1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The grounds for this part of the facts of recognition are the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that the damage equivalent to KRW 62,230,00 of the repair cost due to the damage of the unmanned recipient due to the accident of this case, and KRW 10,241,210 of the replacement cost was incurred.

The defendant asserts that the cost of repair due to the damage of the unmanned receipt machine of this case is reasonable.

B. Determination 1) Generally, damages caused by a tort shall be deemed ordinary damages in light of the following circumstances, namely, the market price at the time of the destruction when the article was destroyed; the cost of repair or restoration when it is possible to repair or restore the article to its original state if it is impossible to repair or restore it to its original state, or where the cost of repair or restoration is excessive (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Da38233, Jan. 23, 196). In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the part reduced in exchange value due to the damage shall be deemed as the health class, Gap’s 1 through 5, 7, 10, 11, 15, 16, and Eul’s evidence No. 3 as a whole, and the entire purport of the pleadings at the first instance trial witness C’s testimony.

(3) On December 2013, 2013, its repair was made and supplied to the Plaintiff, and its repair was possible only in the Edi system; ② Edi system calculated its repair cost of the instant unmanned recipient KRW 62,230,00; ③ it was impossible for the Defendant to install and repair the destroyed unmanned recipient to normally operate the destroyed unmanned recipient; ③ Professional Engineer D assessed its repair cost of KRW 34,812,635, which did not consider depreciation, etc. from No. 3, but the said report on the assessment of machinery and equipment was made at the Defendant’s request.