1. The part of the first instance judgment against the Plaintiff corresponding to the amount ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1. In fact, on October 22, 2019, the Defendant’s driver of an insured vehicle had shocked the Plaintiff’s vehicle (hereinafter “instant vehicle”) parked (hereinafter “instant accident”), while driving a residential house near the U.S. C market in Ulsan on October 22, 2019 (hereinafter “instant vehicle”), and the instant vehicle was destroyed.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 3 and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

(a) liability 1) In the event that an article is damaged due to a tort caused by an exchange value decline, the amount of ordinary damages shall be the repair cost if it is possible to repair it, and the exchange value decrease if it is impossible to repair it;

Where part of repair is not possible even after repair remains, the exchange value reduction due to the impossibility of repair in addition to the repair cost shall also constitute ordinary damages.

On the other hand, in the event of an accident causing serious damage to the main structural part of a motor vehicle due to its destruction, etc., even if technically feasible repair is completed, there are parts that cannot be restored to its original state, unless there are special circumstances.

It is consistent with the rule of experience with the loss of automobile price decline caused by such loss constitutes ordinary damages.

Whether such an accident constitutes an accident with serious damage shall be determined objectively and reasonably in accordance with the transaction concept and empirical rule, comprehensively taking into account the following: (a) the background and degree of the accident; (b) the parts of the damage; (c) the repair method; (d) the annual formula and mileage of the motor vehicle; (e) the ratio of the repair cost to the value of the motor vehicle at the time of the accident; and (e) whether the inspection record of the performance status of a used motor vehicle was accepted to the extent that the accident had been recorded as the history of the accident (see Supreme Court Decision 2016Da24806, May 17, 2017).