1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the Defendants exceeding the money ordered to be paid under the following subparagraphs shall be revoked.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except in the following cases: (a) No. 5 of the judgment of the court of first instance and No. 8 of the judgment of the court of first instance; and (b) such reasoning is cited pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420

The Plaintiff asserts that, even after completion of repair due to the instant accident, the Plaintiff is jointly liable for damages to the Plaintiff, Defendant A and the Defendant insurance company, which is the perpetrator, because it constitutes ordinary damages or the occurrence thereof sufficiently foreseeable. The amount of damages when a tort is damaged shall be the cost of repair if it can be repaired, and if it is impossible to repair it, the amount of reduced value shall be the ordinary amount of damages. If it remains impossible to repair it, other than the cost of repair, the reduced value of exchange due to an impossible repair remains ordinarily (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 91Da28719, Feb. 11, 1992; 201Da5289, Nov. 13, 201; 201. In addition, the amount of damages can not be determined by the empirical rule 15, including the reduced value of repairs (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 91Da28719, Feb. 11, 2002; 201Da12814, Nov. 13, 2014).