1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff equivalent to the amount ordered to be additionally paid shall be revoked.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of the vehicle at the time of the traffic accident as indicated in the following table (hereinafter “the instant accident”). The Defendant is the insurer who entered into the automobile insurance contract at the time of the instant accident with respect to the marine vehicles that caused the instant accident.

Plaintiff

On June 5, 2015, the details of the first registered traffic accident at the time of the accident on the date of the initial registration of the vehicle A C-A-Wurg on June 5, 2015: around 10.01:55 on March 2019, the melting vehicle exceeds the white solid lines in the expressway tunnel and the Plaintiff vehicle shock

B. The Defendant paid KRW 7,081,00 to the Plaintiff with the repair cost, etc. of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident.

The average market value of the odometer 81,050km of existing accidents, 16,720,000 won 9,401,660 won 5,445,031 won 5,405,031 won , 6,000 won ,40,000 won , 6,000 won , 6,000 won , 6,445,031 won , fringer (fringer) exchange, fringer exchange, fringr panel exchange, fringer , fringer , fringer , fringer , fringer , fringer , fringer ,

C. At the time of the instant accident, the odometer, the new car price, the average market price, the repair cost, the repair cost, the history of the accident, etc. are as listed below.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 5-5, Gap evidence Nos. 7 and video, the entrustment of appraisal to the first instance appraiser D and the fact inquiry result, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion in the instant case led to a serious damage to the Plaintiff’s main structural part, such as destruction of the Plaintiff’s vehicle’s main structural part, making it impossible to repair the Plaintiff’s vehicle which was technically possible to restore to its original state even after completion of its repair. As a result, the Plaintiff’s loss (so-called “satise damage”) occurred, and thus, the Defendant is obliged to pay KRW 1,130,000 to the Plaintiff with compensation for the satise damage.

B. The following circumstances can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the evidence incurred prior to the fact of the negligence of the vehicle involved in the instant accident.