article 3 of the Automobile Accident Compensation Act. Defendant D, the insurer of the instant vehicle, is jointly obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 1,605,00,00 (=32

3. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. 1) Determination as to claims against Defendant C and the Company on the occurrence of an exchange value decline (the ordinary amount of damages when an article was damaged due to a tort in this relevant legal doctrine is the repair cost if it is possible to repair the article, and the exchange value if it is impossible to repair it, and some repair is made even after repair.