1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of B rocketing car (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicle”) and the Defendant is the insurer who entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to a numberless vehicle below C (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. On June 15, 2013, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was towed to the Defendant’s vehicle in the Dobong-dong at Yangyang-dong, Yangju-si.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). C.

Plaintiff

The vehicle has suffered damages equivalent to KRW 5,377,650, such as the replacement of the lower part of the vehicle, the right pent, the lower part of the unit, the exchange of bitc floor and the exchange of bitc floor panels, etc.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The accident of this case by the plaintiff asserted that the value of the vehicle of this case falls down, and even if it falls under ordinary damages or damages due to special circumstances, since the perpetrator knew or could have known it, the defendant is obligated to pay the amount equivalent to the exchange value decline and the expenses required for appraisal as compensation for damages.

3. Determination

A. The amount of damages when the goods were damaged due to a tort shall be the cost of repair if it is possible to repair them, and, if it is impossible to repair them, the reduced exchange value shall be the ordinary amount of damages. If part of the goods are not repaired after repair, the reduced exchange value shall also be the normal amount of damages in addition to the cost of repair.

However, there is an empirical rule that, in addition to the repair cost, there is a decrease in a reasonable exchange value whenever it is possible to accept (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 91Da28719, Feb. 11, 1992; 2001Da52889, Nov. 13, 2001).

It can not be said that such damage can normally be predicted.

Supreme Court Decision 81Da8 delivered on June 22, 1982, Supreme Court Decision 90Da9070 delivered on July 23, 1991, etc.