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

2...

Basic Facts

The Plaintiff is the owner of K3 Passenger Vehicles (the first registration date, April 21, 2015; hereinafter “Plaintiff Vehicle”) and the Defendant is the insurer who entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”) with respect to the vehicle C (hereinafter “Defendant Vehicle”).

On September 20, 2015, the driver of the Defendant vehicle neglected the duty of front-time watching around 11:34 on September 20, 2015, and the driver of the Defendant vehicle shocked the front part of the Defendant vehicle.

(hereinafter “instant traffic accident”). The terms and conditions of the instant insurance contract provide that, in cases where the cost of repairing a motor vehicle due to an accident (limited to a motor vehicle not exceeding two years after its departure) exceeds 20% of the value of the motor vehicle immediately preceding its release, 15% of the cost of repairing a motor vehicle shall be paid, and 10% of the cost of repairing a motor vehicle between one year and two years after its release shall be paid.

The repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle incurred due to the instant traffic accident is KRW 2,896,300, and the Defendant paid KRW 434,400, which is 15% of the repair cost based on the said terms and conditions, to the Plaintiff on October 14, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] The plaintiff's assertion as to the ground of claim as to Gap's evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 2, Eul evidence No. 2, and the ground of claim as to the purport of the whole pleadings, the plaintiff asserts that since the value of the plaintiff's vehicle's replacement has fallen in KRW 2,020,00 due to the traffic accident in this case, the defendant

The amount of damages when the property owned by the relevant law is damaged due to the tort shall be the cost of repair if it is possible to repair it, and if it is impossible to repair it, the reduced value of exchange shall be the normal amount of damages.

In cases where part of repair remains even after repair, the reduced value of exchange due to the impossibility of repair in addition to the repair cost shall be deemed to fall under ordinary damages, or Supreme Court Decision 200 delivered on February 11, 192.