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

2. Costs arising from an appeal and an incidental appeal shall be respectively.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of a passenger car indicated in the column of “automobile” as indicated below (hereinafter “instant vehicle”), and is a person who suffered damage to the instant vehicle due to a traffic accident indicated in the column of “accident” as indicated below (hereinafter “instant accident”).

Plaintiff CMW740Li, May 20, 2010, 100% of the instant vehicle stopped on August 2, 2018, 2018.

B. The Defendant, as an insurer who entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to the instant vehicle for the damage of the instant vehicle, paid the Plaintiff insurance money for the damage of the instant vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 3 (including branch numbers for those with additional numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. Due to the Plaintiff’s assertion, the instant vehicle suffered serious damage, such as major structural damage, etc., and became technically feasible parts of the instant vehicle, which could not be restored to its original state even after completion of its repair. As a result, the damage (so-called “satisfe death damage”), the Defendant, who is the insurer of the instant vehicle, is obliged to pay KRW 1,900,000 to the Plaintiff as compensation for the shooting damage of the instant vehicle.

(b) Liability for damages caused by a decline in exchange value (1) In the event that an article is damaged due to a tort, the amount of ordinary damages shall be the cost of repair if it is possible to repair it, the amount of exchange value if it is impossible to repair it, and where part of it is impossible to repair it remains after repair, the amount of exchange value reduced due to impossibility of repair, in addition to

(See Supreme Court Decision 91Da28719 delivered on February 11, 1992, and Supreme Court Decision 2001Da52889 delivered on November 13, 2001, etc.). According to the Automobile Management Act, the Automobile Management Act is applicable.