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.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of the Plaintiff’s new learning vehicle B (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s vehicle”), and the Defendant is the insurer who entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to the C AW vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. On November 10, 2014, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was concealed on the Defendant’s vehicle while driving the central shooting distance in Ansan-si, Nowon-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City on November 16:31.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). C.

After the accident of this case, the Plaintiff’s vehicle repair business was repaired in Bankk, Co., Ltd., and the Defendant paid KRW 2,009,800 as insurance money for the total amount of damages, such as vehicle repair costs and sirens.

Plaintiff

The main repair content of the vehicle is the exchange of the next panel, the next set of members with a set-off between the next left-hand side, the exchange of the back set-up one, the second set-up one, the right side set-up one, and the exchange of the set-up floor panel.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 4, Eul evidence 1 to 1, or the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion of this case led to a fall in the value of the plaintiff's vehicle to be exchanged. Since this falls under ordinary damages, the defendant is obligated to pay the amount equivalent to the exchange value decline and the expenses required for appraisal as compensation for damages.

3. Determination

A. The amount of damages when the goods were damaged due to a tort shall be the cost of repair if it is possible to repair them, and, if it is impossible to repair them, the reduced exchange value shall be the ordinary amount of damages. If part of the goods are not repaired after repair, the reduced exchange value shall be the amount of damages, and if it remains impossible to repair them, the reduced exchange value due to impossibility

However, there is an empirical rule that, in addition to the repair cost, there is a decrease in a reasonable exchange value whenever it is possible to accept (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 91Da28719, Feb. 11, 1992; 2001Da52889, Nov. 13, 2001).

(b).