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.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of the BS-W vehicle (hereinafter “instant damaged vehicle”), and the Defendant is the insurer who concluded the automobile insurance contract with respect to the CMW vehicle (hereinafter “instant damaged vehicle”).

B. On January 2, 2015, around 08:52, the driver of the instant sea-going vehicle, in violation of the signal from the shooting distance at the aero-high school of the Sungsung-si Office, which is located in the Sungsung-si, Seosung-si, the driver of the instant sea-going vehicle, caused the affected vehicle, which was proceeding on the left side from the right side of the instant sea-going vehicle to shock the right side of the instant sea-going vehicle on its front side.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). C.

In relation to the instant accident, the Defendant paid KRW 8,875,800, rental fee of KRW 3,000,000, etc.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1-3, 6, 7 evidence, Eul 1 and 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., even after repair is reduced compared to the non-accidentd vehicle, and it cannot be completely restored to the previous accident. Due to the history of the accident, the price of the instant damaged vehicle may decline in the middle and high-class market. As such, the Plaintiff suffered a loss due to the decline in the value of the instant damaged vehicle due to the instant accident, the Defendant, as the insurer of the instant damaged vehicle, is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the sum of KRW 4,188,640, and KRW 330,518,640,000, the cost of issuing the appraisal statement.

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 Decided February 11, 1992