Of the judgment of the first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the amount ordered to be paid below shall be revoked, and such revocation shall be revoked.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of CCo or character motor vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicle”), and the Defendant is the insurer who entered into an automobile insurance contract for D motor vehicles (hereinafter “Defendant”).

B. On November 24, 2018, the Defendant’s vehicle driven the F Kap in front of the F Kap, which is located in Gyeonggi-si E around 08:40, in both sides of the roof gate and the two sides of the two sides, resulting in an event of a collision between the two sides of the Plaintiff’s vehicle running across the central line and the two sides of the opposite direction (hereinafter “instant accident”).

The Defendant recognized the fault ratio of the Defendant’s vehicle as 100%, and paid insurance proceeds of KRW 28,509,590 at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, KRW 159,090, and KRW 2,846,030.

[Grounds for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 9, Eul evidence No. 2 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) The accident of this case caused the plaintiff's assertion that the part where it is impossible to repair the plaintiff's vehicle even after completion of technically possible repairs due to serious damage, such as major structural damage, etc., which caused the plaintiff's failure to restore to its original state. As a result, the damage caused by the price decline in the motor vehicle (the so-called "accident damage"), the defendant is obliged to pay the plaintiff KRW 7,880,000 as compensation for the loss caused by the plaintiff's car's shooting.

2) The Defendant’s alleged vehicle is merely a claim for excessive repair costs due to the characteristics of the previous vehicle, and it does not constitute a case where the part that was impossible to repair due to serious damage, such as destruction of the structural part, etc.

In addition, even if one repair is remaining, it should be limited to the amount of damages claimed by the plaintiff due to the damaged parts of the plaintiff's vehicle, the degree of the damage caused by the vehicle type, etc.

B. The relevant legal principles are applicable to the occurrence of liability for damages caused by the decline in exchange value.