beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiffs falling under the following order of payment shall be revoked.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. Plaintiff A is the owner of the E vehicle (nbrid, hereinafter “Plaintiff A”), the Plaintiff B is the F vehicle (SES30h, hereinafter “Plaintiff B vehicle”), the Plaintiff C is the owner of the G vehicle (dibane sports 2.0D, hereinafter “Plaintiff C”), and the Plaintiff is the owner of the Plaintiff’s vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”).
B. The defendant is as follows.
As seen in this subsection, the insurer is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to each of the collisions between the plaintiffs' vehicles.
C. On November 13, 2018, a traffic accident in which the Defendant used to drive under the influence of alcohol on or around 02:50 (hereinafter “instant accident”). On December 29, 2018, a traffic accident in which the Defendant used to drive under the influence of alcohol on or around 02:20, the Defendant used to drive under the influence of alcohol (hereinafter “instant accident”). A traffic accident in which the Defendant used to drive under the influence of alcohol on or around 16:35, a traffic accident in which the Plaintiff used to drive under the influence of alcohol on or around 2018 (hereinafter “instant accident”). A traffic accident in which the Defendant used to drive under the influence of alcohol on or around 16:35, 2019 (hereinafter “instant accident”) led to the occurrence of each of the instant accidents.
The Defendant paid KRW 740,100 to Plaintiff A to compensate for the decrease in the exchange value of Plaintiff A, and paid KRW 775,200 to Plaintiff B to compensate for the decrease in exchange value of Plaintiff B.
[Ground for Recognition: Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 through 3 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply)
(2) Each entry and the purport of the whole pleading
2. The gist of the plaintiffs' assertion that the vehicles suffered significant damage, such as damage to the main structural part due to each of the accidents in this case, and since the parts that were technically feasible repair but are not able to restore to original state remain, the vehicles of the defendant are the sea-going vehicles.