[1] In a case where a portion of goods damaged by a tort remains even after repair, whether the reduced value of exchange due to a impossibility of repair in addition to repair costs constitutes ordinary damages (affirmative)

[2] In the event of an accident causing serious damage to the main structural part of a motor vehicle due to damage, etc. to the main structural part of the motor vehicle, whether it should be deemed that there exist remaining parts that could not be repaired even after the completion of the technically possible repair (affirmative in principle), and whether the damage to the price decline in the motor vehicle caused by this constitutes ordinary damages (affirmative)

[1] When an article is damaged due to a tort, the amount of ordinary damages shall be reduced if it can be repaired, the amount of repair cost, if it is impossible to repair, and the amount of exchange value shall be reduced if part of repair is not possible after repair. In addition, the amount of exchange value reduced due to impossibility of repair shall also constitute ordinary damages.

[2] In the event of an accident causing serious damage due to the destruction of a major structural frame of a motor vehicle, etc., deeming that even if the completion of a technically possible repair remains, barring any special circumstance, it would be in conformity with the empirical rule to deem that there exists a repair impossible part, which would not be restored to the original state, barring any special circumstance. In this case, whether an accident causing serious damage to the extent that the potential disability remains, such as the circumstance and degree of the accident, degree of the damage, degree and seriousness, method of repairing the motor vehicle, the annual formula and mileage of the motor vehicle, the ratio of the repair cost to the value of the motor vehicle at the time of the accident, whether there was acceptance of the degree to be recorded in the inspection register of the performance and condition of a used motor vehicle, shall be determined objectively and reasonably in accordance with the generally accepted transaction concept and empirical rule, and the party asserting that the accident is a serious damage, must be asserted and proved by the party.

[1] Articles 393, 750, and 763 of the Civil Act / [2] Articles 393, 750, and 763 of the Civil Act; Article 288 of the Civil Procedure Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 91Da28719 delivered on February 11, 1992 (Gong1992Sang, 996) Supreme Court Decision 2001Da52889 delivered on November 13, 2001 (Gong2002Sang, 47)

Non-School Grant events (Law Firm Multi-Rate, Attorneys Yellow-bo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Hyundai Marine Fire Insurance Co., Ltd. and one other (Law Firm Inn & Law Firm, Attorneys Gyeong-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Changwon District Court Decision 2015Na36710 decided August 24, 2016

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Changwon District Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. In a case where an article was damaged due to a tort, the amount of ordinary damages shall be determined by the cost of repair if it is possible to repair it; where it is impossible to repair it, the exchange value shall be reduced if it is impossible to repair it; and where part of it remains impossible to repair it even after repair it constitutes ordinary damages (see Supreme Court Decisions 91Da28719, Feb. 11, 1992; 2001Da52889, Nov. 13, 2001).

Meanwhile, in the event that an automobile accident causes serious damage to the engine or the main structural frame of the vehicle, etc., the repair and completion of functional and technical restoration for the operation of the vehicle, even if it is difficult to view that the automobile has completely restored to its original condition. The degree of the accident, the damaged part, etc., may lead to a situation where it is difficult to deem that the automobile buyer completely restored to its original condition. In accordance with the degree of the accident and the damaged part, there is a decline in internal corrosion to the stability or corrosion that absorbs and absorbs the external shock or corrosion, and there is a possibility that the vehicle accident is reduced due to the decline of the strength of the vehicle, the deterioration of the repair part, the generation of noise and vibration, etc., or the remaining and locked defect or disability. In the Automobile Management Act, where an automobile dealer sells or arranges the sale and purchase of the relevant vehicle, an automobile dealer shall be notified in writing to the buyer of the relevant vehicle, and the details of inspection of the performance and condition of the structure, devices, etc. (Article 58(1) of the Motor Vehicle Management Act).

Therefore, in the event of an accident causing serious damage to the main structural part of a motor vehicle due to the destruction of the main structural part of the motor vehicle, barring any special circumstance, deeming the repair impossible parts, even if technically feasible repair is completed, to remain in accordance with the empirical rule, barring any special circumstance, and thus, the damage caused by the decline in the motor vehicle price should be deemed as ordinary damages. In such a case, whether it constitutes an accident causing serious damage to the degree of the potential disability, such as the circumstance and degree of the accident, the damaged parts and seriousness, the repair method, the annual formula and mileage of the motor vehicle, the ratio of the repair cost to the value of the motor vehicle at the time of the accident, whether there was an acceptance of the degree to be recorded in the register of the performance and condition of a used motor vehicle, shall be determined objectively and reasonably in accordance with the transaction concept and empirical rule, and it shall be asserted and proved by the party asserting that it is a serious damage.

2. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court rejected the Plaintiff’s claim for damages due to a decline in the exchange value, on the grounds as stated in its reasoning, on the following grounds: (a) it is difficult to repair the Plaintiff’s vehicle even after repair due to the instant accident; or (b) there is no evidence to prove that there was any damage

However, the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record reveals the following: (a) the Plaintiff’s vehicle caused the instant accident after the lapse of about two years after its new registration on June 1, 2012; (b) the Plaintiff’s vehicle’s market price at the time of the accident was approximately KRW 145,00,000; and (c) the Plaintiff’s vehicle was severely damaged by the instant accident; (b) the Plaintiff’s vehicle was ordered and repaired a new part due to a defect in the existing part as a result of the trial run after repair; and (c) the history of the instant accident falls under the subject matter of the inspection of the performance and condition of a used vehicle; and (d) the Plaintiff’s vehicle was paid KRW 22,00,000 at the repair cost.

Examining these facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff’s vehicle suffered significant damage to the extent that it is impossible to completely restore the Plaintiff’s vehicle to its original state even after physical and technical repair is possible due to the instant accident, considering the annual corrosion, degree, and amount of expenses incurred in repairing the Plaintiff’s vehicle, etc. In light of the foregoing legal principles, if the damage to the Plaintiff’s vehicle caused the decrease in exchange value due to the impossibility of recovery, it shall be included in ordinary

Nevertheless, the lower court rejected the Plaintiff’s claim for damages against a decline in the exchange value solely based on its stated reasoning. In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on a decline in the exchange value of automobiles and the scope of damages, thereby failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The allegation contained in

3. The judgment of the court below is reversed without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, and the case is remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kwon Soon-il (Presiding Justice)