beta
Text
1. A’s vehicle B driven on May 28, 2014 is the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) related to the accident in which the vehicle C was concealed on May 28, 2014.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. A, around 11:30 on May 28, 2014, driven a B vehicle on the road located in the Taenam-si, Sungnam-si, and concealed a C vehicle prior to the passage of the road located in the Taenam-si.
(hereinafter “instant accident”). (b)
The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with A and B, and the Defendant is the owner of C Vehicle (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant Vehicle”).
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1, purport of whole pleadings
2. Assertion and determination
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Defendant’s vehicle was entirely restored to its original state due to the completion of its repair, and the degree of its damage is unfilled, and the Defendant’s damage to the automobile fall under the instant accident (hereinafter “feasible damage”).
(2) Even after the repair of the instant accident, the Defendant’s vehicle is liable to compensate the Defendant for the said damages, as the price of the Defendant’s vehicle has decreased by KRW 15 million.
B. 1) In a case where an article was destroyed by a tort, the amount of damages would be the cost of repair if it is possible to repair, and if it is impossible to repair it, the exchange value decrease would be the ordinary damages. In addition, in a case where a part of repair is remaining after repair, the exchange value decrease due to the impossibility of repair, in addition to the repair cost, constitutes ordinary damages (see Supreme Court Decisions 91Da28719, Feb. 11, 1992; 2001Da52889, Nov. 13, 2001). 2) In order to recognize the existence of a loss due to the instant accident as alleged by the Defendant, such as the Defendant’s assertion, it should be proven that there was a part of repair impossible even after repair. In full view of all the evidence submitted by the Defendant, it is insufficient to acknowledge this, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge
Rather, in full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by Gap evidence Nos. 8 and 9, the defendant suffered loss of 15 million won due to the instant accident.