(a) Where a motor vehicle is destroyed to an extent that it is scrapped due to an illegal act within 45 days from the date of shipment, the method of calculating the amount of damages and whether acquisition tax and insurance premiums paid when the motor vehicle is purchased (negative);

(b) Method of calculating the second or second exchange price;

(c) In the case of the above "A", the case holding that the judgment below which recognized the exchange price of the second class vehicle at the time of the accident according to the second class set forth in the middle and second class set forth in the list of the three kinds of motor vehicles which indicate the second class price at the time of the accident for more than two months from the date of the accident and recognized the exchange price of the second class vehicle at the time of the accident

(d) In cases where a motor vehicle is destroyed to the extent that it is impossible to repair it due to a tort, whether it is possible to claim compensation for rent for the substitute in addition to the reduced exchange price (negative)

(e) In cases where a victim who has run a business using a motor vehicle scraps the motor vehicle for his/her tort and rents his/her motor vehicle to another motor vehicle along with a driver while hospitalized treatment, whether the part corresponding to the wages of the driver out of the substitute costs constitutes ordinary damages (affirmative);

A. Where a motor vehicle is damaged to the extent that it is scrapped due to another person's illegal act, the amount of compensation is reduced, and even if 450,000 days have passed from the date of release of the motor vehicle, it is reasonable to calculate the amount of compensation in accordance with the above legal principles. Therefore, the method of calculating the amount of compensation must be the method of deducting the amount of scrapping from the exchange price at the time of the accident. When assessing the above exchange price, acquisition tax and insurance premium paid by the victim while purchasing the motor vehicle shall

(b) Where a secondhand car is damaged by another person's tort, the exchange price as at the time of the accident shall, in principle, be determined by the value required for acquiring the vehicle in the middlehand market, such as the same type of vehicle, age, shape, the same degree of use, and odometer.

(c) In the case of paragraph (a) above, the case holding that the judgment below which recognized the exchange price of the middle and high-class vehicle at the time of the accident as follows: the victim did not present the data on the second and second high-class exchange price while collecting only the compensation for the new purchase price, indicating the second and second high-class vehicle price more than two months from the date of the accident; and the vehicle was divided into three types according to the date of the release of the vehicle; and that there was an error in the rules of evidence and the failure to exercise the right to use the name of the second and second-class vehicle at the time of the accident

D. In case where a tort is destroyed and damaged and thus the exchange price is compensated, the price includes the benefits that can be gained by using the relevant goods in an ordinary way. This is the same as in case where a motor vehicle damages to the extent that it is impossible to repair and compensates for the reduced exchange price. However, the benefits that can be gained by ordinarily using and earning from a motor vehicle are equivalent to the rent, and thus the rent for the substitute is not separately claimed in addition to the reduced exchange price.

E. In a case where a victim who has run a business using a motor vehicle scrapped the motor vehicle by another person's illegal act and operated the motor vehicle with another driver while hospitalized treatment is conducted, the part corresponding to the driver's wage out of the substitute cost is an ordinary loss in proximate causal relation with the tort, as it is not related to the ordinary profit from the use and benefit of the motor vehicle.

(e) Articles 763 and 393(c) of the Civil Act; Articles 126 and 187 of the Civil Procedure Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 81Da8 delivered on June 22, 1982 (Gong1982,680). D. Supreme Court Decision 88Meu28518 delivered on January 12, 1990 (Gong1990,460) (Gong1990,1958 delivered on August 14, 1990) (Gong1990,1958 delivered on August 28, 1990). Supreme Court Decision 88Meu3085 delivered on October 16, 1990 (Gong1990,2011)

Plaintiff

Defendant

Msan District Court Decision 90Na1094 delivered on December 14, 1990

The case shall be remanded to the Masan District Court Panel Division by destroying the part against the plaintiff among the original judgment.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

If a motor vehicle is damaged to the extent that it is scrapped due to other person's illegal act, the amount of compensation is reduced (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 70Da2745, Feb. 9, 1971; Supreme Court Decision 71Da5444, May 24, 1971; Supreme Court Decision 81Da8, Jun. 22, 1982). Even if the motor vehicle was involved in the accident in this case at 450,000,000, the amount of compensation should be calculated in accordance with the above legal principles. Thus, it is proper that the court below selected the method of deducting the amount of compensation from the exchange price at the time of the accident by calculating the amount of compensation for the motor vehicle in this case, and there is no reason for this part of the argument that the plaintiff paid acquisition tax and insurance premiums when evaluating the above exchange price.

However, in principle, the exchange price at the time of the accident is determined as the price required for acquiring a vehicle in the middle and high-speed market, such as the same type of the vehicle, annual type, type, condition of use as well as mileage as that at the time of the accident. The court below acknowledged the authenticity of the second high-speed sheet (No. 2) submitted by the defendant as the whole for the pleading, and found the first 4,500,000 won in the same document as at the time of the accident of this case as at the time of the first 88, because the first 6th 198,000 won in the same condition as at the time of the accident of this case, the second 3th 4th 198,000 won in the same way as at the time of the accident of this case (see, e.g., the second 1th 1th 2th 1,000 in the exchange price of this case) and the second 1th 4th 1st 198,000 of the present 1th 1.

Therefore, the court below acknowledged the exchange price at the time of the accident of the vehicle in this case as evidence without evidence and found it to be unlawful that affected the conclusion of the judgment. In addition, the court below held that the plaintiff claimed the purchase price of the vehicle in this case as the compensation amount and stated the above documentary evidence in the above documentary evidence, and it did not recognize the exchange price at the time of the accident of the vehicle in this case, but did not have the right to ask the plaintiff to prove it, and therefore,

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

When compensating for the exchange price due to the destruction of an object by a tort, the price includes a benefit that can be gained by using and earning from the relevant object in a normal way (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 80Da1840, Dec. 9, 1980; 88Meu3085, Aug. 28, 1990; 90Meu20210, Oct. 16, 1990); and the same applies in cases where a motor vehicle is destroyed to the extent that it is impossible to repair and compensate for the reduced exchange price. The benefit that can be gained by ordinarily using and earning a motor vehicle is equivalent to the rent, and therefore, the plaintiff cannot claim the substitute rent in addition to the reduced exchange price.

Ultimately, the court below cited part of the Plaintiff’s claim for rent for substitute use, which led to the misunderstanding of legal principles as to the scope of compensation for damages in a case where a motor vehicle is destroyed to the extent that it is impossible to repair due to a tort, and thus, the Plaintiff is not liable to appeal the remainder of the claim even if not accepted. Therefore, it is without merit

3. As to the third ground for appeal

According to the evidence revealed by the court below, the plaintiff was engaged in newspaper transport business using the above vehicle at the time of the accident in this case, and it can be recognized that the plaintiff was dismissed from the accident in this case, and that he was employed by the non-party 1 as the driver of the above vehicle. According to the evidence No. 3-10, 11, and 12 (written statement on the occurrence of each traffic accident) and evidence No. 10 (written confirmation) which was not rejected by the court below, the non-party 1 was admitted to have received hospitalized treatment for 17 days from the date of the accident due to slots, etc. due to the accident in this case, and according to the statements No. 8 (Receipt) and the testimony of witness No. 1 of the court of first instance who was not rejected by the court below, the plaintiff was unable to conduct the above business due to the accident in this case, and it was 32 days from February 20, 198 to March 28, 198.

Therefore, the portion of the car rent corresponding to the car rent is corresponding to the ordinary profits arising from the use of and benefit from the instant vehicle as seen above, and even if it is not separately claimed, the part corresponding to the car driver's wage (the plaintiff claims the amount corresponding to the driver's wage of Nonparty 1, who is his own driver in the ground of appeal) shall be deemed to be ordinary damages in proximate causal relation with the tort of this case, because it is not completely unrelated to this, and thus, the court below rejected the plaintiff's claim equivalent to the driver's wage on the ground that the driver's wage was not disbursed due to the accident of this case. The court below rejected the plaintiff's claim for the damages corresponding to the driver's wage of this case, without making a decision on the evidence supporting the plaintiff's claim, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. Therefore, it is with merit

4. As to the fourth ground for appeal

Since the plaintiff collected the payment of the purchase price and the rent for the substitute from the time of the lawsuit of this case, that is, the amount of damages that can not be paid from the time of the lawsuit of this case, the defendant has no illegality, such as the theory of the lawsuit, that the court below maintained the judgment of the court of first instance at the rate of five percent per annum from the date of the judgment of the court below, as it is deemed reasonable to dispute about the above amount of damages.

5. Accordingly, the part against the plaintiff among the original judgment shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yoon Young-young (Presiding Justice)