1. On May 8, 2015, around 7:10, the E-vehicle and the Defendant driving on the frontway in the Seo-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City B market.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an insurance company that entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with D and E automobiles.

B. D is driving the said car on May 8, 2015, at around 7:10, the insurance period of the said insurance contract, at the front of the Gwangju Seo-gu B market.

In addition, there was an accident of shocking the front left-hand wheels of the FF Cargo Vehicles owned by the Defendant, which was Maju by the negligence of the course of the central line, and the front left-hand of the damaged vehicle (hereinafter “the damaged vehicle”).

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

The cost required for repairing the above cargo vehicle due to the above accident is KRW 377,780.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 6, purport of the whole pleadings

2. On the other hand, the Defendant asserts that the damaged vehicle is a new car that had not been released from the factory at the time of the instant accident, and therefore, as such, the damage resulting from the decline in the market price due to the instant accident, the Defendant should receive compensation from the Plaintiff in addition to the above repair cost.

In order to recognize the market price decline damage claimed by the Defendant, if part of the damaged vehicle remains unrepairable even after repair, which could be assessed as ordinary damages, or if the market price decline damage occurred even after completion of repair, it should have been known or could have known that the Plaintiff or D, the perpetrator, knew or could have known of it as special damages. As to whether the damaged vehicle in this case was unable to repair, there is no evidence to acknowledge it, and as to whether the Plaintiff or D knew or could have known the market price decline, it is small amount of repairing cost even if the damaged vehicle in this case was a new car, and it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff or D knew or could have known that the damaged vehicle in this case knew or could have known it with respect to the damaged vehicle in this case, in light of the degree of damage of the damaged vehicle in this case, which can be recognized by the images as evidence No. 3.