(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.11.24 2016나34303

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.11.24 2016나34303

손해배상 청구의 소

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Defendant is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to A vehicles owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “victims”) and B vehicles (hereinafter “victims”).

B. On January 8, 2015, around 13:45, a sea-going vehicle entered the alley road near Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government into the one-lane road, and neglected the duty of front-time care, and led to a shocking part of the left-hand side of the damaged vehicle normally driving along the said road, by neglecting its duty of front-time care.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). C.

As a result of the instant accident, the lower court paid KRW 9,543,000 as insurance proceeds under the name of the repair cost, on February 12, 2015.

[Reasons for Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 5, 9 through 11 (including each number), Eul evidence 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. The plaintiff alleged that the main structural part of the damaged vehicle was damaged due to the accident in this case caused by the error of the damaged vehicle, and caused the loss to fall in the value of the exchange of the damaged vehicle, and thus, the defendant who entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to the damaged vehicle is obligated to compensate for the loss caused by the decline in the market price of the damaged vehicle, and even if not, to pay the insurance money due to the decline in market price as stipulated in the above comprehensive automobile insurance clause.

B. (1) Determination is based on the following: (a) the amount of damages when the ownership was damaged due to a tort shall be the repair cost if it is possible to repair it; and (b) the amount of reduced exchange value shall be the normal amount of damages if it is impossible to repair it.

Even after repair remains, the reduced value of exchange due to the impossibility of repair in addition to the repair cost shall also fall under ordinary damages. However, Supreme Court Decision 12 dated Feb. 11, 1992

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.04.28 2015나21447

-전주지방법원 2019.08.23 2018나3727

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.06.23 2015나60404

-의정부지방법원 2016.04.22 2015나57585

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.10.24 2019나22721