1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of the BNAS car (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicle”), and the Defendant is the mutual aid business entity that entered into a mutual aid agreement with C urban bus (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. On February 13, 2013, at around 20:40, the Plaintiff driven the Plaintiff’s vehicle and stopped from the Mannam-si, Pungnam-si, Pungnam-si to the signal atmosphere, the Plaintiff was deprived of the Defendant’s vehicle.

C. The Plaintiff’s vehicle suffered damages equivalent to KRW 2,045,886, such as the repair cost, such as the subsequent pentar exchange, tamp lock exchange, the subsequent string set of members, and the tamper floor board.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, 2-3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion caused a drop in the value of the plaintiff's vehicle to be exchanged. This falls under ordinary damages, or even if damages were caused by special circumstances, since the perpetrator knew or could have known of such damages, the defendant is obliged to pay the amount equivalent to the difference in exchange value as 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.

(See Supreme Court Decisions 81Da8, Jun. 22, 1982; 90Da9070, Jul. 23, 1991, etc.).