1. The part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid under the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1. Basic facts

A. (1) On June 9, 2014, the Plaintiff is the Plaintiff’s vehicle for the vehicle for the investment of the Plaintiff, which was first registered, (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s vehicle”).

The Defendant is the owner of the instant vehicle. On June 21, 2015, the Defendant is the Defendant’s Tradro XG Ga that concealed the Plaintiff’s vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant’s vehicle”).

2) On June 21, 2015, the Plaintiff was the insurer who entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with the Plaintiff. (2) On June 21, 2015, the Plaintiff was driving the Plaintiff’s vehicle and was waiting to turn to the left on the road front of the Daegu Northerndong Distribution Complex. The Defendant’s vehicle received the rear part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and caused a drilling accident while the Plaintiff was taking the front part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, due to its shock.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). (b)

1) The Plaintiff’s vehicle exchanged the white language due to the instant accident, and cut and set up each of its members with the upper right line, 3,10,000 won, including the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and 2,845,00 won, and 8,350,000 won, in accordance with the terms and conditions of the automobile insurance, the purchase price of the Plaintiff’s vehicle was 33,10,000 won, the market price of the Plaintiff’s vehicle at the time of the instant accident was 23,80,000,000 won, and the Plaintiff’s vehicle was 23,800,000 won, and there was no accident that occurred prior to the instant accident.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 3, the result of appraisal by an appraiser C at the trial, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. Even if the repair of the damaged part of the Plaintiff’s instant accident is completed, there remain parts that could not be repaired on the Plaintiff’s vehicle or those that could not be restored to its original state, and the Defendant’s driver would reduce the value of the Plaintiff’s vehicle in light of the damaged part and the repair cost.