(영문) 인천지방법원 2017.05.30 2016나52647

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) 인천지방법원 2017.05.30 2016나52647

손해배상(자)

Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to pay below shall be revoked.

The defendant.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of the BM5 vehicle (hereinafter “instant damaged vehicle”), and the Defendant is the insurer who entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to D vehicles owned by C (hereinafter “instant damaged vehicle”).

B. C, around 11:30 on June 27, 2015, around 2011:30, while driving the instant sea-going vehicle at the front of 2Km (2KK) around 11:30: (a) the previous vehicle was negligent in neglecting the front-way gate and by negligence in failure to secure the safety distance; and (b) the rear of the instant damaged vehicle was shocked.

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

The Defendant calculated up to 15% of the repair cost as compensation for damages related to the instant accident, and paid KRW 834,070 to the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant damaged vehicle caused the instant accident is highly shocked and the strength, durability, etc. of the instant damaged vehicle was reduced even after repair, and it cannot be completely restored to the previous accident. Due to the history of the accident, the price of the instant damaged vehicle would decline in the middle and high-class market. As such, the Plaintiff was liable to pay KRW 4,840,000 to the Plaintiff as the insurer of the instant damaged vehicle, on the ground that the Plaintiff suffered a decline in the value of the instant damaged vehicle due to the instant accident.

3. Determination

A. When an article was 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 the amount of decrease in exchange value due to impossibility of repair shall also be the amount of decrease in repair if it remains after repair.

Supreme Court Decision 91Da28719 delivered on February 11, 1992 and Supreme Court Decision 13 November 13, 2001

유사 판례

-대전지방법원공주지원청양군법원 2019.08.21 2019가단16

-인천지방법원 2017.05.30 2016나53596

-부산지방법원 2015.09.10 2014나20698

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.12.11 2019나35253

-대법원 2018.06.12 2017다213258