1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The purport of the claim and the appeal.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiffs are co-owners of vehicles listed in the attached Table, and the Defendant is the insurer who entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to the harming vehicles that caused a traffic accident listed in the attached Table (hereinafter “instant accident”).

B. The Plaintiffs’ vehicles were destroyed by the instant accident and received repair as shown in the attached Table.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1-1, 2-1, 3-1, and 5-1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. In the event of an accident that causes serious damage to the main structural part of a motor vehicle due to damage, etc. to the main structural part of the relevant legal doctrine, barring any special circumstance, even if the repair is technically feasible, there remain remaining the impossible parts for the repair to be restored.

It is consistent with the rule of experience to view that the damage caused by the decline in the price of a motor vehicle falls under ordinary damages.

In such a case, whether an accident with serious damage to the degree of potential disability exists shall be determined objectively and reasonably in accordance with the transaction concept and empirical rule of society, taking into comprehensive account the following: (a) details and degree of the accident; (b) details of the accident; (c) details and degree of damage; (d) details of the accident; (e) method of repair; (e) the vehicle’s annual formula and mileage; (e) the proportion of automobile value at the time of the accident to the repair cost; and (e) whether there was repair to the degree that the vehicle was subject to inspection record of the performance and condition of the used vehicle; and (e) whether there was any repair to the extent that the vehicle was subject to inspection record; and (e) the party asserting that it was serious damage (see Supreme Court Decision 2016Da24806, May 17, 2017, etc.). (b) Review of the evidence revealed earlier, it is recognized that the Plaintiffs received the cutting and replacement of the parts of the de facto panel of the instant accident.