logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2020.05.26 2019나62422 (1)
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.

The defendant.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. At the time of the traffic accident listed in the table below (hereinafter referred to as the “accident”), the Plaintiff acquired the damage claim arising from the instant accident from C (State), the owner of the Plaintiff’s vehicle (hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiff’s vehicle”). The Defendant is the insurer who concluded the automobile insurance contract for the marine vehicles that caused the instant accident.

Plaintiff

On January 24, 2018, 2018, the details of the first registered traffic accident at the time of the accident on the date of the initial registration of the vehicle AD E E on June 24, 2015, after paying the 4th lusent traffic accident by the lusent vehicle, 100% of the front side of the Plaintiff vehicle.

B. At the time of the instant accident, the odometer, average market price, repair cost, and repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle are as listed below.

The value of the odometer is 44,673km, 45,400,000 won 28,313,260 won 12,704,050 won - Major frameworks: The exchange of fish panel - Outboards: Twits exchange, exchange of twits, exchange of right-side fences, exchange of libs, exchange of libs, left-hand libs and ribs and ribs, the left-hand ribs and ribs and ribs, the upper-hand side (2,569,487 won)

C. The Defendant paid insurance proceeds of KRW 14,060,760 to the Plaintiff’s vehicle repair cost, etc. due to the instant accident.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 9 (including branch numbers in case of additional number), the result of the commission of appraisal to appraiser F by the court of first instance, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The plaintiff asserted that the accident of this case caused serious damage to the plaintiff's main structural part, such as damage to the plaintiff's main structural part, and caused the non-repairable parts of the repair which is technically possible, and that the damage caused by the decline in the price of the motor vehicle (the "satise damage") should be compensated for.

(b) The amount of ordinary damages, if any, shall be acceptable at the time of damage being caused by one tort resulting from the decline in exchange value.

arrow