logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.06.16 2015가단5270724
손해배상(기)
Text

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Reasons

1. The gist of the plaintiffs' assertion is the owners of the vehicles indicated in the "victims" column in the separate sheet of the accident list (hereinafter "each damaged vehicle of this case"). Each "sear driver" column in the same table was damaged by a vehicle driven by the perpetrator and caused the vehicle to be repaired by the perpetrator.

However, upon completion of repair, there was a loss that could not be restored to the original state, such as a decline in exchange value, etc., to each of the damaged vehicles of this case. Since the plaintiffs paid appraisal expenses to calculate such decline in value, the defendant, who was the insurer who entered into an insurance contract with each of the damaged vehicles, should pay each of the money stated in the "damage Compensation" column in the attached Form of the accident statement to the plaintiffs.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination as to claims for depreciation damage in a case where an article was damaged due to a tort, if it is possible to repair the article, the cost of repair, if the repair is impossible, the decrease in its exchange value shall be deemed ordinary damages. If the repair is possible, damage caused by the decline in exchange value in addition to the repair cost shall be deemed to constitute special damages. In addition, if the repair is impossible, the reduced exchange value shall be deemed to be the ordinary damages. If a part of the repair is impossible after the repair, the decrease in exchange value shall be deemed to constitute ordinary damages in addition to the repair cost. 2) As to the instant case, the health unit, the plaintiffs are the owners of each damaged vehicle, and the "operator of each damaged vehicle" in the same table is the owner of each damaged vehicle, and the defendant is not in dispute between the parties, or the insurer who entered into a comprehensive insurance contract with the owner of each damaged vehicle, and the fact that each damaged vehicle is the insurer who entered into the comprehensive insurance contract with the owner of the vehicle.

arrow