(영문) 대구지방법원 2018.05.17 2017나310720

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 대구지방법원 2018.05.17 2017나310720

차량감가조정

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. The Plaintiff is the owner of CET90 vehicles (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is an insurance company that entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to D Driving E&S vehicles (hereinafter “Defendant vehicles”).

B. At around 16:40 on November 17, 2016, the Defendant vehicle shocked the front part of the Plaintiff vehicle, which was under the suspension of the vehicle due to the vehicle’s body in the name of the Dong-gun, Dogdong-gun, Dogdong-gun.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). C.

The Plaintiff’s vehicle was repaired until December 15, 2016 due to damage to the Liby Panel and Tous Cridge, etc. due to the instant accident, and the Defendant paid the Plaintiff the total amount of KRW 13,195,638.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 3 and 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The occurrence of liability for damages, the amount of ordinary damages when an article is damaged due to a tort, the amount of depreciation if possible, the amount of exchange value if it is impossible to repair, and the amount of decrease in exchange value if a part of repair remains even after repair is repaired, and the amount of decrease in exchange value due to impossibility of repair is also included in ordinary damages;

In addition, in the event that an automobile causes serious damage to the engine or body main structural part of the engine or body due to an accident, it is difficult to view that the automobile was completely completely restored even if it has completed functional or technical restoration for the operation of the engine or body by repairing it.

Therefore, in the event of an accident that causes serious damage to the main structural part of a motor vehicle due to damage to the main structural part of the motor vehicle, it is in accordance with the rule of experience to deem that, even if the repair is technically feasible, there exists no special circumstance, the repair impossible part to restore the motor vehicle to its original state, barring any special circumstance, and thereby, the damage

Supreme Court on May 17, 2017

유사 판례

-인천지방법원 2017.07.19 2017나1714

-수원지방법원 2018.06.21 2017나78247

-대법원 2017.06.29 2016다245197

-대구지방법원 2017.08.30 2017나304121

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.12.11 2019나35253