[1] In a case where a portion of goods damaged by a tort remains even after repair, whether the reduced value of exchange due to a impossibility of repair in addition to repair costs constitutes ordinary damages (affirmative)

[2] In the event of an accident causing serious damage to the main structural part of a motor vehicle due to damage, etc. to the main structural part of the motor vehicle, whether it should be deemed that there exist remaining parts that could not be repaired even after the completion of the technically possible repair (affirmative in principle), and whether the damage to the price decline in the motor vehicle caused by this constitutes ordinary damages (affirmative)

[1] Articles 393, 750, and 763 of the Civil Act / [2] Articles 393, 750, and 763 of the Civil Act; Article 288 of the Civil Procedure Act

[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 2016Da248806 Decided May 17, 2017 (Gong2017Sang, 1253) / [1] Supreme Court Decision 91Da28719 Decided February 11, 1992 (Gong1992Sang, 96) Supreme Court Decision 2001Da52889 Decided November 13, 2001 (Gong2002Sang, 47)

Plaintiff

Dongbu Fire and Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Ratee, Attorneys Kim Sun-ray et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Chuncheon District Court Decision 2015Na5075 Decided July 22, 2016

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Chuncheon District Court Panel Division.

1. In a case where an article was damaged due to a tort, the amount of ordinary damages shall be determined by the cost of repair if it is possible to repair the article; in a case where the repair is impossible, the exchange value shall be reduced; and in a case where a part of the repair is remaining after repair, the exchange value shall be reduced due to the impossibility of repair in addition to the repair cost (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 91Da28719, Feb. 11, 1992; 2001Da52889, Nov. 13, 2001).

Meanwhile, in a case where a motor vehicle causes serious damage to an engine or a body’s main structural frame, etc. due to an accident, even if the repair of the motor vehicle and completed functional and technical restoration for the external appearance or the smooth operation of the motor vehicle, it is difficult to deem that the motor vehicle completely restored the motor vehicle. The reason is that, depending on the degree of the accident, damaged parts, etc., there is a probability that the corrosion-resistant corrosion is reduced due to the degree of the accident or the generation of noise and vibration, etc. of the vehicle’s strength, or the occurrence rate of the breakdown is high, and there is a possibility that the motor vehicle’s use defect or disability is remaining or locked, such as the degree of the accident, damage, etc.

Therefore, in the event of an accident causing serious damage to the main structural part of a motor vehicle due to the destruction of the main structural part of the motor vehicle, barring any special circumstance, deeming that the repair impossible parts remain even if the repair is technically feasible, barring any special circumstance, should be deemed to constitute ordinary damages. In such a case, whether an accident causing serious damage to the degree of the potential disability, such as the circumstance and degree of the accident, the damaged parts and seriousness, the method of repairing the motor vehicle, the annual formula and mileage of the motor vehicle, the ratio of the repair cost to the value of the motor vehicle at the time of the accident, the degree of repair cost to the value of the motor vehicle at the time of the accident, and whether the motor vehicle performance and condition inspection register of the motor vehicle, etc., shall be determined objectively and reasonably in accordance with the transaction concept and empirical rule, and this shall be asserted and proved by the party asserting that it is a serious damage (see Supreme Court Decision 2016Da24806, May 17, 2017).

2. According to the reasoning of the first instance judgment as cited by the lower court and the records, including the duly admitted evidence, ① the instant damaged vehicle caused the instant accident at the time when one year elapsed since its new registration was made on August 14, 2013. ② The instant accident caused the instant damaged vehicle to the extent that its repair cost would be KRW 18,970,00,00, for the instant damaged vehicle’s replacement with two strings, inter-string safety strings exchange, dump hold hold-load panel exchange, and fuel tank exchange, etc.; ③ the Plaintiff, even after completion of repair, there was a math in front of the right side of the damaged vehicle, and the said damaged part claims that the exchange value was reduced as it falls under the parts on which the vehicle’s performance/ condition inspection record is entered in the vehicle at the time of sale.

3. Examining these facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the lower court should have determined, as alleged by the Plaintiff, whether the damaged vehicle in this case has a functional disorder even after repairing, and whether the damaged parts fall under the major structural frame of the automobile. In addition, the lower court should have determined, objectively and reasonably, whether there exists serious damage to the degree of potential disability due to the instant accident in light of the transactional norms and empirical rules, by comprehensively taking into account the following factors: (a) the background and degree of the instant accident; (b) the damaged parts and degree; (c) the damaged parts and degree of damage; (d) the repair method; (e) the annual formula and mileage of the automobile; and (e) the proportion of the repair cost to the automobile value at the time of the accident.

4. Nevertheless, without sufficiently examining the above circumstances, the lower court rejected the claim for damages due to the reduction of exchange value on the grounds of the possibility of repair. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on a decline in the exchange value of automobiles and the scope of damages, thereby failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The allegation contained in the grounds of appeal on

5. Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, we reverse the judgment of the court below, and remand the case to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim So-young (Presiding Justice)