logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.12.04 2014가단5131099
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 700,511 to Plaintiff W and its related KRW 5% per annum from June 6, 2014 to December 4, 2015; and (b) from the following day.

Reasons

1. The plaintiffs' assertion and judgment

A. The claimed Plaintiffs, as the owner of each motor vehicle indicated in the column for the damaged vehicle in the attached Form List of Accident Details, accepted the vehicle due to the traffic accident by the Defendant insured vehicle (see the circumstances leading up to the accident and the damaged part of the attached Form).

However, the plaintiffs' automobile still remains in the part that it is impossible to restore to its original state even after repair, and the existence of accident power alone causes a severe fall in exchange value, and such damage constitutes ordinary damages caused by traffic accidents.

Therefore, the defendant should pay to the plaintiffs the amount equivalent to the exchange value decline or the price decline of the plaintiffs' vehicle, and the expenses required for the appraisal as compensation for damages.

B. (1) The amount of damages when an article is damaged due to a 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. If it remains impossible to repair it after repair, the reduced value of exchange due to impossibility of repair shall be the normal amount of damages in addition to the cost of repair.

There is an empirical rule that, in addition to the repair cost, a reasonable reduction of exchange value is always followed if acceptance is possible (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Da52889, Nov. 13, 2001).

It can not be said that such damage can normally be predicted.

(2) In the case of this case, a vehicle appraisal report prepared by a vehicle professional engineer at the request of the plaintiffs (hereinafter “the plaintiff’s submission appraisal report”) is deemed as having satisfied the plaintiffs’ assertion, but the contents of the above evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings are as follows.

arrow