1. The Defendants jointly share KRW 1,658,33 to the Intervenor succeeding to the Plaintiff, as well as the Plaintiff’s share on January 30, 2015 to March 10, 2017.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. At around 05:20 on January 30, 2015, Defendant B: (a) driven a car in the Songpa-gu Seoul Songpa-gu Seoul Stick-dong (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”); (b) opened the back part of the DbenzE220 car (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) which was signaled at the front section of Defendant B’s vehicle while driving the Defendant vehicle at the Stack-dong (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

(hereinafter “instant accident”). B.

On April 22, 2016, when the lawsuit in this case was pending, the Plaintiff transferred to the Plaintiff succeeding Intervenor the right to claim compensation for damages (e.g., depreciation and temporary closure damage) against the Defendants due to the instant accident regarding the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and granted the Plaintiff succeeding Intervenor the right to notify the assignment of claims.

The Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor applied for intervention in the lawsuit in this case and notified the Defendants of the assignment of the above claim.

C. Defendant Barn Loss Insurance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Bar Association”) is an insurer that entered into an insurance contract that compensates the Defendant’s vehicle for the maximum of KRW 20,00,000 per accident with respect to property compensation.

After the occurrence of the instant accident, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was repaired, and Defendant Bar Association paid KRW 15,850,000 as repair cost.

E. The Plaintiff was unable to use the Plaintiff’s vehicle for 18 days from January 30, 2015 to February 16, 2015, which is the repair period of the Plaintiff’s vehicle. During that period, the Plaintiff leased and used the vehicle for 10 hours a day, and the Defendant’s lot damage insurance paid KRW 570,000 as the rent.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 1-5, 8 (including virtual numbers), Eul 1, 2, 4 and 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. As to the Plaintiff’s assertion of market price decline damages, the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor, while the Plaintiff’s vehicle was unable to restore to its original state prior to the occurrence of the instant accident after repair, or there exists a 3,500,000 won or less in value of exchange. Therefore, the Defendants shall compensate for the damages.