1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part shall be dismissed.

1. The following facts may be found either in dispute between the parties or in combination with the whole purport of the pleadings in each entry in Gap evidence 1 to 6:

B, around 21:55 on July 30, 2015, when driving a C vehicle and installing a signal apparatus in the area of Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan City, the vehicle attempted to pass through the intersection in violation of the signal apparatus’s signal signal. However, with the said vehicle, the part of the D vehicle owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant vehicle”) operated by the Plaintiff was concealed by the said vehicle.

(hereinafter “instant traffic accident”). B.

The defendant is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to vehicles C.

C. After the occurrence of the instant traffic accident, the Plaintiff repaired the instant vehicle with the Defendant’s payment guarantee, and the Defendant paid KRW 7,411,880 in total to the repair company, parts, etc. with respect to the said repair costs, parts, etc.

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff is obliged to pay to the Plaintiff the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 4,254,076 equivalent to the amount of the exchange value reduction, as well as the delay damages therefrom, since the Plaintiff incurred losses due to low-income forests, noise, function and aesthetic impairment, durability reduction, the period of use reduction, the reduction of the period of use, and the remaining accident power even after the completion of repair.

B. The amount of damages when the goods were damaged due to a tort shall be the cost of repair if it is possible to repair them, and if it is impossible to repair them, the amount of reduced exchange value shall be the normal amount of damages. If parts are remaining after repair, the amount of reduced exchange value due to impossibility of repair shall be the normal amount of damages (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Da52889, Nov. 13, 2001). However, if repair is possible, the amount of reduced exchange value due to impossibility of repair shall be the normal amount of damages.