1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The Plaintiff is the owner of the Plaintiff’s vehicle B (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s vehicle”), and the Defendant is the insurer who entered into an automobile insurance contract concerning the Defendant’s vehicle C (hereinafter “Defendant’s vehicle”).

On February 5, 2016, the driver of the Defendant vehicle driving the Defendant vehicle on February 14:00, and was negligent in neglecting the duty of the front-time care in the vicinity of the Croop Station in Seongbuk-gu Seoul, Seongbuk-gu, Seoul, and caused the shock of the left side of the Plaintiff vehicle to be the Defendant vehicle.

As a result of the above accident, the plaintiff's left-hand lag, the left-hand lag, the left-hand lag, etc. has been damaged, and the defendant paid the insurance money of KRW 5,984,00 at its repair cost.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 3 through 5, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff’s vehicle is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages for the total amount of KRW 4,518,350, and KRW 4,518,350, as damages incurred due to price decline, on the ground that it is impossible to repair the Plaintiff’s vehicle to restore to its original state due to the occurrence of a large shock phenomenon in the instant accident, and the damage and corrosion occurred in the course of a melting on the part of the damaged part, such as damage and corrosion caused by a structural transformation of steel.

3. Determination

A. Where an article is damaged due to a tort, the damage can be repaired, the cost of repair, if the repair is impossible, the decrease in the exchange value would normally be the damage, and where the repair is possible, the damage resulting from a decline in exchange value, in addition to the cost of repair, constitutes a special damage.

(Supreme Court Decision 2012Da115298 Decided December 11, 2014, etc.) B.

Plaintiff

Even after the repair of the vehicle as seen earlier, as to whether there remain parts impossible to repair or there is a decrease in the value of the Plaintiff’s vehicle’s exchange, the entry of the evidence No. 6 alone shall be deemed as follows.