beta
Text
1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked;
2. The plaintiffs' claims against the above revocation portion are individually accepted.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Defendant is an insurer who has concluded each comprehensive motor vehicle insurance with respect to C (hereinafter “Arrith vehicle 1”) and numberless vehicles not exceeding D (hereinafter “Arrith vehicle 2”).
B. 1) On November 9, 2013, Plaintiff A is an ES3 passenger car owned by oneself (hereinafter “Plaintiff A”) around 17:30 on November 9, 2013.
2) While driving the vehicle and driving the vehicle and driving it, he was scamed by 1 of the Gadi-gu Gadi-dong Gadi-dong Gadi-dong Gadi-dong Gadi (hereinafter “1 accident”).
2) The Plaintiff A suffered damages equivalent to KRW 5,765,870 in repairing costs, such as the forward left-hand gate exchange, Raditer exchange, Raditer exchange, forward left-hand gate exchange, and forward left-hand gate exchange, raditer exchange, etc. due to the Plaintiff A’s accident.
C. 1) On March 16, 2011, Plaintiff B is the F rocketing car owned by oneself (hereinafter “Plaintiff B”) around 20:20 on March 16, 201.
(ii) while driving a vehicle and driving a horse in the G in the two weeks, it was inferred by two Libers (hereinafter referred to as "second accident").
2) The Plaintiff B’s vehicle suffered damages equivalent to KRW 1,957,940, for repair costs, such as the exchange of pans, the between trokes, the trokes, the trokes of the panel, the subsequent left-hand pents exchange, the next left-hand pents exchange, the next left-hand pents, the left-hand Ribs of trokes, and the troke floor floor panel fees.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 4, and 5 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The plaintiffs' assertion reduced the value of the vehicle to be exchanged due to the above accident. This falls under ordinary damages, or even if damages were due to special circumstances, since the perpetrator knew or could have known of such damages, the defendant, the insurance company of the sea-going vehicle, is obliged to pay as damages compensation the amount equivalent to the decrease in the exchange value.
3. Determination
A. The amount of damages when the goods are damaged due to the tort shall be repaired.